September 9, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everybody. We are here for our September 9th, 7 o'clock Board of Aldermen meeting. If the city clerk could call the roll. Alderwoman

Buse? Here. Alderwoman Patel? Here. Alderman Gary Feder?

Buse? Here. Alderwoman Patel? Here. Alderman Fader?

Here.

Aldermen Rick Hummell?

Aldermen Hummel?

Here.

Aldeman Yorg?

Here.

Aldewoman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager David Gipson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Aldewoman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager Gibson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Great. This is the time in our meeting where if there's anybody in the agenda or anybody online that has any public requests or petitions that do not have anything to do with anything on the agenda, this would be the time to address us. Great. So the first matter on our agenda is our property tax levies. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor. So each year the city must approve the property tax levies that are then submitted to St. Louis County for billing. Calendar year 2025 is a reassessment year and there were significant changes in the assessed values. The city experienced significant new construction growth, increasing residential assessed values by over $12.3 million and commercial assessed values by over Subject to the maximum voter approved rate of tax levy, the city is allowed to receive additional revenue up to the lower of 5% for the CPI, Consumer Price Index, which was 2.9% for this year. We also received the increase on the value of new construction. Per the fiscal year 2026 proposed budget plan, we are submitting the maximum allowable rates for your review. As a part of the process, we do hold a public hearing. That's what we're doing right now to see public input on the proposed tax rates for the year. In the packet itself, we actually had all of those rates for public inspection. On page five of the packet, I wanted to point out for the Board of Aldermen, one of the things that we talk about every year is the amount of increased revenue we get that's due to the increase in valuation and then the amount that we get that's an increase due to new construction. So our finance director put together this table that I think is really, really helpful on page five that shows in the general fund the increase from added constructions a little over $297,000 this year. the increase as a result of that reassessment is 197,000 and some change. Let's call it $198,000 because we're capped at 2.9% again, which was CPI. So we're gonna have to roll back our tax rates like we do most years. So I mentioned earlier that we had these increased residential values where the valuation went up $12.3 million, but you can see that our collection because of that cap at 2.9%, as a result of that reassessment in the general fund, is only $198,000. So while you would look at that valuation, you would think you're going to get a significant amount of new revenue. And I know taxpayers certainly feel that assessment when it comes with the higher tax bill. Our share of that is actually very small. So I think the table does a really good job of showing what those increases look like. The rates themselves, I'm just going to go over the combined rates. The combined rate for residential is decreasing 0.044, so a little over $0.04. We're going to be at... we are going to be at 60 cents, so it's .607 as of right now for residential, .607. So again, that's a four cent decrease. We're looking at about a 1.3 cents decrease on commercial property, and that total rate will be just over 71 cents. And on personal property, really a minor increase there, It's almost flat, and we're going to be at 89 cents again for personal properties. So again, just under 61 cents for residential with a decrease of over 4 cents. 71 cents on the commercial, and then at 89 cents for personal property. Within the special business district, which is the overlay that we have in the downtown area, those properties do pay an additional property tax every year that goes to fund economic development activities, events, festivals, things to market downtown Clayton. So they have an additional assessment. And for both residential and commercial property, it's about 10 cents on the year. So A slight increase on the residential side and a slight decrease on the commercial side, but both of those are right at 10 cents. So that brings their combined rate on the residential side to 71 cents and on the commercial side to 81 cents. And I'll point out again, and we've talked about this, and I know we talked about it in 2021 when we went out for a property tax increase and it failed at that time. The city's general revenue rate, again, I was giving you combined rates, is down to 45.4 cents in 2025. So we've lost more than half of the amount that was approved by voters in 1995. That was around 90 cents or 95 cents, if I'm not mistaken. So over the last 30 years, we've seen an erosion by more than half on the property tax levies. So That's a result of those ongoing valuations that have increased significantly here in the city over those 30 years. But from a revenue standpoint, because of that Hancock Amendment, because of those caps, we haven't been able to realize all of that growth. So with that, tonight we'll conduct the public hearing, as I said, and then have first reading of the ordinance, and staff recommends that the board does that.

Thank you i'll open the discussion does anybody have any questions or comments from the board or from the audience.

I did appreciate the chart I found it, I found it helpful and always stings to see a jump in assessment and how little that actually means and revenues for the city, but it's very clear and very helpful.

I have a question that just occurred to me. My assumption is that all of our Missouri taxing districts are subject to the Hancock Amendment. Is that true? Like the school district and the county, right? Like everybody else. That's all. Thank you. It

should be. You know, my only comment is not particularly about this particular budget, but that We always should think about ways we can convey to our general population what you just talked about, David, because it seems to me what happens is when we finally go out for a tax increase, then we have this tremendous need to educate our public, most of whom think they send a check to St. Louis County and somehow all of that goes to the city. They don't know what goes to the public. They don't understand the Hancock Amendment. And if there was some way we could just, on a continual basis, just remind people of the limitations on the city because there is this perception as new buildings, new buildings go up, it's always this sense that we have endless cash and people just don't get it. And so I think to wait until four years from now or whenever it is where we look for a property tax increase and then we try to do that in three months If we think about ways, maybe this new Economic Development Committee that we're creating could work on that as well. But just to work with staff to constantly educate our public to the extent we can of the difficulties that we have with local finance. That's my only thought as we look at this budget.

