City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. If everyone would 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 Givens. Here. Council Member Arnold.

Here.

Council Member Burkett. Here. Council Member Jack Seddon. Here. Council Member Lavender. Here. Council Member McLean. Here. Council Member Schaefer.

Here.

Thank you. We do not have any presentations tonight, so we're going to move directly into public hearings. We have two public hearings. And so the first public hearing at this time, the request for zoning map amendment from B4 planned commercial district to B2 central business district for the property address at 422 South Clay Avenue. Ms. Graves, you wish to enter any exhibits into the record.

Yes, ma'am, I do. I'd like to enter Exhibit 1, which is an affidavit of publication showing that an ad was placed in the St. Louis Italian on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 2, which is an affidavit of publication showing that an ad was placed in the Webster Kirkwood Times on June 26th. 2026. Exhibit three, which is a list of property owners to whom notice of the public hearing was sent. Exhibit four is a viewer map showing the list of property owners who noticed that the public hearing was sent. Exhibit five is the report of the Planning and Zoning Commission subcommittee needed June 17th, 2026. Exhibit six is the report of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated June 18th, 2026. And exhibit seven is the Kirkwood Code of Ordinance.

Thank you. Mr. Lamb, who will present this issue to city council? Amy Lowry, city planning.

Good evening. On first. Good evening, mayor and council. Jonathan's going to help me advance slides, so it might be a little difficult just because I don't want to have to juggle too many things.

Let me just check. Amy, can everybody hear her? Mm-hmm. Okay, okay. Great, thank you.

So this is a property that's zoned B4, and it is on the block between South Clay, South Kirkwood Road, and then Clinton on the north, and Woodbine on the south. And this whole block was zoned B4, planned commercial, in 1968. Okay. It was before that it was R5 multifamily. And this was a request from Southwestern Bell because they were going to construct a division office on the site. And the office was never built. Southwestern Bell sold the site. Sorry about that. So the office was never built, but at the time that it was rezoned to B4, the development standards were the same as B2, which is our downtown commercial district, and B4 is a planned commercial district. So on this block, development was piecemeal from about 1968 to 1984, and at that point in time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that all parcels that were not being used commercially be rezoned back to residential. That did not happen because the Woodbine Center was proposed shortly thereafter and completed in 1986. So this particular piece of property had a single family home on it that was built in 1948, but it has been used commercially since the 1980s. And there's an aerial view of the property, a little bit closer aerial view. photo of the front of the property. And then here's the survey of the property. So the property is 60 by 270 feet, which is about 16,200 square feet. And the applicant would like to build a small office building on the site. So I just want to give you a little bit difference between B2 and B4. So the Central Business District encourages mixed-use development with commercial services, retail facilities, and residential uses that complement each other and attract customers from outside the district. The B4 district, which is what this property is owned, seeks to encourage more intense commercial uses and multiple uses in one or more buildings on a single lot and provides targeted flexibility at the City Council's discretion to accommodate such uses. We'll go to the next slide. you a little bit difference on the setbacks and the height that is in b2 vision b4 but i just want to draw your attention to the setbacks in b4 are about 40 feet in the front 25 in the side and um the rear would be determined by city council so as we've seen this is a very narrow lot if you tried to put those setbacks on it you wouldn't have much room to build So when we look at rezonings, we do look at our future land use map. This is in the area designated as downtown on the future land use map. And it's supposed to promote a combination of taxed residential and commercial uses that are geared to the pedestrian and support the growth of entertainment lodging. So the development types here, one of them is office, which is what the applicant wants to build on the property. This property was also identified on the downtown master plan as a short to medium-term redevelopment opportunity. So when the P&Z discussed this, they did discuss that the building that the applicant wants to put on the property would be about the same size as the existing building, but the existing building has been vacant for about eight years with no electricity, no heat, ventilation, AC going to it. So it's a Probably not in good shape on the inside, although we did not go in. If the property is rezoned to B2, the proposed site plan and the proposed site plan meets all of the regulations of the zoning code, then the review of the site plan would just be by city staff. The design of the building, however, would need to be looked at by the architecture review board. I just want to say one more thing about the land use in areas where there's multiple zoning districts that could happen, such as in downtown. It's really not arbitrary to have different zoning districts next to each other. And a zoning change to B2, which is a central business district anyway, does not violate that comprehensive plan. And just when we're looking at a zoning map amendment, there are nine criteria that you should be looking at. including number four, which is the uses that would be permitted on the property that were reclassified would be compatible with the uses in the immediate area. And then looking at number eight, which is the proposed amendment is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other properties in the city. I'm available for questions and the applicant is here as well if you would like Any questions at all?

Hey, Roman.

It's Matt Moore with FM Design Builds. I'm the architect representing our client, who's also growing business. So I think Amy did an amazing job summarizing that, but just to say, we've been working closely with them on what you would like to do and kind of turn the V4, not only made the property unusable, but also kind of didn't feel compatible

residential you know half the street residential half office residential so felt like the v2 was more of a keeping with kind of the context of the street anyway we're posing so let's show you your questions too if you guys haven't i have a question for you so you mentioned that the rest of the street has homes that are now used for offices and the the one that you have was an office but it hasn't been used for eight years what do you envision How does your office building fit into that space?

Yeah, so very similar in terms of density. We're finalizing the exterior design still, but height-wise, it's the exact same as the buildings there now. Density-wise, it's almost the same square footage. So it very much fits into that fabric, as opposed to the B4, which really seems like more big buildings. It wouldn't really make sense, even if it did fit on the site.

Would yours look more like a home than it would like a box office?

Yeah, that's exactly what we're going for. I think we might have a little bit of a modern kind of place to it. We're kind of pulling some of the materials from the neighborhood. There's a couple houses with some nice brick. We are looking at maybe doing some accents with that. So definitely making it feel like it's part of that streetscape.

Yes. Two questions.

I have a couple. One for Amy. So since this is just a zoning request, If it meets the terms, it won't come back to us. What are the kinds of things that could be built if that's reasoned?

Well, the kind of things that could be built are the uses. Yes. I mean, most of the B2 uses are repeated in B4. There's some uses that are not in B4, like hotels and catch me on the top guard, I can't think of. But there's Most of the uses that are in B4 are duplicated in B2. There's just a few changes.

And again, what's the importance of changing the zoning?

What's the advantage? The advantage for the applicant is that the B2 setbacks are not as great as the B4 setbacks. So if he kept it as B4, he would have to come to you with a plan for what he wanted and you would have to modify the setbacks to make sure that it meets what he needs. So that's a possibility. That just seems like a more onerous process when B2 is actually more appropriate for this particular property.

Is there a possibility of something coming back with a special use permit in this?

If somebody wanted to do something that had a special use permit attached to it, Most of our special use permits are for more intensive uses like animal hospitals, any kind of motor vehicle use, any kind of, you know, marijuana use, tobacco use. Those are what most of our special uses as a primary use for them.

So this rezoning, and again, not to get into his plans, but whenever they are, you all will probably administratively be able to handle it, and it won't come back to the council. It will not come back to council.

And that includes all of the setbacks, the height, landscaping, parking, stormwater. That would all be done through staff. Okay. And or MSD.

Can I take a quick question? So he would come back to us for the setback?

No, if he, if this is, if the zoning is changed to be able to, if you don't change the zoning, I mean, he could go to the board of adjustment for a variance. It just seems like any, or he could come back to the council for modifications.

