City Council - Regular Meeting

I'M SORRY. ARE WE GOOD? OKAY. WE'LL START OVER. WE'RE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS TONIGHT. 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 to the city council to the chief administrative officer or city clerk if action is needed.

Thank you. Okay. Has anyone filled out a file this evening?

Yes, Mayor, there are some requests for comment this evening. The first being Georgia Wooten.

Can you repeat? Your mics are here.

Georgia Wooten. George. George Wooten. I'm sorry, I didn't see that. Come on up. Come on up, Pete.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity. My name is George Wood, and I'm a longtime Kirkwood resident. And I spent 40 years in the water business. I have a sense, frankly, that the one way to solve your problem with water is to sell what you have left and put it under professional management. To that end, I have a question. Does the city have a bona fide offer of purchase from the American Water Company?

As we said, we don't respond from the dice, but we'll be happy to have somebody get back to you. Thank you, George. Thank you.

Victoria Bader. Yes.

My name is Victoria Vader and I live in the house my father built in 1949. I'm a proud 1977 graduate of Kirkwood High School. My daughter just bought the house immediately to the west of me. Be happy about that. I know that we have plenty of other things to talk about in the city. I get it, but You know, it's like asking about if your kids walk the dog when your house is on fire. But I do want to talk about preserving historic homes. We have to talk about this issue. We have to do it now before another historic home is torn down. The historic charm of Kirkwood brings people here to live here, to shop here, to dine here. The historic charm of Kirkwood is its homes. Everyone says they come for the charm. even those people who ripped the house down to build the mansion. Destruction of these historic homes makes Kirkwood just another stainless suburb. No one moves here for the utilities, or the roads, or the budget, which I know you guys work hard on. Speaking of 4th of July, we only have 250 years of history and 173 years in Kirkwood. But that is a relatively short Kirkwood history, and it is disappearing one home at a time. Some people argue against historic house preservation by invoking a personal property rights idea, but our city, state, and national standards already tell us what we can and cannot do on our property. For example, digging, planting, fences, setbacks. You can do anything inside your house, but if you live in a home designated historic by Land Works Commission, its exterior should be preserved or modified according to historic standards so we can preserve them for the next generation. When such houses and their history are gone, they're gone forever. It is entirely true that they don't build them like they used to. Some people argue that historic home preservation decreases property values, but literature suggests otherwise. In Savannah, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Indianapolis, studies have shown that location in a historic landmark district increases homes prices. Famous towns like Charleston, South Carolina, Williamsburg, Virginia, Salem, Massachusetts have very strict codes for preservation and people flock to these towns for their charm, bringing in millions of dollars a year in tourism money. Speaking of tourism money, globally, the British have a schedule system for historical homes in places in Italy like Assisi that was built in 1222. require the same buildings from that era. You can't even drill a hole in the wall to put cable in a CC. Closer to home, I hate to say it, Webster Groves has a robust historic preservation ordinance. Webster evaluates every possible demolition over 50 years old based on its historic marriage and community, and they have the ability to approve or deny

One more second.

Please put this historic home preservation on your agenda. And again, go Tigers. Thank you.

Good evening and happy 4th of July. My name is Lynn Broder. I have lived in Aberdeen Heights for 15 years. After 35 years in Creek Corps, I have come to love Kirkland. I have read and I have become alarmed at the Electric and Water Department news reports, as have many friends, as have many friends. I support and I believe it is imperative that to regain the trust of the public, that the council request Missouri Auditor Scott Fitzgerald to contend a forensic audit of this painful situation. I implore you, we've got to get the trust of the public. Thank you. Thank you, Wendy.

Paul Nesu.

And we buy to advocate in favor of grandfathering in permits to build on structures that currently exist on a footprint that's within new setbacks. And so in our neighborhood, we have a lot of homes where the garage serves both dual purpose. exists within what are now setback regulations requiring it to be back, I think, four feet. Any kind of improvements to that structure that exceed 50% is building a new structure that then has to be within the current setbacks. And so I think that by allowing for some grandfathering of building on the current footprint, which is already within, I would think, the vested property rights of the owner that already exist within allowances of current utilities to conduct their purposes, but also within the neighborhood aesthetic, that it's important to preserve that and not require an undue financial burden building on a different site that is in non-conformity is a whole bunch of waste and building supplies and whatnot. So that's it. I would hope that the council would consider some leniency in the grandfathering within those situations. Thanks so much.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Mayor and council, there are no additional requests or comments this time.