So a couple quick questions. One, David, how does the proposed revenue from these new tax rates compare to what we have budgeted? Well, just a general answer. Are they in alignment? Are they significantly different? I just wonder if we're going to have a revenue difference of something. No significant difference there. Okay. Second question. I'm not sure that I understand this. So when I look on... page eight at the bottom where it's talking about the various proposed tax rates. I noticed that our general obligation debt service doesn't change, but the city police department debt service does change. What's unique about that that causes that to change and not the others? Sorry, I'm pulling this up now. So this is on the bottom of page eight, right?

Where do you, what are you seeing? So

if you look at the, if you're looking at the table, there's a box of numbers, but above the boxes, it says city general revenue, then it's city police debt service and then general obligation debt service. And under general obligation debt service, if you look at They're all exactly the same, and I assume that was tied into a bond issue or something by law that that's what we have to do. But the police building debt service is able to change. What's different about that? I don't understand why that can change. I may have to ask

Karen who's here. There are different categories though, right? It's residential, commercial, and personal. It's not like over time.

The point is correct, but the point is that we are changing our tax rate. We're not changing our tax rate on the debt obligations. Why are we not changing that? But we are changing the debt rate, the debt service for the police building. I just wonder if there's something unique that allows us to do that or if we're not applying it consistently. I just don't know. I'm trying to see if there

is a rate change in the police building.

Well, it says it goes from...

There is. If you look at page six, the general obligation debt service actually is changing. It

says we're getting an extra $46,000 or something.

It's going from .068 to .07. They're

both changing.

But the thing is that it's staying the same for, it always appears to stay the same for residential, commercial, and personal as opposed to the others which seem to vary by category.

The general obligation bonds held at a they held it consistent between all the three categories. And so you can see that going back to 22, where the police building debt service, that levy is different depending on the category. So why the bonds were set up like that?

So really, I guess ultimately what I'm getting at is, are we collecting more revenue for debt service under this or are we collecting the same amount that'll be applied to debt service?

consistent payments year over year on the general obligation.

What I'm wondering is, if it goes up, are we going to collect more principal? If we collect more principal, are we using that to pay the debt back faster? Or no, that's not how it works.

I'm just not following this. It's more interesting. So, I mean, my assumption would be is that the rates are rolling back like everything else with Hancock. What's interesting, though, to me is why do we have – why are the equalization rates applied – residential commercial and personal are assessed at different rates which would explain to me why you have different rates on the police station what's weird to me is i don't know why the geo bond doesn't have different rates since we're assessing um Let us go back and look at it. I couldn't tell you

without looking at the...

It made me a surprise. So just to my question is, are the debt service rates changing in any way? Are we collecting any more or less money as a result of this? If we could just answer that question, please. I think that would be the rollback.

Yeah, with the fluctuation in here, I'm just looking at the budget document itself. That has bounced around year over year on the revenue side. And on the expense side, the money going out, that's changed annually too. So we'll take a look at that. Unless Karen, unless you have an answer. Okay. All right.

We'll get that answer out to

you. Jeff, do you have any other? Yeah,

mine was actually much more minor than that. I found it interesting given that Hancock requires us to roll everything back that we're able to roll up our personal property tax. So I'm assuming that just means that the valuations of our cars and personal property are less than they used to be?

Yes, it would be the valuation citywide.

Not just cars. There must have been some depreciation there. That's all I had. It was just more of an interest question.

Yeah,

I just wanted to second what Gary said that I think it is important to really let our residents know this and better understand it because I know that, you know, reading through this today, it was more news to me on how that all works. And I just think, you know, when people see their property tax and their payments and they don't understand that we're capped and how that all relates. So I think it's important.

Yeah, I mean, I feel like everybody's response to me is like, that's fine that the rate is less for the city, but I'm still paying all this money. Where is it going? And it's, you know, it's just a difficult question to answer for them. Yeah, I agree. Anybody in the public? All right. I will

close the public hearing. Alderwoman Buse. I introduce bill number 7090, approving the property tax levies for tax year 2025 to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City

Attorney?