If he comes back to us, then we could actually have a site plan. We could have labels to build and it would be, we'd have more to say than it sounds like, which may be good or bad.

that depends on you know what you think a better path is um you know all of the other b2 zone properties in downtown you know people build in in conjunction with the regulations and so i don't see if it comes back to you um you would have a say on the the setbacks um you're still not going to the arb is still going to look at the design of the building um you know, the stormwater and all that's still going to go through the regulations.

That's all. I'm sorry.

No, that's cool.

Amy, so to the north, we would have B4. To the south would also be B4 still, right? And then across the street, we have, I think, R5, right? Yes. So, I mean, to me, B2 makes a lot more sense for that area. That's kind of a transitional street. I'm not sure the commercial really makes all that much sense. What I'm curious, and I think I heard you say, is if the properties to the north of that that are currently B4... our future land uses contemplate them being something other than B4 or B2. We could still have a transition area with small multifamily or something in there on that street.

You could. You could. Or somebody could aggregate the B4s and make a bigger development.

Yeah. All right. To me, B2 makes a lot more sense than B4 on that street. But all that's... And this is...

I will say this is the third... um lot on that side of the street that has come for rezoning just because the zoning is maybe not appropriate any more questions the plot to the south of the property in question

What is it?

That's currently B4, but it's another old house. Yes.

The one to the south and then all the ones to the north are homes that have been converted to commercial use. And I believe they're all active.

Okay. Anyone else? All right. So we will move to public comments on this. Does anyone build out a card with our speaker's proposal?

Mayor and council would have no request for comment.

Right. Anyone else have any further questions or comments? All right. Hearing no further discussion, this public hearing is now closed. The bill will be on the August 6, 2026 agenda for first reading consideration. Now we will move into our second public hearing. This is a request for a zoning code text amendment regarding clarifications and revisions to the zoning code. Ms. Graves, do you wish to enter any exhibits into the record?

Yes, Mayor, I do. Exhibit 1, which is an affidavit of publication showing that an ad was placed in the St. Louis County on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 2, which is an update of a publication showing that an ad was placed in the Webster Kirkwood Times on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 3, which is a report of the Planning and Zoning Commission Subcommittee dated June 17, 2026. Exhibit 4, which is the report of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated June 18, 2026.

Thank you. Mr. Lambeau will present the issue to the city council.

Again, city planner Amy Lauer.

Come on back up, Amy.

All right, so as you may be aware, we did adopt a new zoning and subdivision code in 2021. And as we work with the code, staff makes notes where there may be things that we need to either clarify or correct. And so this is a list of items that we had been keeping that staff fields needs to be did or clarified. So I'm going to start with some easy code corrections. In this case, the code section mentions educational institutions, preschool and K-12, but preschools is not in the list on number one. So we just want to add preschools. So it says preschool. lot size shall be two acres so that was just an oversight that it was not in there the next correction is um we had committed encroachments in residential districts and um part of that was a paved patio and uh that was grouped together with decks and torches which can encroach up to 10 feet into the setback but we have another portion of the code where we allowed a paved patio As long as it doesn't extend more than three feet above grade to be two feet from property lines, so that is just in this table taking it out and giving its own column, so that it's just two feet from. And I don't know if it's helpful to have people ask questions as I go through. Yeah, because I don't, yeah, we go back. There's a lot in here.

There's a lot. And you know what? I think if you hold down just a bit lower, it won't echo me. Anybody have any questions about the preschools or the pay patio?

Okay. Okay. Let's keep rolling. So the next correction is just actually a correction in the actual picture. So the code says that when a house is next to a vacant lot, and I'm gonna backtrack. So for front yard setbacks, if a house, I'm sorry, let me backtrack. For front yard setbacks, if a block is more than 40% developed, Amy Dabbs, Then we have a way of.

Amy Dabbs, We have any of those. Amy Dabbs, Okay i'm sorry.

Amy Dabbs, we have a way of calculating the front guard setback that is through an average and if you're next door to an empty lot, you have to average in both directions, and it says that in the text. but the actual picture does not show that. So we're just trying to update the picture so that it shows that you average in both directions. So that's what this slide is, and then the next slide, and then just change the caption that's under the illustrations to show that you would be adding this and this to get the average. This is what we do in practice, and it is in the text, but it's not in the picture.

Anybody got any questions? How about if we just all jump in? If you do have a question, Amy will just keep rolling. Okay.

Okay. So the next correction is just in, again, in an illustration where we had titled an area to be included in the floor area ratio. And it actually should be just in the floor area computation because floor area ratio is a different defined term in the zoning code. So we didn't want to conflate those. And those are simpler corrections. Now we're gonna get into some more revisions that may be a little bit more complicated. So in the next section, we have in the code for the, to give the ability for the planning and development services director to process minor projects that are special use permit just through building permit review. And we wanted to change it so that minor projects can go through building permit review instead of minor site plan review as well. And the example of this and why we put this in the code in the first place is at one point in time, Manor Grove came to us and said they wanted to put a new pavilion in the interior of their creek. And in order to do that, they actually have a special use permit as a nursing home. So in order to do a project like that, we would have to send them through full site plan review and special use permit review just to put this pavilion in that isn't even visible from the street. So the idea was that the director would have some discretion on some of these smaller projects.

Amy, I have a question about how do you define my hearing loss?

Well, I mean, that's at the director's discretion. So generally, if there's a question, I think that the director is pretty conservative and would put things through. But minor site plans generally are site plans that meet the code entirely and can be looked at by staff and do not have special use permit associated with them. The next code revision was just to make some corrections with regard to playgrounds and play sets. So we had play sets in the code as a use that was permitted with standards and accessory use, sorry, that was permitted to standards in all of the residential districts. But we did not allow that in any of the business districts. That's an oversight that If there is a church or a daycare that's zoned commercially, technically they wouldn't be able to have an accessory playground. So that's the correction on this table is to allow that.

I apologize. I didn't jump in fast enough. The prior one with the director of customer service having the ability to do that, did you guys look to see how many current things might get expedited because you would have that in play?

We did not. I don't think that there would be many because it would have to be something that is very, very minor. And that probably would be a type of accessory structure or a very small addition, but we didn't do any kind of evaluation of that. And so the next slide about playgrounds and play sets, First of all, we were trying to limit a play set that's less than 120 square feet, let people build that without any kind of permit, but we had that as an enclosed play. And sometimes a play structure just may be a platform or just may have a roof and not be enclosed. So we made that change. And then secondly, We allow play sets to follow the rules for other accessory structures like a shed. But on a corner lot, sometimes there's not room for a play set. So we do allow a play set to be in that secondary front yard on a corner lot. And we change that to be a minimum of five feet from the property line because sometimes These smaller corner lots don't even have 10 feet to be able to put in place structure and a lot of times they don't have a backyard so that was the change there, and then the third change. Yes. And number three so um there are occasions where a special use permit or site plan comes to you with a playground and so, in that case, you may be able to dictate. where a playground could go. And so that's the third one. So that if it's not associated with the site plan or a special use permit, that it can be five feet from all property lines. We have a lot of schools and churches, especially in downtown where the play structures or play sets are in the front yard, St. Peter's or Kirkwood United Methodist. And so we just want to make sure that they can continue to do that. But if you do have, um, a site plan that comes through and you don't want them to put it that close to the street, you would have the ability through the site plan process to change where that playground can go.

My question is, one and two are only for play sets. Is that correct? Why is that?