All right. We will move into the consent agenda. May I have a motion, please?

Motion.

Second. Is there any conversation? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Senator Friendly carries. Unfinished business. Bill 1113.

This is Bill 11130, amending Article 3, Offenses Concerning Administration of Justice in Chapter 17, Offenses Miscellaneous of the City of Kirkwood Code and Ordinances to Add a New Section 17-43, Prohibit Interfering with a First Respondent. Are there any comments or questions?

Yes. I do. I feel this violates my First Amendment right. I understand the state has passed it. I have the same concerns with what the state did. And I understand that it will go into effect no matter what, but I will not be surprised.

Yes. I support protecting first responders from genuine physical obstruction and threats. When I cannot, what I can't support is language this broad. The no legitimate purpose standard gives officers too much subjective authority to decide who may remain in a lawful public space. That could affect witnesses, journalists, family members, and community members who are not interfering with anyone's work. The 20 foot parameter also concerns me because it risks criminalizing proximity rather than actual obstruction. Presence near a public incident is not the same thing as interfering with a first responder. I do not believe we should pass a new criminal ordinance unless the language is narrow, clear, legally sound, and fully vetted. If the goal is true obstruction, I would welcome a revised bill focused on physical interference, threats, blocking access for conduct that actually prevents a first responder from doing their job. But this bill does not strike that balance. So I will be letting you know because we have not been able to discuss this and revise.

Thank you.

This is, no, this is three.

Any more comments? Roll call, please. Mayor Givens? Yes. Councilmember Arnold?

Yes.

Councilmember Burkett?

No.

Councilmember Lavender? No. Councilmember McLean? Yes. Councilmember Schaefer? Yes.

The bill passes. Bill 11131.

Bill 11131. Resolution 64-2026. Resolution 64-2026, accepting the proposal of Stonebridge Roofing and Siding for Kirkwood Firehouse No. 2 Roof Replacement. and not to exceed $68,408.20, which includes a 9.97% contingency in the amount of $6,200 and authorizing the director and the mayor enter into a contract. Thank you. May I have a motion to second? Motion.

Second. Thank you. Discussion? Questions?

This might be for you, Chief Administrator. So on the vids, I am stunned that the lowest one is $62,000 and the highest is $172,000. Is it normal to have that wide of a spread on a bid for one of the guesses, the same thing?

Normally not. I would say normally you wouldn't get that kind of spread. I know the last time the city has done a route replacement, Trace might be able to speak to that. Yeah. I mean, that was just a stunning difference.

I agree. It was a surprise. But I have vetted this company. There are 4.8 out of 5 starters.

So we're comfortable. We're absolutely comfortable. It's a good company. Yeah, it's good. And good recommendations. I mean, that's correct.

We were fortunate to get this. Yeah. The next one was $99,000. Yeah. Yeah. So significant savings. Right.

And then I don't know if this is a question for you more than our chief administrator. So we had budgeted $165,000 for this. I believe it's a capital expense. And so what happens to the $100,000 that we're not spending on the roof? Does that stay in capital? It stays in capital. Okay, it doesn't go to cover any hole anywhere else or get shipped around? Unless they come back to you and ask for that money to be spent. Well, I appreciate the...

bidding process and i appreciate your vetting the lowest bid so we know we've still got a good contract thank you thanks guys any other questions roll call please mayor gibbons yes council member arnold yes council member burkhead yes council member lavender yes council member mcclain yes council member shaffer yes very good resolution 65 26. resolution 65

Minister, the purchase of a 500 KV transformer for the St. Louis Community College ball field in the amount of $27,200 and authorizing and directing the Director of Procurement to issue a purchase.

May I have a motion for second, please? So moved. Second. Thank you. Comments or discussion?

Always may.

Okay.

If nobody else does. I know there'd be no way to not do this, but Kirkwood providing electric, we suddenly need to put up a transformer because the college wants to have a blit all through. This wasn't a budgeted amount. I have that these were in capital funds, so maybe that's where 100,000, maybe we'll move 47,000 over to buy this transformer. I just, I understand the need that we need to do that, I think this might point additional concerns for how our electric needs to jump because somebody wants to put in something that requires another generator. So thank you.