Bill number 7090, first reading, an ordinance levying and establishing the rate of annual taxes for general municipal purposes, police building debt service, general obligation debt service, and special business district purposes to be collected by the City of Clayton, Missouri for the year 2025.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right, that's our first reading. Now we'll move on to bill number 7091 related to our budget, our city's budget. I'll open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor, this is the public hearing and first reading of the... fiscal year 2026 operating budget and capital improvement budget. So I'm going to go through some slides here today. Back in August, we went through a really comprehensive review of the budget that's available on YouTube. Anybody that wants to go and watch that discussion. We also have the proposed budget posted on the city website for anybody that wants to inspect it page by page. So today what we're gonna go through is just an abbreviated version of the information that was presented back in August to the Board of Aldermen at that work session. And so I always start with the general fund slide that shows the lines here, the revenue trends we're seeing along with expenditures. And I will say that this year, when you just look at a snapshot, you really see an outlier here, and that's due to the tornado that we experienced in May. So there were expenses that were incurred in fiscal year 25 for that, and then significant expenses that we anticipate and fiscal year 26 as we begin the restoration process as a part of our recovery. So you can see that the divergence here where the green line, which is expenditures, really takes off from these blue lines, which represent the revenues that we take in. So this is not the situation that you would see had the tornado not occurred. Had that been the case, you would have seen the slight increase surplus that we're running in fiscal year 25 and a very, very small surplus of around $50,000 that we anticipate for fiscal year 26. But what I really want to highlight here is when you take away the noise, so to speak, with the tornado recovery here, and we do expect to get reimbursement for a I really want to highlight the fact that those lines are getting close to touching again. We've been talking about those lines for years, going back to when we talked about the first property tax increase in 2021. We talked about it again when the decision was made in regards to solid waste billing. And then last year, as we talked about the fire sales tax during fiscal year 25. And we're right back in that spot again where expenditures are just greatly outpacing revenues. So we keep finding ourselves in this situation where expenditures want to overtake revenue. And we're really running out of ways at this point without drastically cutting services on the expenditure side to save money or finding another revenue stream, you know, to prevent this from happening. And unfortunately, on the revenue side, we're about out of options. The only thing that's really left is a property tax increase. So at some point, that's Thankfully, those lines haven't hit quite yet in fiscal year 26. And as I always point out, we are very conservative with our revenue forecast so we want to make sure that we hit those and typically we'll see revenue come in a little bit stronger than what we anticipate and on the expenditure side what you're looking at is as if we spend every penny that we put into the budget and we do realize savings along the way usually that's on the personnel side so if a position is open for an extended period of time we realize savings with that because i'll go over in just a minute uh personnel is the the biggest part of our annual expenditures so when you look at our sources of revenue for fiscal year 26 this makeup looks very similar to what you've seen in past years while we do have the increase with the fire sales tax that's kind of offset by increases in property tax and the pilots that are being paid by centene so in 2025 it's the first year that we're actually going to collect taxes on that property so it really smooths that out where we've been running right around 25 both property and sales tax and you can see that That remains today. 18% at utilities. So that's the utility tax that's paid on the properties here in the city. Electric gas, all those typical things. Licenses, permits and fees at 12%. Parking revenue at 6%. When you see parks and recreation on here, this is the outdoor recreation programming that we have. So soccer, t-ball, adult softball, swim, tennis, those things. Everything but the center of Clayton. That revenue is booked here and that's 3%. Fines are only 2% of our revenue. And then we always have a number of grants that we get throughout the year or payments from other cities for various shared services like IT. They show up here in intergovernmental, which is 6% of our annual revenue. So that's how the revenue breaks down from category to category. Property tax and sales tax are always our leaders in revenue. And again, they tend to hover right around 25% each of our overall revenue. For the expenditure categories, we really break it into three primary buckets here. So first is personnel. So that's all the salaries, benefits, overtime, and then payroll taxes that are associated with that. Contractual services, these are things like utility payments that the city makes, software licensing, dispatching, which is a huge amount every year. For both police and fire, we're in a cooperative with other cities for dispatching. We do outsource lifeguards, so that expense is in here. Mowing, all those types of services, legal, insurance, all of those things can be found under contractual. And then finally, commodities, uniforms, supplies, fuel, salt, and construction materials. And so when you look at fiscal year 26 and how the money is being spent between those expenditure categories, you'll see that personnel and benefits is 65.74% of our overall expenditures, contractual services just under 30%, and then commodities at 3.6%. but again this is really muddied up by the tornado expenses that are factored in here along with the one-time expense to design the shaw park site the former ice rink location within shaw park and so when you look at just revenues versus expenditures and take those one-time expenses out this is what our expenditures really look like on the breakdown and this is the way things have looked for quite some time, which is personnel and benefits at 73%, contractual services at 21%, and then commodities at 4%.

David, question for real quick. From your experience, is that 75-25 or 73-20? Is that pretty standard across It's pretty typical. It sounds like it's pretty standard for us, but that's pretty standard across. Pretty typical.