Well, generally a play set is just associated with residential, like single-family residential. So I don't have the definition of a place set up there, but I'll give it to you. It's recreational equipment for children that may include, but is not limited to, swings, slides, monkey bars, and play enclosures. So that is more likely to happen on a residential lot. Whereas a playground, and the definition is up there, I'll just ignore the publicly-owned right now, and I'll explain that. But that one's an outdoor area designed for unorganized recreational play. So playgrounds consist of swings, jungle gyms, seesaws. So it's more of a collection of play sets really. And that would be more in a commercial setting or a daycare setting, school setting. The reason why we crossed out publicly owned is because we used to just define it that way because as a principal use on a lot, you can only have a park or playground if it's publicly owned. So the city owns it or a school owns it. But we do allow parks and playgrounds, or I'm sorry, playgrounds as an accessory used, for instance, on a commercial, on like a daycare or school as an accessory use. So we wanted the definition to be able to work for both places. So that's why we were taking public out of it.

Amy, is there any restriction on, it doesn't look like it.

No, we don't. have a restriction on the height, at least in the commercial setting. Residential setting, generally, accessory structures are limited to 24 feet in height or less than the height of a house. So if you have a one-story house, you may not be able to have an accessory structure that's 24 feet in height. This change is in our parking space and driveways just for single family and two family residences. And basically, it only affects multiple frontage lots. And multiple frontage lot is a lot that has frontage on two non-intersecting streets as distinguished from a corner lot. So this does not apply to a corner lot. It applies to, for instance, a true lot with or a lot that has three front yards. And in that case, we would like to allow parking setback to just be five feet from the property line, as long as it's not in the primary front yard. And this revision is to a table that was very confusing for people. The purpose of the table was to clarify the width of garage doors and how that determines what we consider the size of the garage. So, for instance, if you have garage doors that are less than 14 feet in width, then we would consider that a one-car garage. If you have garage doors that are between 14 and 21, maybe you have an eight-foot wide and you have another eight-foot wide garage door. we would consider because it equals 16, we would consider that a two cart. And all we're doing is flipping the chart just because it seems to make more sense that way than before. This code revision is for swimming pools. So for accessory structures, If they are closer than 10 feet to a house, then we make them meet the setbacks of the house. And this would allow swimming pools to not have to meet the setbacks of the house. Because the reason for them meeting the setbacks of the house is accessory structures add to the bulk in the yard. And so if they're closer to the house than 10 feet, we consider that part of the house's bulk. Whereas a swimming pool, because that's flat, doesn't really add to that bulk. And so it didn't seem that we needed to put those 10 feet from the house and then have them meet the house's setbacks. And also this was a change to, if accessory structure is more than 25 feet in any direction, we also make that have, increase setbacks. And because the swimming pool, again, is flat, we didn't think that it needed to meet those increased setbacks. That's what that is for.

Quick question on that. How close to the property line can a swimming pool be then? Maybe right up to the property line?

No. It would have to be at least five feet from the property line. And if there's easements, they can't go in easements. So right now, yes, swimming pool or any accessory structure has to be at least five feet from the side and rear property line and behind the house that are not allowed in front yards. The next slide is, we as staff have been measuring the setbacks from a swimming pool, starting at the water's edge. just because swimming pool walls may be of varying depth. And so we just wanted to codify that that's where the setback is measured from, from the water's edge in the pool to whatever setback it is. And then the second portion was when I talked about the increased setbacks for accessory structures, it's kind of confusing, but we addressed it in the last slide. So it was addressed, it would be in two places if we left it here. This next one has to do with landscaping for accessory structures. And the first one has to do with mechanical equipment. The way the code reads now is there has to be evergreen shrubs on every side of the mechanical equipment. But we were hearing from Kirkwood Electric that this was very inconvenient for them when they had to open the electrical equipment because the trucks would get in the way and they had requested, could we have ornamental grasses instead? So then if they have to get into the equipment, they could just cut the grasses down and they would grow back. So that's the first change. The second change has to do with trash areas. And right now a trash enclosure has to be landscaped on three sides, but sometimes that results in landscaping that won't grow. So if a trash enclosure is against the back fence of a property, and then we're saying you have to put shrubs behind it, you may have a fence with the trash enclosure, shrubs, and then the property line fence there. So this is just to give us some discretion to say if there's a building or a fence near the trash enclosure, You don't have to put the shrubs on that side. Finally, this is probably one of the more complicated ones. So in the downtown area, we have something called street frontage occupation. And that means the percentage of the building, or I'm sorry, the lot that has to be occupied by a structure. And in downtown, that may be 90% on certain streets or 75% on others. Right now, we do exempt a dry vial to access the property from this occupation, as well as if there's landscaping to having to do with that dry vial, but then the rest of the site has to be occupied by a structure. So the idea is to kind of replicate the main downtown building form with buildings that go from lot line to lot line. But we've run into some issues with that, and that that means the foundation might have to be right on the property. And sometimes that's not possible. We've had a building where at move it because being right on the property line meant that the footings were gonna be on the neighboring property and the neighboring property did not want the footings there. So this change, next page, is just to give an adjustment so that the building could be a maximum of five feet from each property line

And that would not count against the frontage occupation. If anybody has additional questions. If there's anyone who wants to speak on this.

Mayor and council, there are no requests for comment on this here.

Thank you for getting through that with me. If you have any questions or something that's up, please.

in touch with me but um it's just something we try to fix where what we can when we see there to be changes very good thanks thanks so um so this hearing um will is closed and the bill will be on the august 6 2026 agenda for first reading counselor issues Thank you. We will now move to the consent agenda. Sorry, public comments first.

Yes. Public comments limit 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 chief administrative officer or city clerk if action is needed.

Thank you. Mr. Weiler, we've got calls.

Yes, mayor and council, there are several requests for comment this evening. The first is from Linda Ross.

Thank you for hearing me. Good evening. I come today, not just as a colleague, but as someone who has known our mayor for many years as a friend, as a partner in this community, and as someone who has seen firsthand the kind of person she is when no one is watching. Let me begin by saying what many are already thinking. What happened surrounding the departure of two long-time employees was not handled perfectly. Our mayor has acknowledged that. In an effort to show compassion to individuals who had given years of service to leave with dignity, she made a decision that in hindsight could have been communicated better. But I ask you to consider something deeper than a single comment and a single moment. Character is not defined by one decision. Character is defined by patterns, by years of behavior, by how someone treats others, by the integrity that they bring to their role day in and day out. And I can tell you without hesitation, this is a deeply honest person. This is someone who cares deeply, sometimes so deeply that she prioritizes people over process. In this case, that compassion may have led to a misstep But let us be clear, the intent was not deception. The intent was humanity. We all want leaders who are honest, yes, but also leaders who care about people, who understand that behind every title, there is a human being, a family, a legacy of service. This is who she has always been. I have known her long enough to know that when she makes a mistake, she reflects, she learns, and she does better. That is what real leadership looks like, not perfection, but accountability and growth. It is easy in moments like this to reduce someone to a headline or a single decision, but this is not who she is and it is not fair for the years of dedication she has given to this community. We should expect transparency. We should hold our leaders to high standards. And we should also be willing to recognize intent, integrity, and the full measure of a person's character. I stand here today in support of our mayor, not because she is perfect, but because she is principled, because she cares, and because I know, as someone who has walked alongside her for years, that her heart and her leadership remain in the right place. Thank you.

hello i'm mark adams and live in kirkwood first of all i want to thank all the city officials and the council members and the mayor for allowing me to have a moment to speak uh one thing you're going to all agree with they're going to like my comments because they're going to be well under three minutes They're publicly in the paper. It also supports the transparency in which the mayor is operating. The blemishes as well as the accomplishments are in plain view for all to see. She has sought outside professionals. deal with the financial challenges that the city is facing. And, of course, it relied on the savvy recommendations from various forms of city council members, some here and some of that are not. All through it all, when she does make a decision and she has a good plan, the city has adopted a good plan, it will take about five years of our dedicated work. It's a plan that's She's maintained the status of the adult in the room as she brings us forward into a new chapter of Kirkwood success. I've had the privilege of knowing the Gibbons family for 38 years, and I know they're going to continue doing the right decisions, make the right decisions for the city of Kirkwood. Thank you for your time. Linda Fenn.