So as we're talking about it, Council Member Schaefer gave a passionate talk about all the transformers that we have and that we have too many and they're losing value and what have you we have the electric department come and tell us that what we have are all different kinds we might have seven of this kind of this transformer or uh the transformer itself no i think what what uh

is that typically Kirkwood Electric, they incur the cost of providing power to serve a new customer. And what they typically do is go ahead and put in the transformer and provide the primary cable, but the developer then picks that up from that point to go ahead and cover the cost of the secondary distribution.

And do you know, is that traditionally how it typically is when dealing with controls?

If you find that consistent with Cameron, if they were providing same things.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Resolution 662026.

Resolution 662026, authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into a site agreement with Strategic Materials Inc. for the placement of a Ripple Glass collection bin at the Francis Shatner Recycling Depository.

May I have a motion and a second, please? Motion. Second. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. And I guess that would be to Chris. We have This is a kind of an initial try at collecting glass separately. Would you say that every devil checklist St. Louis County.

Yes, this is our first time collecting glass in a single straight manner. And so we've services. We would have this down at the Regional Recycling Center, Taylor. And so we would see how this works with a group of glass and potentially widespread taking glass out of curbside recycling.

And the reason that we are considering trying to take glass out of curbside recycling is because of the damage that it does to our trucks, which costs, what, $230,000, $40,000.

So not only does it do games for our trucks, so it also, there's the glass that breaks doesn't get recycled at the recycling center. And so, so this, everything that gets put inside this bin gets recycled, broken, hand unbroken glass. And so it's a straight way to recycle glass. There is a representative from purple glass here tonight. Thank you. Yeah. All in favor. All in favor. Okay, great. Thank you.

We'd like to learn more about it. And I understand that there's a possibility that

Through St. Louis County, if we were to suspend picking up glass, we might have to have ripple crates, what are they called? Beds. Beds, in more locations, is that correct or do we know?

uh sure so um right now st louis county uh has an ordinance that if you provide single stream recycling to your residence class has to be included in that there are variances available they're based off um basically making a drop-off location available and that it's all dependent on issues that we've seen um and yeah that that would be how we would maybe step to approach that but we need to find out from the county what those requirements would be when we're together from there to find locations.

And you all take care of everything. You place the bin, pick up the bin, and this is at no charge to Kirkwood.

Correct. We just need a spot for it, and we take it from there. So we actually have cameras installed in the bin as well. So myself and my team can monitor in real time. You don't even need to tell us when it's full. We pay for the hauling to our facility in downtown, and then we take care of all this stuff. No cost to the city ever.

Anyone else have some questions?

Keith? So what do you do with the glass that you're recycling? Because I suspect there must be something fun that you're doing.

It's a great question. So essentially, we process it at our facility downtown. We crush it up. We size it. We sort it by color. And then almost all of our glass goes to Peabody, Missouri, where it's made into new glass bottles for predominantly anizer bush. So it's a cool little process. There are some rejects that come out of the pile color-wise or pipe-wise. And we send that to Kansas City, and it's made into fiberglass.

Just to clarify, we will need a variance for this one, Ben, or we will not?

No, no, you would not need it for one. That's because you wanted to take glass out of your circle stream offering.

So right now we're going to offer both? Yeah. And then logistically, do we know where it's going at the current recycling?

Yeah, so if you look at the site and pull that just to the north of that over at the structure to the left of that.

I notice there's no term, but it does have the Sal Taylor address, so we'll have to have a new contract for the new.

Yeah, so when we move over to the new, so we have 545 up and go over there. So we have to do a man. Thanks.

And just to mention that these contracts are canceled. Well, yeah, that's great. Okay.

That's my one. Thank you. So, you know, we don't charge you rent and you don't charge us for bringing and chasing it away. So even on that, you don't pay us for the glass that you get. And does the glass need to be separated?

No, completely colored, combing old colors and types.

Right. And then Chris, what I heard from you, this can say glass and not being in our recyclables. trucks can save wear and tear. It also, if we get to the point, Mayor, I believe this is correct, that we do ask for glass to be removed from our single stream. It will save us tonnage fees when we take our trucks to the landfills. We're charged per pound. And if we pull glass out of that, then our loads are lighter and then eventually we won't pay as much for landfills.

yeah so yeah we take our recycling to the second processing Center was just a republic. And that's why they're recycling this process and then the goal is to reduce tonnage so eventually we pay less in touch right well, so in the long run, when when did we get to win win right now, but in the long run, if I even see this the money yeah we choose to go that path Thank you it'll take a lot of education.