Typically, if you have fire service, you'll see that up a little bit higher than other cities. So if you look at a municipality without fire services, that personnel numbers may be a little bit lower and contractual gains some ground, but this is pretty standard. And so on the personnel side, we try to staff things as lean as possible here. We run everything lean where we really try to right size our staffing model with the services that we provide here in the city. So we are reclassifying a position within IT. We're going to have a position called the Network Engineer 2, which is kind of a mid-tier position within IT. The idea is to help retain people. So we want to give people some room to move up as they gain certain skills and hopefully keep them here until they're ready to get into a network engineer position, which open up from time to time. But we saw a lot of turnover in IT. And this is one idea that our IT director brought to us as far as retention. I thought it was a really good idea. The other managers agreed because we do split those IT services. So that's something we've added to the budget. We did add two new positions though here in the city. The first is a planning technician within the planning department. And so that's to help support their services within planning. As you know, we have the comprehensive plan implementation going on. And so there's a lot of work being done within the planning department, not just the regular work of permits being issued and plans being reviewed. But on top of that, really high level planning work changes to the zoning ordinance. And we are doing an incredible amount of mapping that we're using for analysis. So that's taking a lot of staff time. And we felt it would be more beneficial to add to our staff rather than go out and seek help from a consulting firm. And that's because of the strength of the personnel that we have within our departments. The folks that we have here know the city very, very well. And they're as skilled as any consultant that you could bring in for these particular services. So we have added a planning technician to this budget. We've also added a municipal service technician to position to parks and rec for maintaining named gardens, high profile sites, and then just general maintenance. So right now we're really struggling to keep up with maintenance within our parks. People have named gardens throughout the city. Some are sponsored. Some people have sponsored those individually. They require a lot of care. It's difficult for us to get to those. And we're getting a lot of complaints just on the general upkeep and the appearance of those. So we do have a lot of demand outside With Parks and Rec, and this is going to help our staff make sure that they're maintaining everything properly. So those are the changes to staffing levels. As far as compensation, there's a step increase for all positions included in the budget with a 2.5% range adjustment for the represented positions. So police and fire both. If you're a union employee within police and fire, the contract specifies a 2.5 percent range adjustment for this year. So that's included in the budget. We have a proposed range adjustment for the non-represented employees that would be effective on April 1st of 2%. But I always stress that the 2% is really a placeholder amount. We'll have that discussion in April and really in February for April 1 implementation. We're going to look at the January 1 budget cities. Most cities are on a calendar year budget. We're going to see what they did with their ranges, and then we'll adjust ours appropriately. But for right now, we have 2% as a placeholder. And then there's a one-time $600 retention incentive for any full-time employee that remains with the city through October 1st of this year. They'll receive the $600 retention incentive. Employees are aware of that. They've been aware of that. So we're in that real period here where people are making that decision to stay. So a really nice incentive, definitely appreciated by our staff. As far as the general fund projections, the general fund balance, I think that the general fund is our savings account or our reserves within our operating budget. With the tornado and one-time expenses, and that's how we're paying this, you can see the anticipated deficit that we're going to have overall in fiscal year 25 of just over $1 million, right about $1.1 million. That's going to bring our fund balance down to 79%. And then in 26, we project it's going to drop down to 60% because of the tornado-related expenses and the Shaw Park design. So 27 isn't on here, but if it were, you would see that number jump back up to the low 70s. And that's because we anticipate that we're going to get the FEMA reimbursement that's going to go insure up that savings account again. And just for the boards, just as review and for the community as well, our target every year is to be at least 50% reserves. So even with the tornado expenses, you can see we're really well positioned financially to weather something like that where we can go through and restore everything, still design Shaw Park and be at 60% even before the FEMA reimbursement. But to give you that snapshot again, as if the tornado hadn't occurred and we weren't designing anything in Shaw Park, 87% is where we would be with our overall fund balance. And in 26, we project it would be at 82%. So there's that dwindling surplus year over year. We anticipate at the end of this year, it's about a $400,000 surplus for 25. That's decreasing down to 54,000. So again, those lines are crossing where expenditures have caught up with revenues. So a really, really slight surplus in 26. And so you can see the decrease in overall fund balance there. We have an equipment replacement fund, and this is our sinking fund that we use to essentially save for capital purchases, mostly vehicles and equipment. So for something to be put in the equipment replacement fund or IRF, as we like to call it, the cost has to be above $20,000 and the life expectancy greater than two years. And so this is going to fluctuate year-to-year based on the equipment that we're actually going to buy. In fiscal year 26, we're buying 18 pieces of equipment. Ten are going to be vehicles, seven software systems, and one's the facility component. But you can see a really big amount there, just about $4.8 million. That's unusually high. The reason is we have two new fire trucks that are due to be received during fiscal year 26. I know they just went up to, we just sent staff up to Wisconsin to work on that build. So they are about to start building our equipment finally soon. which is great. We've been waiting three years now at this point for that to happen. So the lead time on fire trucks is just really getting ridiculous, but those expenditures are going to hit this year. So $4.8 million and we're prepared to make those purchases. You can see in 27 and 28, 1.9 million and 2.3 million respectively. For the capital improvement plan, this was approved by resolution. Earlier this summer, you can see the breakdown for the five-year CIP, as we like to call it, and what the money's really going to. So a lot of money being spent within the next five years on microsurfacing. So this is the treatment that we put down to prolong the life of our streets so we don't have to do full reconstruction. Parks and Recreation is going to be a big chunk of that. The nice thing is, while we're spending a lot of money improving our parks, we are offsetting that with municipal park grants that we get for most of our projects. So there's a revenue component that you don't see here, but it is a large part of our expenditures. And the rest, street lighting, resurfacing alleys. As I like to point out every time, we don't build a lot of new things here. In IBRC IP, this is really us maintaining the things that we have already. And when you look at the projects themselves, the really big one for fiscal year 26, and this is going to kick off very soon here within this calendar year. This is the resurfacing project for the CBD, and this is gonna be the remaining streets downtown. So all of the pavement will be new after this project and all of the crosswalks, the old asphalt stamped crosswalks will be replaced with actual bricks. So $1.2 million roughly in expenditures for that. That's coming up. the Shell Park Tennis Center lighting project, the fire training facility that we're splitting with Richmond Heights, Brentwood and Maplewood. That construction is underway. So the site work is being done on that site. So you can see the city of Clayton's cut there, which is $213,000. So we're excited to get that facility done. Some Oak Knoll lighting upgrades. You can see the rest of this garage repairs at 10 South Brentwood. We do think that number should be good. The first project, which has been level three, we had another conversation about that today. So that one just continues to increase in cost. Subdivision monuments continues to be a work in progress. So a lot of work to be done there. Those are monuments the city took over from private neighborhoods over time. So we maintain those. street lighting replacement we do have a portion in white on forest and then some storm sewer projects throughout the city at 350 000 so the recommended projects for fiscal year 26 a little over $4 million. And then we do have some projects using bond funds. This is some street lighting projects that you'll see here. This is going to close out the 2014 general obligation bonds. Those were issued for street and street lights and alleys and sidewalks. So we're finally going to close that out with $1.5 million in expenditures on that. And then the special obligation bonds that were issued earlier this year, you can see the municipal garage pre-construction and construction costs at a little over $10 million. So a really healthy capital improvement program this year, a lot going on, a lot of really big projects, but it's exciting to finally get the GO bond closed out and get the municipal garage underway. And then finally, under debt service funds, we have a number of these. This actually goes to make the payments on outstanding bonds that the city has. You can see when you see refunding, that means we refinanced it. And if you look at the years on there, you'll know that those are really good interest rate years. So we've realized a lot of savings on those particular payments. But as far as the maturity, and that's what I really want to focus on. the purchase of the police building, and then the center renovation, center upgrades. All that is done in 2032. So those payments are gonna come off the books in about six years. And then we had the general obligation bonds. This was to redo all of our streets. That's in 2034 at maturity. And then 2025 is when we, or 2044 is when we pay off the municipal garage. And those bonds again were issued last year. So you can see the remaining balances here. Overall in debt service, we pay about $2.5 million a year paying off our debt. So that is a snapshot of the budget here. There were some changes made between the budget that was presented at the works session to now, and really that's just dialing in those tornado costs. So again, that number you saw last time was inflated. If you remember, we talked about that. So the costs that we have in the budget now It's $1.5 million for fiscal year 25, about $3.1 million in fiscal year 26 for storm costs. And then we made sure we had the Shaw Park project dialed in, which is $750,000 in fiscal year 26. So I just wanted to be clear that those numbers had changed. But with that, we can answer any questions you have. We do have our director of finance, Karen Dilber here as well. And that's it for the budget.