What's this?

Well, yes, everybody. Yes.

Yes. Mayor and Council, thank you tonight for your service and for listening to me.

Hold the mic up. Oh, yeah.

Well, I'm back there. You found it. take those off my minutes okay all right so mayor and council thank you so much for hearing our comments tonight for your service with the community as most of you know of me my passion is preservation of the natural world that includes rivers and i want to commend you for adopting the new floodway ordinances that were discussed at the june 2nd city council work session I think I've sent most of you photos that I've documented of the Merrimack River flooding along Marshall Road over the past year. You and I cleaned up that river for, what, 20 years? And I am concerned that a number two on our new ordinances, that it says any amount of floodplain storage requires the same amount to be removed. it also requires the floodplain storage to be balanced rather than affecting elevations and it can't potentially decrease heights so i would just like to ask if you could look into what has taken place at the water treatment plant i have historical photos of the river flowing within 10 feet of the building that side is not we all knew the ponds were going to get filled eventually down there but the side has also been elevated And I would like to point out that within two years of the site being not only filled but elevated, you had vast amounts of rain tree park upstream from it wash away, including the pavilion. And most people will tell you that when you narrow the channel, it's going to affect the upstream as much as the downstream. So I hope it was not a self-inflicted wound, and I think it deserves some checking into. OK, next. On your agenda, you have 77 and 78-20. Two, six, those numbers for the public work facility come to almost another half million dollars. I'd like to know, and I think the public has a right to know, whether that half million dollars that you're gonna vote on tonight is included in the 8 million you've already approved or it is an addition. And if it's an addition, I think the public has a right to know and should know how much more is coming. Okay, number three. I'm concerned in sitting at the water committee discussion or water discussion prior to this. I know that the city has removed 1.8 from the capital fund for streets. And I am concerned that we are relying only on the TDD funds for our streets and how this will affect water main replacement. So if the numbers we heard in that meeting did not include returning the maintenance to the streets, Where is that money going to come from? Are you going to take it out of the TV? Can you legally do that? Okay, I'll hurry up. The last thing is there was discussion about letting the water. Okay, so an American, Missouri Americans Waters website, they recommend home testing kids at home depot from $8.72 to $26.99 on Amazon. And maybe that might take care of the 1,100 homes you don't know about.

Thank you, Linda.

Thank you.

Ron Weiss.

My name is Ron Weiss and I'm a resident here in Kirkwood and I wanted to speak to some recent comments that appeared in print. And I've read some comments that are direct, but very measured and not necessarily accusatory. I've also read some comments that appeared as op-eds by what I could best describe as disgruntled residents calling for a changing of the deck chairs. And I would remind everyone here we have a way of doing that and they're called elections. With that said, right now we're in a very, what I would call rather charged environment to say the least. And so I want to bring attention to one more comment that appeared very recently, and I only bring this up as a cautionary tale. I don't want you to assign any sort of a motive to this, but it is a comment that is in reference to the audit that is going to be done for Kirkwood's utility, the electric utility. And the comment is as follows, and I quote, obviously an audit is going to be able to suss out, suss out being a colloquial term, or ferreting out. Let me start again. Quote, obviously an audit is going to be able to suss out if there was any sort of fraud or nefarious activity, end quote. And what I focus on here is the terminology nefarious activity. I urge everyone here to look up the definition of nefarious activity. And so, you know, I did. I used four different references to do so, and all of them find nefarious activity as activity of an individual or individuals with evil intent. So I would really wish to say, can we bring down rhetoric? People reading this article probably just gloss over that, but other individuals might focus on that and conflate that with being a rather lengthy one, with other things that were said in the article. So my plea is to all of our elected officials, as well as those who are hired on, if making comment for public consumption, please, please, choose your words carefully. Think not just once, but maybe twice before saying what you're going to say. Thank you very much. BARB COGERY.

Hi there. I'm a member of the Citizens for Historic Kirkwood, and for over 25 years, my wife and I have lived at 705 North Taylor, which is the Essex mud house in the Taylor Historic District. Our house is one of the landmark houses. It was built in 1862 by William Essex, who was one of our city's founders. I'm very concerned with the pace of teardowns in Kirkwood and the ongoing loss of historic treasures in the city. This includes a recent destruction of 751 North Taylor. This house was well worth saving and could have been easily updated to modern standards. Because buyers know that they cannot be stopped from tearing houses down, it seems that they're buying houses with the intention of tearing them down from the beginning. As a result of our weak historic preservation statute, we are rapidly losing the historic charm of our city. I have reviewed the current historic preservation statute as well as a proposed updated ordinance in 2022 that was apparently never considered by the full city council, much less approved. I've also reviewed ordinances of other areas in St. Louis. Many of them were written on a similar template, which follows the state of Missouri and the federal Department of Interior guidelines. Neither the current nor the 2022 proposed ordinances give the Landmark Commission any power to preserve historic properties. This is not true in most other cities with significant You can see this by comparing driving through one of our historic districts or driving through a place like Webster Park. It seems to many Kirkland residents that the opinions of construction companies outweigh those of actual citizens of Kirkland. One erroneous opinion apparently being propagated by builders is that effective historic preservation ordinances will reduce property values. However, there are numerous studies showing the opposite is true, with homes in historic districts appreciating at significantly higher rates than those outside of the districts. and Kirkland home values is the desirability of living in such a charming historic place. If the very houses that make this city charming and historic are gone, this advantage will be lost. None of us want Kirkland to look like one of the outer ring St. Louis County suburbs. With the negative publicity from the tear down of 751 North Taylor and the state of the city's finances, addressing this issue in a meaningful way could give the city a much needed win and generate a lot of great publicity without significant cost. I urge you to take up this issue as soon as possible and form a joint working committee with the Landmarks Commission to update the ordinance in a way that gives the commission the ability to ensure preservation of historic properties. It seems self-evident that this commission should have this ability. Thank you for your service and thank you for listening. Elizabeth Chaton.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Shands, and I'm here to talk to you on a happy note. I've been before you, what was it, last month, and I told you about the Meechan Park Back to School Rally, which is on, pardon me, I'm going to put this down. Oh, golly. Eight, eight. Okay, August 8th. We feel about 300 backpacks and we've gotten some great supplies and we're all very grateful. Unfortunately, we've only gotten 75 backpacks filled. So we have backpacks, but we don't have supplies. So I am hoping that someone will hear this and we would be glad to come get supplies. You can drop off supplies. I made a short list of what we need right now spiral notebooks, binder, one-inch binders. That's the kind that have the clear plastic on the front. Pencil pouches, sticky notes. Those were the big things that we've run out of. You can drop it off at Grace Church. You can contact me, or you can see me after the meeting, and I can get your name and number. And you all are welcome to come on 8-8, and I will put you to work, so Come on now. That's it.