Okay, any more questions? Thank you very much. Thank you.

Roll call, please. Mayor Gibbons? Yes. Councilmember Arnold? Yes. Councilmember Burkhead? Yes. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean? Yes. Councilmember Schaefer?

Yes. The resolution passes. Resolution 67-2026.

Resolution 67-2026, accepting the single source quote of Rob Ware for Recollect Software for the Sanitation Division pursuant to HGAC Cooperative Contract FL 10-24A in the amount of $27,220.44. For the initial term of 12 months with the option to renew for up to four additional 12 months terms contingent upon budgetary approval and not to exceed budgeted funds and authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into a packet.

Do you have a motion and a second, please?

Motion.

Second. Thank you. Any comments or questions? Roll call, please.

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

Yes.

Councilmember Schaefer.

Yes. Thank you. Now we'll move into City Council reports. Do you have something to report?

I'd like to just ask that my comments made on Bill 11130 be entered into the minutes.

Will you provide those to the court? Certainly did. I certainly did. Okay. I have something that I wanted to talk about. Oh, you have something?

I just have a procedural question for Jackie. So we just voted on 64-2026. It was here. I had noted and I missed that when we were going through it. So that's my fault. So how would I be able to bring that back up? Do we have to?

You would need a motion to bring it back up.

Okay. I'm making a motion to bring it back up to the floor for discussion. Second. Which one is this one? I'm sorry. 64-2026. It's the one on the roofing. So I just have a question, probably very simple. No, not yet.

Hold on one second. Schaefer and McLean, you seconded?

Oh, sorry.

This is inevitable. Resolution 64.

Yes.

So we'll need to vote on that motion to bring it back to the floor.

Or you can open for discussion first on a motion. Discussion on a motion to open this back up. No discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right.

So here's my question, and I'm sure it's a simple one, and I apologize that I didn't ask it. So again, I read the resolution. It was about roofing, but the further depth I went into it, I had notes. The resolution also includes not just the firehouse roofing device.

I'm not sure, but.

We will need a motion and motion in a second to accept the resolution as read as if we were basically redoing it, the vote. So we had the motion in a second and a vote to bring it back to four. Now we need the motion in a second to approve the resolution as read. Then we'll open up for discussion and re-vote on it. Does that make sense?

No.

No?

That's okay. So I got a second. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

We're a good deal. So now we're discussing. Okay. Okay.

So again, the resolution talked strictly about the roofing at the why i was asking so i understand about the root no problem and i see the city hall ceiling makes perfect sense to me my question is where the k-pack generator is installed i know that we've purchased it i know it's been sitting in storage for two years i know that it needs to be installed but my question is do we need to install that for a non-essential building I understand that fire needs it, police needs it, so forth like that, city hall. But this isn't designated a storm shelter or any reason for that. And so I understand it's $58,000, not the end of the world on a $125 million budget. But I'm just questioning not just the installation, but then we have annual maintenance that we have to do, a monthly maintenance.

You will that will have to go into this generator forever when it's over there and what it so okay so so that was that is not part of that memo this doesn't retain apply to the bill, the bill is about the roof. Right at stonebridge correct what we voted on was the roof period okay so yeah.

Yes, sure yeah I think. When Trace provided us with the memo for this, I think what he was trying to do is show you what was all in those line items for those capital projects. And so this was with the roof replacement, obviously, and we talked about this earlier, that they had budgeted $165,000, but the bid came in at $62,000. But I think what he's trying to show you are the other two projects that they had budgeted under that same line item. So they're not proposing to go ahead and do any of those projects. Those other two projects would have to come back to you or vote to go ahead and be considered. I think he's just showing you for budgetary reasons. That's why that was in that line.

Yes. Okay. Yes, that is correct. Okay.

So don't Yeah, it's back on for something. So there's this bill is we're starting my conversation discussion is clarification.

Yes. So when they do request this new generator to be installed, 15,000, that will come back in front of us. That's correct. Absolutely. And so you would have to, I mean, like I said, they'll have to bring a proposal back to you to who's going to go ahead and do it. I think the purpose of this was to try to go ahead and make sure, because based on other comments from others, I don't have multiple items online. You guys asked what else is in it. Right. So this was, this was a way to go ahead and try to identify that. I like it. Yeah. Yeah. So that's 250,000 total on that line item. Those are the three projects that they wanted.