You can take a breath.

And a drink.

I'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any questions from the board or comments about the budget?

Just a couple of things. We've been through this before. It was helpful to see. I'm looking forward to the FEMA reimbursement coming in as we make these expenditures and how it will level out after that. And can you remind me what percentage in general we expect to recover on what we spend?

So 75% is FEMA's typical reimbursement. The state of Missouri is typically at 10%.

And those are the things that are within the recovery, which is not everything that we're doing to restore. So

that'll be actually, that'll be a reimbursement for debris removal. And then all of the projects with the exception of stump removal for the remaining stumps in the ground, tree pruning and tree replanting, but everything else will be covered. So streetlights, sidewalks, irrigation, all those types of part infrastructure will receive reimbursement for that.

Great. And then the only other thing I'll just comment on is when you're talking about the prior ice rink site and the design as a one-time cost, after we get the design, hopefully we'll be spending some of that revenue to actually do something with the design. So there will be an additional cost in 2027 or whenever that might be. That's

it. Thanks. We don't have anything at this time.

I think it's, you know, we spent a lot of time on the budget previously and I appreciate this summary tonight. I think we're ready to move on it. Thanks.

No questions. I only say is I talked a couple of you about this and I think it's we can talk about it more later, David. I was thinking about whether we wanted to carve out some money in the budget specifically for like downtown parking and downtown parking signage. It's something that came to me the other day. You always hear that. You hear people say, well, I'd go to Clayton, but I can't find parking. We all kind of know there's parking places we're not aware. But as I thought about it, I'm like, I don't know if it needs to be a budget item as much as we just maybe talk about it offline to see if there's a way that you could talk about it. And if somebody want to work in later, we

always do the quarterly amendments as well. Cool.

No comments. The only other I was just going to ask you, you said so. I thought some of the FEMA reimbursement would come earlier in 26. Are we not expecting it to late 26, even into 27? I

think during fiscal year 26, we'll get some of the reimbursement. Okay. Re-removals should be the first thing that we get reimbursement for that's done, that's settled. The rest are going to be the projects, the restoration projects. So whether or not some of that money is front loaded kind of remains to be seen. But FEMA payments have been sluggish lately. So we don't want to bank on anything coming in in 26. But I would anticipate if anything comes in, it's debris removal and probably late in the year.

Okay. Yeah, I was under the impression that I thought it would come a little sooner than that. But yeah.

We're trying to be conservative with it. Right.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, better to be conservative than not. Any questions or comments from the audience or online?

Hello, my name is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Bemiston Avenue. And this is just a comment. So you can't see the slides, like if you're in the audience, like you guys can see the slides. And if you're online, you can see the slides, but yeah. you can't see them if you're sitting in the audience. So it would be nice if we could see the slides. So I- Were they caught up or not legible? No, they were not. It must have been on camera. It was on camera.

Oh, okay. I'll just setting. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't look behind me. Okay.

Sorry. Next time that happens. Usually I'm usually I do it online and I was like, oh, it's, it's better to be online at a meeting and you can like see more stuff. So I would just like to question something that's included in the fiscal 2026 budget in the 2014 general obligation bond construction fund related to the Linden lighting extension. So just a little history on this, it kind of sticks in my craw a little bit. So this was a project that didn't show up on the 2020 proposed budget, but then it showed up on the 2020 approved budget, but unfunded. Okay. So then in 2021, it was a very low priority project. It leapfrogged over a bunch of other projects and hits in the funded category. So this is in 2021, and Mayor, you and I had conversations about

this. This is like extending lighting. Extending lighting

from Linden, from Pershing to Kingsbury. Right. So-

But on like one side of the street, right? Because that's where U City runs

into. Right. So anyways, we talked about this and part of the reason I questioned it is because I walk around, it's my neighborhood and I was like, oh, they need lighting there. And then I was like, why do they need lighting there? There's lighting on the east side of the street. So why are we putting lighting on the west side of the street? So apparently the reason is that the lighting on the east side of the street, which is provided by University City, isn't bright enough. So anyways, it was also, this project was on the 2022 budget. Then it disappears from the 2023 budget and it's also not in the 2024 budget. So I think like this is awesome because it seemed like a lot of money to spend for projects six clayton households um who think the lighting is a little too dim on their street anyways then it surprised it comes back and it's in the 2025 budget um which i missed um and otherwise i would have been up here complaining last year um and it is still in the 2026 budget so with all of the um expenses that are in front of our city um it seems like a lot of money to spend or lighting, the primary beneficiaries would be six Clayton households. That's $10,000 per household. They do have lighting on their street. I think there are probably some either better or more cost-effective ways to solve their, it's the lighting that we have on our street is not bright enough. So I just wanted to bring that up to the council, or I mean, I'm sorry, the board, because it's something that's kind of stuck in my craw and I was like, oh, I thought I dealt with this before and I was really glad it went away. So that is all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. I honestly didn't realize that it had popped back up, so I appreciate that. And hopefully you will call us the city council in a few months. So, but I don't know, David, do you know why that would have, I mean, I know it was an issue many years ago, but we