Can I ask you a question? No. You can go to see her afterwards. Thank you. Okay.

Do you know Oyster? Oyster, sorry.

Mayor, council members, thank you for this opportunity to speak. When I came up here tonight, oh, when I came up here tonight, I only had two comments I was going to make. But now I find I have three comments I want to make. And the first comment is the communication is just too one way. You know, when I came up here and when I hear people give their feedback and talk about things or ask questions, And it's just silent. We don't answer questions here. Well, what do you do with the information? Do you ever go back and talk about it? Do we ever find out if you talk about it? No. And that also leads me to my third comment, which is about lack of communication around the density in Kirkwood. Every week, there's something else in the paper. This property is going to be bought. You know, we're buying properties, but we're never in the original 2032 plan. Or maybe it's 2035. I can't remember. But we just keep buying properties and selling them to developers. I've never heard of any situation where you build and build and build and never ask the citizens for feedback on how are we doing. Is this still what you'd like to have? I mean, when does that come up? When do you guys talk to us about, are you happy with the plan that we've had? Are you happy with all the building that's going on? I mean, that lack of communication is, well, it is severely lacking and it's very, very frustrating. My last comment, and this has to do with the, the recent gentlemen who resigned, you may have already talked about this before, but as far as accountability goes, is there any talk at all about perhaps finding out if they had professional liability insurance or is there any talk at all about maybe taking back the nice packages they got for retirement and considering how much money was lost under their watch You know, I just wonder, you know, I have so many questions and so few answers. And I guess I'd also like to know, how do I get answers here? Thank you.

We are now going to move to the consent agenda. Motion and a second for the consent agenda.

Motion.

Second. Okay. Now we are going to need to move the minutes that we were going to approve to the end of the meeting because it has some. I forgot to finish us. A sentence. Yeah. So we're moving that to the end of the week.

I was going to have to abstain anyway. I was going to abstain on the vote for Diane, but now I have a chance to vote for her.

There you go. So now we have one thing left on the consent agenda. And that is a resolution appointing Diane Orman to the Landmarks Commission for a partial term in June of 20, till June of 2028. May I have a motion? Are there any comments? All in favor of electing Diane to Landmarks Commission, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Okay. Diane, will you come up and introduce yourself, please, and tell us a little bit about yourself. As many of my friends know, I really don't need a microphone. Awesome. I don't think you do. Yeah, I don't, but I'll use it.

My name is Diane Englehart. Dorman. I was born on a dark and stormy night. I was born here in Kirkwood, went to school here in Kirkwood. My family owned Engelhardt Brothers Greenhouses here in Kirkwood for decades. I'm the proud owner of 505 East Argonne, not a landmark home. It's only 76 years old, but it is in the Jefferson area. Argonne Historic District. And I have a particular passion for landmarks and history here in Berkeley. So I am honored that you appointed me and I'll do my best. And I know lots of you. I'm proud of all of you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Now we'll move to new business. Bill 11133.

Bill 11133, re-adopting a procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest and substantial interest for certain officials, as set forth in Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-5, the Kirkwood Code of Ordinance.

Do I have a motion and a second to accept Bill 11133 for first reading approval? Motion.

Second.

Good. This is something that has to be done every two years. Every two years. Thank you. The city does it. We do it every year.

Okay. We do it every year. The Missouri Ethics Commission requires this every two years to be adopted.

Very good. Yes. Does this cover any boards that we might be on, any positions, and we need to disclose that to whom? If I was on a board? Disclose it to... The whole board during the meeting or your chair. Okay. At the time that it becomes pertinent to the issue or prior to that.

Either, but definitely during the meeting to make it public that you would, you know, if there's a conflict, you need to recuse yourself.

And does this include any boards that our spouses may be?

I don't. I don't know. I don't believe so.

You should do the case by case.

Yes.

I don't want to speak like it.

Yeah.

I don't believe.

Just questions I said.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any additional questions? This is a roll call, please. No, this is just first review.

All in favor?

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Thanks. And that will be motion to pass first reading approval. Resolution 69-2026.

Resolution 69-2026 is the resolution accepting the single source quote of USA Softball of St. Louis to provide softball officiating services for parks and recreation department in the amount not to exceed of $31,025 for the initial 12-month term with the option to renew for up to an additional four 12-month terms contingent upon budgetary approval and authorizing and directing the marriage center into a contract.

May I have a motion and a second, please?

Motion.

Second. Are there any questions? Well, I have something to tell Kyle. I mean, I broke this out. 750 games at $31,000 instead of $41 a game. How do you do that? I can get people to do that. That's a pretty good deal. It's less than that. It's good. You charm them?

Is that what you're saying? No, there's a registration fee for all of the softball games per team and per number of games in each league. So one league might be a single game, single night league. Another one might be a double-header league. So there's a registration fee for each of those teams, which is not associated with the cost for registration per team for USA Softball.

Any other questions, Kyle? I have. So this is a one-year contract with the option to renew for four additional years. And this might be a Darren, David, Kyle. So those will not come back to us for contract renewal that will only show back up in the budget. But if we don't, we're really doing this that it's ongoing for five years, correct? Correct. That was this year and lower. Well, four additional. So one year now and four additional. So this will be the only time that we will address the competition list and bring something else in.

And there will be an increase next year already. You already know that. It's going to be between $35 and $37.

So those terms will come back to us?

They will be in the budget. They'll be presented. with that increase in the budget.

But it won't come back to us other than through the budget process. You will negotiate as those prices go up. You will just build that into the automatic renewal.

The amended contract would be back to us. That's the amending. Would that be amending if it goes out?

Yes.

So then now that's what I was saying.

If it goes out, I'll keep it the same thing.

Unless there's a schedule. Is there a schedule?

And there was no schedule increase.

I don't remember seeing this part of yours. Well, I think so.

Well, that's kind of, we have a lot of these automatic renewal contracts. So I know it's on there. At some point we got to understand. What comes back to us when? I agree. Or do they just?

I don't know.

Yeah. Under what terms? And is it, you know, because some do build in an automatic price increase on that initial one. But again, this is just a good example of some clarity. We don't need on this, but we may need on going forward.

Yeah.

I just want to clarify, if I read this correctly, all the revenue from the softball leagues cover this cost?

Yes.

Right?

You make a little... We do. For example, there's multiple things there in that account. You have a list here, softball registration, volleyball registration, indoor basketball, Turkey Day run, fitness classes, senior trips, family programs, holiday programs, beer run, Nerf wars, and on and on and on. They're in that line under programs and supports. And there is a net on that particular section of our budget. Thank you.

Okay, any more questions? Roll call, please. Mayor Gibbons? Yes.

Council Member Arnold? Yes. Council Member Burkett? Yes. Council Member Jack Fettick? Yes. Council Member Lavender? Yes. Council Member McLean?

Yes.

Council Member Schaffer?

Yes.

Resolution has passed. Resolution 70-2026. Resolution 70-2026, the resolution accepting the bid of the life assisting at the rates provided in the rate sheets, a copy of which is attached here too, and incorporated by records herein, in the amount not to exceed $50,000 for fiscal year 2027, Pursue it to buy board purchasing cooperative contract with the purchase of EMS disposable medical supplies on an as needed basis for the fire department and authorizing and directing the director of procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second? Second. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any comments, questions?