Yeah. So I just wanted an explanation. There you go.

Okay. Please. Yes. Council member Arnold. Yes. Yes.

Council Member Lavender? Yes. Council Member McLean? Yes. Council Member Schaffer? Yes.

Okay, for the second time, Resolution 64 and 26 of Passive. Okay, I would like to give a little bit of a timeline. And this all pertains to electric. On June 8th, thank you very much. Darren Lamb joined us. Appreciate that. And for a long time, we had been pushing for more information about what happened with electric. So on June 11, we got a report that identified by staff what happened and what corrections had been taken. At that same meeting, Consul directed the staff to do an RFP for a forensic audit. Because not only did we need to know what happened, and what correction, but we wanted to know if there was any fraud. So June 12th, I placed a phone call to the state auditor. So that has been, there have been conversations. And so, you know, the post reporting on the 28th that we should call, we already had. And from there, our CAO has more information for us.

Well, sure. So, as the mayor said, we have started the draft of a request for proposals to be sent out to audit firms that have expertise in forensic audits. This could be sent in the very near future, as early as next week, once I receive all the comments. As the mayor said, in addition, we have had contact with the state auditor's office. On Monday, June 29th, earlier this week, we had a phone conference with Brandon Alexander Chief of Staff and Mary Johnson, who is in their investigations with the State Authorities Office. After a verbal summary that we gave them of the after action report that was presented to you, as the Mayor said, back on June 11, the suggestion was made by Brandon and Mary that the city, if they could do a couple of things. We could move forward if we wanted to with an RFP forensic audit. They even suggested that it would probably get maybe answers back to you in a more timely fashion than what their office could do, because their office has got a backlog of stuff that they're working on. My understanding, too, that what they would do is they would start with an investigation, look at whether or not it would warrant an audit And then one of the other things, well, a couple of things that they brought up. If you do decide, you know, if you do go through that, the audit is subject to, you know, to be paid for by the city of Kirkland. They don't provide that service for free. The investigation may be part of free, and I think we've even had one in the past, and other cities have done that, but if they don't warrant one, You know, that's where it ends, supposedly. So, and I did get, they promised to follow up with a ballpark. Again, I don't think they want to be held, but they just give you a range as to what that audit could be. They suggested through that email that it would be $250,000 to $300,000. But they also gave us some information that there's other ways that that could be brought to their attention and be put in I don't know. The only thing I don't have for you, I don't, didn't ask them that day or the mayor didn't ask him, was, you know, if we move forward with an RFP and we've already, how much they may rely upon that other firm to go ahead and, you know, if you want some statement from them, how that would work. I don't know how that would interact or I don't know if, you know, but the benefit that they said that would be is if you decided to go ahead, go out for RFP, select a firm, neighborhood. So food for thought. We can go ahead and continue to go down the path and putting out the RFP. There's no really cost involved with doing that other than staff's time and putting the RFP together, which we've already done. So we can go ahead and do that and then bring that back to the council. I suggested to the mayor that we would have a couple of new council members to once we get those proposals in and myself and the other two go ahead and review those proposals and and if you choose to want to go ahead and negotiate a contract with them that would be the next step so i just wanted to bring that to your attention to let you know what's being done since uh since that was reported as the mayor said on june 11. thank you that's great information

Any other reports?

I would like to encourage July 13th, the Parks Department will be at Nature Park from 6 to 7, collecting feedback about the potential upgrades at the park. So I would encourage citizens to participate. I would love to hear your ideas. Great, thank you.

I want to encourage everyone to come to Kirkwood Park on the 4th. It's going to be the biggest show that we've ever had. So it starts at around 915, and there is a band beforehand, a band that a lot of people really enjoy, young people, raised on radios in the band. City Attorney. I have nothing to report. City Clerk report.

Yes, Your Honor. I will report on the scheduled upcoming dollar hearings. We have two scheduled for July 16, 2026. One, a request for a zoning map amendment from B4, Planned Commercial District, to B2, Central Business District, for the property addressed at 422 South Lake Avenue. The other one is for a request for a zoning code text amendment regarding clarifications and revisions to the zoning code. Thank you.

The next regular meeting of the Portland City Council will take place at 7 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2026. This meeting is adjourned.