have, we have Matt on line as well. Matt can probably talk about whether or not we're meeting the standards over there for brightness on that street. And while it might just be in front of those particular houses, whether or not that's a hazard to motorists on the street or it doesn't meet our standard for lighting a street. That's something I would defer to Matt on. It's also a project that, know we talk about this larger street lighting improvement upgrade um you know the system improvements we need to do and so we need to spend those 2014 funds and so we were looking for projects uh within that larger pool of street lighting projects that were priorities that we could you know move up and get that expenditure done that that extra 1.5 million dollars of that last 1.5 million and so um you know that's when this started to come back into the conversation but i can let matt talk about the condition on linden itself

Yeah, the project itself, whenever it was originated, it was based off of the lights on the east side being owned by University City. At the time, they were very dim to non-existent. Perhaps that has changed since the origination of the project. That's something we could check, but they certainly weren't meeting IES standards at that time. And the primary expenses, excuse me, associated with this project was the boring of new line to extend it up the block.

So for the rest of Old Town, Matt, or to what do you mean to bore it? I guess I'm so would that make it better for like further up the street or for other parts of the neighborhood? Or is it just for that particular street?

It's just that for that particular street, we're tying into an existing circuit in Old Town and extending it up Linden to support these lights. And that is a significant cost of it. The lights are a cost, but it's the boring of the lines, which was the most significant. Overall, I think it was around a $70,000 project for that block.

Kathleen, have the lights changed? I know there was concern about the lights working that were on the city side of the street. Has that changed at all in the last few years? Do you know? Okay. I just

haven't. We'll check.

Okay. Thanks, Matt.

Can I ask a follow-up question? I just want to clarify because I know we're talking about, we have a lot of street lighting issues to care for and we've talked about the need to standardize and kind of simplify our street lighting installation and having consistency throughout the city. Will this project, is this project as currently proposed intended to uh take place like after that standard is established it won't be using like all this mismatch old stuff

we're going to standardize everything and so we're actually building out those projects for for fema now um and as a part of that project we're going to establish what the standard street lights are for the city so yeah we're probably looking at a gray and a black pedestrian scale pole and then a gray and black cobra head pole that we're going to use throughout the entire city so we will standardize that and these these three projects that are budgeted this year related to street lights in addition all the tornado replacements those will all be the same light standards

yeah

great um are there any other comments or nobody else is online um any other questions or comments up here I will close the

public hearing. Alderman Buse? I introduce bill number 7091, approving the fiscal year 2026 operating capital improvement budget to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7091, first reading, an ordinance adopting an annual budget for the fiscal year 2026, commencing on October 1, 2025, and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. The next agenda item is our consent agenda. Does anybody have any... Comments or questions related to that? I

just had one little correction on the agenda, or the minutes. And it was just the committee assignments. It just had me as the plan commission rather than Parks and Rec. Good catch. That's

it.

Anybody else? Alderman Buse? I move that we approve the consent agenda. Second. Second. Any discussion?

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Fader?

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell?

Aldermen Hummel?

Aye.

Aldeman Jeffery Yorg? Aye. Aldewoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

Aldeman York? Aye. Aldewoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

All right, I'll move into our city manager report. The first item is related to the Chapter 100 agreement for Centene.

Yes, in 2016 and 2017, the city issued various series of taxable industrial revenue bonds to facilitate partial real and personal property tax abatement for Centene Corporation, Centene Center 1 LLC, and Centene Center 2 LLC. In connection with the issuance of the bonds, the city took title to real property and improvements and personal property, and then leased the project to the company. The company has exercised its option to purchase the project from the city. The proposed ordinance would authorize the city manager and city clerk to execute the requisite documents in connection with the discharge of the bonds and transfer of the project site, the project improvements, and the project equipment to the company. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute certain documents in connection with discharge of the bonds. We do have our bond counsel Mark Grimm here this evening if you have any questions.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any questions or comments? All right.

Alderwoman Muse. I introduce bill number 7092, approving the termination of the Centene Development Chapter 100 agreement to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7092, first reading an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute certain documents in connection with the discharge of the city's taxable industrial revenue bonds that were issued for the benefit of Centene Corporation and related entities.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7092 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

Bill number 7092, approving the termination of the Centene Development Chapter 100 agreements to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Gushen? City Attorney?

Bill number 7092, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute certain documents in connection with the discharge of the city's taxable industrial revenue bonds that were issued for the benefit of Centene Corporation and related entities.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldeman Jeffery Yorg.

Aldeman York.

Aye.

Alderawoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thanks, Mark, for being here.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is related to repealing some parking restrictions on Ellenwood.

Yes, this bill corrects a Scrivener's error in Ordinance 6768, which was adopted August 23rd of 2022. The intent of Ordinance 6778 was to remove a section of Ellenwood Avenue from along the south side of the street adjacent to property owned by Church of St. Michael and St. George from the five-hour parking area. The site will remain in an overnight restricted area matching other blocks in the area. The change was made to accommodate the use of the property for the adjacent property owner. Ordinance 6768 contained errors that failed to achieve its original intent, and the attached ordinance corrects those errors. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance.