Um, I had the opportunity to talk to the chief today. I believe this is a new contract for a new organization and no, he doesn't spend it all at the same time. And it just helps him get supplies in. And obviously we can see from the list the costs they will be.

Can you advance slide, please? Point of order.

Right. All right. Roll call, please.

Mayor Givens? Yes. Council Member Arnold? Yes. Council Member Burkett? Yes. Council Member Jack Sadet? Yes. Council Member Lavender?

Yes.

Council Member McLean?

Yes.

Council Member Schaefer?

Yes.

The resolution has passed. Resolution 70-2026.

Resolution 70-2026, accepting the bid. Oh, wait, sorry. 71. Thank you. My fault.

That was my fault.

Resolution 71-2026, accepting the quote of ImageNet Consulting, LLC, pursuant to Omnia Partners' cooperative contract in the amount of $20,103.68 for renewal of LaserFish software and authorizing directing the Director of Procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second for Resolution 71-2026? Motion. Second. Thank you.

Laurie, is this what your office uses, correct? It's what all city departments use. I mean, my office, way back in the day, was the first one to implement it, and then every department got on board. I would say it's beneficial. What's your name? Yeah, it is.

How does this compare to using CloudOffice? I don't know. Instead of using laser, cost-wise and efficiency-wise, it might be... Kevin, can you answer? What's the question? Right now, we're storing everything on microfiche, I guess.

Laserfiche.

Laserfiche.

Laserfiche. It is stored on our servers. It's all digital. It's all digital.

I don't know what cost. All I'll say is I can say on Laserfish, it's Department of Justice certified. It's the only storage system that currently is. Therefore, any records that go in, municipal governments have it, any records that get stored in it, can then, it's supposed to help you also start getting rid of paper. They can be considered your original once it gets stored in there, because the Department of Justice says, yeah, now that's considered your original, and you can get rid of your paper copy if you want to. So it allows people to start getting rid of paper copies. It's the only one that's Department of Justice certified. So that's why a lot of musical governments, they may have other ways, but it just also could do that. You feel comfortable maybe reducing paper if you save it in there. But I don't know. I don't foster anything.

As far as cloud goes for it, Laserfish does offer a cloud storage service. It's tremendously more expensive. I have a proposal on my desk. We were going to discuss that at budget time because there are a few benefits, but in my opinion, It doesn't outweigh the costs. It's five times more than what we pay now. Anyway.

And Kevin, do we keep a copy off-site? Oh, absolutely. Like this is backed up, so if we lose the server, we don't lose everything?

Yes, we back up. Our entire network is backed up. A minimum of once a day. There are a number of servers that are backed up three times a day. It is backed up on-site and then it is replicated off-site.

Roll call, please. Sorry. Mayor Givens? Yes. Council Member Arnold?

Yes.

Council Member Burkhead? Yes. Council Member Tegcetic? Yes. Council Member Lavender?

Yes.

Council Member McLean? Yes. Council Member Schaefer?

Yes.

Resolution has passed. Resolution 72-2026.

Resolution accepting the single source quota of 126,600 for ArcGIS software licenses and support for the MIS department for a term of three years contingent upon budgetary approval and authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into a contract.

We have a motion. Motion.

Second.

Thank you. Any questions or comments?

I have a question. So this $126,600 is worth three years, correct? Correct. It's not annual. Will that be encumbered, reappropriated, or just put into the budget each year? Will we see that separate, or how will you account for this the next two years?

I would imagine it would be put in each budget each year, and since I haven't gone through a budget process yet, But you haven't seen, is that right?

Yes. So we won't see it as a reappropriation or incumbent. You'll just divide it by three and put it in the budget? Correct. In your line item? Yes. Okay.

And then it will not come back to us until the next two years. Okay. And then I know that this is a software that we use to manage land data information, water infrastructure, electric and streets. and is tied to the ERP system. If I knew what that was, I'd know. It's our computer system. It's Tyler.

Oh, Tyler. You've heard that one. I've heard about Tyler. All right.

Roll call, please. Mayor Gibbons. Yes. Council Member Arnold. Yes. Council Member Burkett.

Yes.

Council Member Jack Satted. Yes. Council Member Lavender.

Yes.

Council Member McLean.

Yes.

Council Member Schaefer.

Yes.

The resolution is passed.

Resolution 73-2026, accepting the bid of Technology Worldwide LLC for the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 governmental licenses for the MIS department in the amount not to exceed 46,000 and cooperating with the Director of Procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 73-2026? Is there a motion?

Second.

Thank you. Do we have any comments, questions?

And I asked Kevin to come and explain this one for us. Would you come tell us what this is?

Sorry.

Would you tell us what this one is, please?

Okay, so do I need this? So this is for PowerPoint, Teams, so on down the line. What we have are three different levels, G1, G3, and G5. G1 is strictly web-based, which is probably a third of our users. G3 is not quite two-thirds. admins, assistants, the power users. What we're doing initially is month-to-month purchases because we're not sure exactly how the licenses are going to work for individuals. So we want to make sure that we don't pay for a whole year and people aren't satisfied. and hopefully have a really, really good idea of the license level for each individual position. Obviously, if you go for a full year and pay up front, there's a substantial decrease in the cost. So that's what we're looking to do for this year right now.

And I thank you for that explanation because it sounds as if in this half a year timeframe, you're going to be able to best assess who needs what license. So it's a long one. It will help us save money in having these six months under your belt to know how to best move forward.

That's the hope, anyway. Thank you.

Mary Givins, Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, the resolution has passed resolution 7420 26.

Resolution 74-2026, a resolution accepting the bid of key equipment and supply company in the amount not to exceed $182,437.64, pursuant to source well cooperative of a path track for the purchase of a 2026 18-yard medium beer loader refuse truck for the sanitation division and authorizing and directing the director of procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second to set resolution 74-2026 as read?

Motion. Second.

Thank you.

Are there any comments? Chris, this is probably you're the best one. So this one and the next one, they were both part of the five-year capital plan. The score I noticed, increased quite a bit from when the budget was. Tell me if that's a normal increase. It looks like it went from 19.84 to now 23.03. A replacement criteria that you all use to...

Yes. Can you hear me? It's not off at all. Okay. There we go. So sanitation vehicles can increase their score by quite a bit. They get a lot of lawyer and chair. It's not unlike that. I didn't see an increase of five points in a year's time.

And then the other question I had is, it looks like this is a little bit over what you all budgeted in the capital, just

I do, to cover that cost, there is a compactor at the recycling center that is not going to be planned to be purchased for the year. And so I'm moving to the new facility. I don't even need it.

So in the compactor was 160,000. So that won't be up. Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

And one of the things that we're going to do when the recycling center moves is there's going to be a glass receptacle there that will accept glass. And it is something that we are looking at possibly going to down the road of not accepting glass in recycling because it is so damaging to our trucks. So we will see how this goes with it at the new facility. And then if we move to that, we might have more of those bins placed around the mountain. Yes, sir.

Hey, there. Here's your question. Have we ever looked into leasing or renting the equipment versus purchasing it outright?

A sanitation truck is very specific.

Yes. Well, I was just reading what's in here, and it looks like the company does lease and rent. So I just wondered whether we looked at renting, leasing versus straight out purchasing and where the advantages might be either way.