Thank you open the discussion does anybody have any questions or comments

are just say I met with the pastor and one of the school board members, and I know we had an email from somebody impacted. And i'm glad to hear that it was actually it sounds like it was really just a mistake on our part that we didn't get it working for them so hopefully they will be able to park. their employees without fines

yeah that's i mean i know that we did that um i know

i was like we did this already yeah like deja vu

i don't i don't know that they've been forcing that particular area here you can

uh they had gotten a handful of tickets

so some of those were further into the neighborhood but i know gary's been talking

with yeah so yuri carter the Back when we made that change originally, or thought we made that change initially, the signs were changed.

Okay.

So the church, and particularly the school, I think is the issue, the teachers, they have been able to park the perimeter. Okay. This is just... Because when this issue came up with the church here recently, June and I started diving into the ordinance. And I thought that our online ordinance company had posted it wrong. It turns out we inadvertently wrote the ordinance wrong back then. So this just corrects it. This doesn't change.

They've been able to

park there today, and they'll be able to park there tomorrow after this is

done. The

issue is that they feel that that's not enough.

Yeah, they just for context what I understood from them and a brick may have gotten from others that he can add to, but they used to lease parking from Wash U at two different parking lots that are no longer available to them. And so that means they don't have enough parking. You know, like when they built the school, they didn't build a parking lot because it was 100 and something years ago. And so anyways, what I talked to them about was meeting with their neighbors. They're a part of that neighborhood. Like they actually are an active part of the neighborhood and contribute to it. to see if they could, you know, come to some agreement. So I'll follow up with them and find out how that's going.

Alderwoman Buse. I introduce bill number 7093, repealing certain parking restrictions on Allenwood Avenue to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City

Attorney?

Bill number 7093. Sorry. First reading, an ordinance repealing Table 3J, Schedule 3, parking restrictions of the Clayton City Code.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All those against? Move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill number 7093 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill number 7093, repealing certain parking restrictions on Ellenwood Avenue to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney?

Bill number 7093, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance repealing Table 3J, Schedule 3, parking restrictions of the Clayton City Code.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldeman Yorg.

Aye.

Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is a new memorandum of understanding with the Clayton Community Foundation. Yes,

the city of Clayton has an agreement with the Clayton community foundation or CCF that went into effect on April 27 2010. and was subsequently amended on July 12th of 2016, March 23rd of 2021, and January 11th of 2023. The attached amendment would remove a provision that requires the city of Clayton to fund 25% of the CCF executive director's annual salary in exchange for work performed for the city. The city will continue to provide funding for operational expenses such as insurance, service fees, utilities, supplies, and licenses. No portion of this contribution would be directly utilized for the solicitation of donations to CCF. The city's contribution would not exceed $27,317 in fiscal year 26, $28,137 in 27, and $28,981 thousand dollars uh let's see in fiscal year 2028 the attached amendment also clarifies that the ccf is responsible for its own accounting and financial reporting staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance

thank you um i'll open the discussion does anybody have any questions or comments from the board

just a question in terms of i'm unclear here so um What, if any, role will Alex have with the city? Or said differently, will there be a different employee that will pursue grants and other types of work going forward?

Yeah, we'll absorb that work within our recreation department. There were a limited number of grants that he had applied for over that span.

So three-year contract, if I look at it right, or three-year agreement. Correct. The only question I had was maybe it happened before me or it happened and I just It was classified something different. But in Section 11, it talks about CCF shall carry out financial commitments, blah, blah, blah. It is the party's intent to mutually agree on a written development plan that will set forth development priorities and fundraising goals to guide the public-private partnership. Have we done that? And I'm not aware of it or we've never actually had that formal discussion. Okay. I don't care whether we have or hadn't. Other than if we haven't, I'd like to be able to have that with CCF board and actually kind of formalize one because it's in the contract, but also just formalize kind of what we're looking for and they are.

Yeah, so the way we've been doing this historically, if you look at the last sentence there, it talks about the governing body shall meet annually or at such times agreed upon from time to time. All we've been doing, and let's discuss priorities and goals, all we've been doing for the past few years is we have an annual meeting where the executive director and then certain board members will come in and talk about their projects and their priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Beyond that, there haven't been any joint meetings in recent years to talk about uh, priorities and certainly nothing put together in writing.

But I would, let me just supplement that by saying that in this particular last couple of years, Gary and I serve not only on the board, but on the executive committee and not that we have the responsibility to do this, but we certainly have access to the information and are aware of what's going on just as a, an additional check and certainly the obligation to bring that information to the.

No, I guess that, that I understand. I guess I just want to make sure that, um, I think last time Alex came in and I'm just, if that's how we want to do it, it's fine. I guess in my perspective, it would be nice to have like us and the actual board of CCF meet together and kind of talk through it all. I mean, again, to put nothing away from what you and Gary bring to say, I just kind of feel like, It would be nice to have the media at least once a year to talk to at least the executive members of the CCF board with us to kind of talk through what their plans are and kind of figure all that out. And not just with the executive director, but.

We've done that in the past and we actually have passed, I thought that we actually passed things like by resolution where we agreed on priorities. Like there's, like I can picture it, usually like projects that they are working on. Do an

annual project. And if there's

an amendment, we would discuss and vote on it.