I can't really answer that. Maybe a better question for the fleet director. But the city has never leased any cars. I know there's been discussion that there's a minimum amount of cars that makes that economically sensible. And the number of cars that we

I think the lease is usually typically for more moderate or readily used vehicles. And these are not readily used. I mean, I would be surprised if you were to be able to go ahead and lease it. Very specific. Yeah, like this one or the next one. I'm just sweating. It is something, I mean, you never know because sometimes they do come up. So we'll look at it. And we have looked at different lease options more.

But Keys offered, this is about to go a little bit over again. Things may have changed. Got it. But it was a lot of their stuff they would push in the form of lease would be leased and purchased. Oh, sure.

So it's just like three years you're guaranteed by.

Chris, I had asked you earlier today if we could put off, especially the second truck that you have coming here, just as far as capital and expense and cash flow. I thought you gave me a good answer. Would you Do you remember? Do you want me to read it? Actually, I've got it. Hold on. I've got it here. Well, Chris, go ahead, because I think it's a good answer and a good way to decide to go with these purchases.

Yeah, so this is a story. We've taken two years to receive a sanitation truck. Pricing has gone up and will continue to go up. Sooner we get this order in for a new trash truck, secure operations.

Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

Are these ready to go? Do we have to do anything to them when they get them? Are they ready to roll out in service or do you have to add additional things to it? The only thing we put, we put our city logo on.

Roll call, please.

Mayor Givens? Yes. Council Member Arnold? Yes. Council Member Burkett? Yes. Council Member Jack Saddick? Yes. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean?

Yes.

Councilmember Schaefer?

Yes.

Resolution is passed. Resolution 75-2026.

Resolution 75-2026, a resolution accepting the bid of P Equipment and Supply Company in the amount not to exceed $349,347 pursuant to source flow quadrant contract for the purchase of a 2026 22 cubic yard side loader refuse truck for the Sanitation Division authorizing and directing the Director of Procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 75226, is that right? Motion. Second. Any more questions? This is another one of those renewable contracts.

And so, is this one got, there's already- No, you're- Oh, I'm on the- You're right. I'm sorry. That's good. Are you able to trust? I don't think so.

I don't think so. We don't have to trust. Nevermind, I have a question on the next one.

Okay, roll call, please. Mayor Givens? Yes. Councilmember Arnold? Yes. Councilmember Burkett?

Yes.

Councilmember Jackson? Yes. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean?

Yes.

Councilmember Schaffer?

Yes.

The resolution is passed. Resolution 76-2026.

Resolution 76-2026, a resolution accepting bid of Simpson materials at the rates provided in the memo, a copy of which is attached here too, and incorporated by records herein for the purchase of pot mix, asphalt, and concrete for the street division on an as-needed basis for an initial term of 12 months with the option to renew from up to four additional 12-month terms contingent upon budgetary approval and not to exceed budgeted funds in authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into a contract.

Do I have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 76-2026? Motion. Second. Okay. So I know, do you have a question? I think it's about that budget. Yes.

I was just trying to get this meeting moved along, but I will lay down the rules. So this is another... Annual renewal, will this have price increases going forward, or are these going to be the set prices for the five years?

So generally on these five-year contracts, they're allowed a 2% to 3%. We're above and beyond that 2% to 3%. Then we would go out to bid, and then we'd come back to 3%.

So if it's a 2% to 3% increase again, it's just going to be handled by an administrative renewal. And if it's greater than that, then we'll go back out to bid.

Mayor Mrakas, How long ago has Simpson started doing I asked all I thought it was charge, whoever. Mayor Mrakas, Is something new or it's just been going on we've gotten mixed up since then, for.

Mayor Mrakas, Years and years.

Mayor Mrakas, Whatever didn't even bit so. Mayor Mrakas, Okay. Mayor Mrakas, Please mayor gibbons. Mayor Mrakas, Yes, yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

for card access system and video surveillance services for the new public works facility at 545 Leppingwell Avenue, Kirkwood, Missouri, and authorizing and directing the director of procurement for which it should be a purchaser.

Thank you. Do I have a motion and a second for Resolution 77-2026? Motion. Second.

Any comments or discussion? I'd like to have a conversation with Chris, if I may. Sure. Sure. I think you were the first place I stopped to talk about RASIC when I first got it. And we kind of walked through the process that we had bought the building at $12.5 million. We had borrowed $8 million for certificate of participation. I believe the number was we spent about a million in last year's budget for architectural and navigate. And then you had another... million plus in this year's budget of that. You remember that conversation? And we ended up by saying, if we were to walk away from this process at this point in time, we would probably lose easily six to $10 million that we would not be able to recover.

Oh, so just to clarify on those images and navigate, it's a total of a million. Yes. Yes.

Yes. But we had already spent that. And then this year's in your budget, you've got what? One point something million, including these two resolutions for this evening, right?

Yes.

Okay. All right. I just wanted to put that out there. to reiterate why I'm gonna vote yes for this and before I'll keep going. Thank you for that. Certainly some people advocate that we stop this process because we've spent too much money and we now need to stop. My analogy is that I'm stuck in the mud up to about my chin. And if we stop, I don't know what that gets us. We already We've already decided on the plan to consolidate our city employees, public works, water, electric, procurement, dispatch. This decision to proceed opens up current public works. We have a contract, 200 units. Electric moving opens up another property for development near downtown. For the record, I would not have voted to buy the Morasset building at 12.5 million houses. I would not have voted to pass the $8 million COP without a vote of the citizens. We've already spent a million dollars on this building. We've already budgeted another million dollars in this year's budget. I had nothing to do with any of those decisions, but now here we are. For me, stopping puts the long-term goal of consolidation on hold. It doesn't allow us to move forward with our Double Eagle project. So for me, stopping at this point, when we're up to our chin in mud, which could cause us a minimum of $6 to $10 million losses, I don't think we'd ever recoup. Does it make sense to me? And that's why I'm going to continue to vote yes to move forward with the Morasset project, including these two resolutions that you have tonight. Thank you.

Anybody else?

I will talk to this. Again, I've had a pretty consistent no on anything amorasic and development. When I came on into this position two years ago, I did not bring a rubber stamp. And I did, each step of the way, we've had an opportunity to hold this, pull back from moving forward and discuss it. There's never been four that have been agreed. And so I proceeded to move along. We had three of us that advocated those first two years to let's step back and take a look at an overall picture. And we never had the support. I hear you. We are now, we're spending millions. This is now up to a $39 million project. I don't anticipate that any of them that have supported this all along are going to change their mind over a couple years. $100,000. I still, I'm not going to vote yes, because at any point I know if I say yes, and I'll send it to somebody, oh, you support the project. If you change the page color, I will still vote no. So don't change the paint color. Deere did try to kind of give us some information about these two items, which total up to the $496,000 that are in the public works infrastructure capital plan. And granted, we did ask the budget that had been in that, but they still have to come to us for a vote. This is not, we all individually at any point can say, maybe not. Within that line item, and again, it's a little confusing because I think they listed as a 301, which is a capital expenditure account. And it's hard to find in the budget book, but Darren highlighted it for us. And under the new public works building tech equipment and services, we have $609,000 in that line item. These two resolutions add up to $496,779. Darren also sent us some additional things that will come out of this line item. which total another $205,000. So this budgeted 609 line item is facing a $701,000 expenditures against it. Now the professional services, which is at 435,000 back when David sent us some information on this, I think that number was 900 and something thousand. So as was referenced in some minutes from our meeting of 2-12-26, we were told at that time that roughly there'd be $902,500 in the professional services, which ended up to only be $435,000. In the moving expenses at $105,000, Darren's projecting that's going to be $45,000. So we have two other line items with different numbers. But the one that all of this is coming out is looking like we're going to run a little bit tight from the 609 to the 701. So again, the challenges will maintain, be real. Do I anticipate, after we've already agreed to spend $39 million, that somebody's going to pull the project on $100,000? I doubt it. But I do see in our budget, in what we've been told over the last several months, the information continues to be a little squiggly. As I said, I've been a no all along and not a no to the project, but a no to, we need to talk about the bigger picture and I will continue to not vote for these expenditures.

I asked you at one point, you said it was 30 million. Now you're saying 39. Yes. You want me to walk you through that? So who can provide it to me?

And we've talked about it. So David's numbers, I think we're at $22 million. And that did not include the interest that we're paying on the debt, which is another $17 million. So $22 and $17 is our $39 million. And it's a $39 something. And we did get $900,000 for rent minus $50,000 one month. We bought some furniture over there. So do the math in there. We're at about $39 million for this property. It was projected at the time. I know some of those that were on at the time, it was projected it was a less than $20 million investment. We are now almost double what was projected three years ago, two and a half years ago. And we're facing challenges with some of our other departments They're open for discussion at some point, which will be a post-gain review end soon.

Yeah, so I share a lot of the concerns that Council Member Jack said I just talked about. This project has talked a lot in terms of an $8 million project. It's not an $8 million project. Our capital budget this year alone adds $1.14 million that is not included in that 8. Gina's talked about the 250 that we're expecting. And really, this all boils down to the amount of debt that we took on to build out this building in April. it's going to end up adding over $25 million to our debt service at a time when we are strapped financially in a way that the city has not been before. Maybe this project is the best thing for us to do long-term, but that should have been done after a discussion about everything that's going on with our finances, what's going on with our utilities, and where we're going. So the development that is under contract facility. My understanding is we went under contract after we learned about the electric overspending. That would have been a perfect time to say, hey, do we still want to move forward with this at this time? And so I'll continue to also vote no on these because I believe that this was the wrong direction to rush into this at this time for the sake.

So I've spent a lot of time thinking a lot about this for a long time too, and it's been really hard. But as I started thinking about, we get focused on what's the negatives and we forget about the employees in some key areas that are very important to the city. And that's Fleeting Street. And they need better facilities to work. They need to be able to be in better work. And we need to complete that, you know, these departments that we're not getting rid of, there are people that really care about the city. They need a better environment to work in. And I think the, you know, I've heard that locker room and showers were only for water. That's not true. And I think we have to also keep in mind that that space over time, is better than what the use of where we are today. We would still have to put money into the facility today. So it's not a one or nothing. There's a lot of trade-offs we have to make. I'm still supporting this, but I think I want us to remember that there are humans who every day are working in less than perfect conditions. And this gives them hope that they get to work in a better environment, one with better equipment, one where they're all taken. So I tried to put myself in some of those shoes too.

Why are we coming now with these particular resolutions? Is it something that could wait three, four, five months when you have a better handle and you come to us with all of your expenditures so we can look at all at once and say, these are good numbers and these are the final numbers? Right now, We're over just in that one line item by about 140,000. So my concern is where else are we going to be over? And where's that money going to come from? And you come back to us next month and you're going to say, well, I need 20, I need 15,000 for exterior signage instead of 10,000. Well, that's 5,000 more. And I'd like to see something all at once come in front of us and not just piecemeal. I wonder if that's possible to do that.

um currently it's not being monitored and so as soon as i can get this in i can get that fire alarm monitor um it's the one for tech electronics so um and then also it's to to get the work done in a timely manner and so for you so that you're seeing the entire picture. But for these specific ones, these are very important to get going right off the bat from the start of the construction.

Well, along those lines, when they start construction, if we implement these two right now and then we start construction, are there going to be additional costs because they have to move some fire alarm

or key card things because this has all been uh designed with the with the plans um and this was identified from the start to have a different contract from the prime contract so that we had

That makes sense to have it separate. But I don't like just piecemealing these things, especially when all of a sudden we go from 609 to 746. Where's that money going to come from? And other parts of the boat team. And now what's the next surprise? Where I'm getting that number, Chris, is these two numbers, these two resolutions of 496. All right. And then if you take The other six, which is data rate head in, $75,000. What do you expect the bid for that to come back? How quickly can we get all these bids? You're telling me we can't roll everything up quicker. How can this just be one and done? I'm going to be revisiting this. Like right now, I'm revisiting because it's 100,000 plus over.

Yeah, for these specific ones, I could continue seeing those. I don't anticipate spending that, but I would like to have that flexibility and that 10%, and that's where you're seeing that additional. 50,000 is 10%.

So you're still 50,000, 50, still, you're still going over. So, you know, when was the last time you got numbers for data room head-end equipment? You know, some of the other stuff, not so worried about 10,000 for science, or maybe it's 12,000. It's about the penis point. You know, every thousand dollars in this budget is, yeah, some people going into their closets, like not using supplies anymore. So where's this money going to come from, the extra $100,000 plus for these two items?

So it's coming from the budget. And I don't anticipate spending all of it. So it goes back to that it'd be a And it's up to me to manage that so I don't go over the entire budget. And so there's more flexibility that I could have for this specific line item, but it will not exceed the overall budget.

So right now, if I take the two residual pressures plus the six items, we're at 746,000. All right, let's knock off $50,000 per contingency. We're going to put it down there, right? We're still at $100,000, but that still puts us down to $87,000 over budget?

No, because there's also the other line item for moving costs. That's $105,000.

And I took the $45,000 anticipated moving and just left that in the moving. So if you take all of those numbers... I mean, again, we're talking line item. The line item for new building tech equipment and services is 609. It appears that you're going to be at 701 minus that 45 for moving. So 701,000. Again, I think that's 100,000 out of that. Now, obviously, I don't know what the professional services, because that was projected to be 900,000. Professional services.

So $900,000, that's over what was spent last year and now this year. So you're only seeing half of that cost for this year.

So that's the owner's rep and all that other stuff. So that's going to be eaten up. And then you're moving expenses in small appliances. You had it $105,000. Darren threw out a $45,000. So, I mean, who knows what the moving costs are. It could be more than that. So again, it comes down to your tech equipment and services line item that looks like it's going to be 100,000 over budget, given the additional things that Darren has sent to us. And I think that's going to be the challenge is where else you're going to get that money.

That's a concern I have. And to answer the question was posed, how much total is this going to cost us? 8 million, we got that just under 8 million, thanks to the 9.62% contingency. But then you add in these other ones, that's going to be about a million and 50. So it looks like it's going to be 9 million, give or take. That's if I use all of the contingency, yes.

I don't anticipate to use all of the contingency.

We did start down this road in, what, 2023?

Oh, it's been a rabbit hole from day one.

The law was probably new last year about what happened with the electric.

Yeah, my point was the contract at Double Eagle happened after. So just to clarify.

And the taking out of additional COPs and other expenditures when we could have stepped back and at least re-evaluated what direction and what our commitment was going to be and what our needs might be. Again, we've made a lot of votes moving in April of 2020 at the farmer's market.

So it's exciting.