Yeah, so we do an annual project list and that's at the same meeting when Alex comes in and talks about the board book. we've not had any kind of joint meeting or the way the development plan is laid out within the agreement. We haven't done anything quite to that extent, but we do approve a project list every year.

Yeah. I mean, I feel like, you know, as David mentioned, usually Alex and the president come in, but yeah, there's not in the way that we meet with the school district there, there wasn't a formal meeting with the whole board of CCF and us that that hasn't usually happened. There are usually board members here that come. So yeah. Jeff, are you saying you want more than that or are you just...

Well, I still struggle sometimes with where CCF is going. And I sometimes wonder if it'd be nice to sit down with the actual board of CCF and not just... executive director to kind of get that sense of where they're going moving forward because i to me even having served on it for a little bit i'm still a little fuzzy so when i saw that i was like okay are we doing this or not i'm perfectly comfortable not having a formal voted on plan um i would just be nice to kind of have a sense of where the board members are going and have them talk not just the executive director talk so

okay

that was all

all the women waldman

Mayor, if I could comment on that. I think Jeff's point is a good one to the extent that I still feel when we have annual meetings It is not necessarily always that productive when we sit up here. I realize we're not up, but we're sitting around. Someone here speaks at the podium. The officers sit at these chairs. It's not really conducive to a discussion. It's really a presentation. It's very formalized. We have questions. I do understand Jeff's point that it would be nice to really have to sit around and a table where everybody's sitting, you know, I think it would be more conducive. I do think personally, a lot of us have ties to CCF, either we served on it or we liaison. I mean, I think there's a very clear role for CCF, which actually didn't exist so much until the tornado because I think CCF is going to be a big player In dealing with some of the issues, I think the Shaw Park project lends itself very much to CCF having a role. I think Rick and I, I think if I can speak for Rick, I think there were times in the last year or so where we also wondered, where actually is CCF going? What is it going to work on? What's its... Its mission, but I think those things now are potentially much more clear. And all the more reason we ought to talk to them a lot because I think they're key players in some significant fundraising in the private sector that has to happen. So they have an important role and we ought to figure out a better way, I think, for all of us to communicate with them. Rick and I, I think, enjoy our role, but it's just two of us. And I think some way to give more people on the board a sense of what CCF is doing, I think that would be constructive.

If I can comment, too, I think historically it's worked fairly well. Discussions have been open on what the city priorities are and where CCF can help. This is a new time, though, Gary. I think you're right that with the tornado and the different types of fundraisings and the plans that we may want, I think it will organically be a different relationship and conversation with them. And then whatever this year entails, the next two years or whatever number of years will probably be directly addressed to much bigger projects for the city. But as a structure going forward, the idea of the reporting with whatever board members come and the executive director talking with us has worked well in normal times if there's such a thing.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's usually like an affirmation of, you know, projects that they look at city project. Look, you know, I think they look to us and say, yes, you know, we say, yeah, that sounds great. Yes, we still want to, we still believe that's a priority. So is there, I guess we'll have to work potentially with CCF to find a time for them to come in. Yeah.

So I would just add to what Gary was saying. In the past, perhaps, there may have been very targeted projects, say a sculpture or a response to a donation for a particular section of a park or something like that. But now what's different is that... the restoration of White Elm Boulevard or the park, those involve the city making certain decisions and weighing in on a number of things. And so our role is a bit amorphous or unknown to the CCF members. And so that interaction would give them more information so that they know where things are going. So I think they would benefit and we would benefit from that.

Yeah. And I think the town hall or presentation that we have, once we get the ideas back from Locke Mueller about why down will be, I'm sure something that, you know, they'll CCF will look forward to seeing as well. So. Okay. Great. Anything else?

Alderman Buse. I introduced bill number 7094 amending and restating the memorandum of understanding between the city of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7094, first reading, an ordinance approving an amended and restated memorandum of understanding between the City of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Alderman Buse? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill number 7094 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill number 7094, amending and restating the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any

discussion, Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7094, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving an amended and restated memorandum of understanding between the City of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation.

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Fader?

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Aldermen Jeffery Yorg? Aye. Aldewoman Waldman?

Aldermen York? Aye. Aldewoman Waldman?

Aye.

Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

All right, the last or second last I should say are some Hillcrest vacations for city manager.

Yes, this is a request for the Board of Aldermen to approve. Is this correct, Kevin? A NUNC pro-TUNC revision to the Hillcrest subdivision right-of-way vacation ordinance passed in January 2025. This revision addresses discrepancies between the original ordinance's text and its vacation exhibit. The exhibit attached to the recorded ordinance was accurate. However, a reference to a group of lots in block six was omitted from the ordinance text. This revised ordinance will repeal the section of the ordinance containing the error and adopt a new section with the corrected lot references. If approved, the nunc pro tunc revision for this ordinance means that the city intends to leave the date of the original vacation undisturbed while simultaneously correcting the identified discrepancies between the ordinance and the exhibit. Staff recommends approval of the nunc pro-tunc ordinance revision. This action is essential to rectify errors, ensure accurate property records, and resolve title issues for Hillcrest residents.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments from the board?

Just thanks for fixing this. I know it impacted a couple of residents.

I just wanted to add, I'm certainly in favor of this, and it certainly gave me some nostalgia to go back to nunc pro tunc. I haven't seen that since law school, so it's a nice moment.

That's good. I just was going to share, this is my first engagement with a nunc pro tunic affair, so I'm looking forward to this. Thanks.

I was just going to give David credit for speaking Latin and pulling that out. I

always thought it was nunc. I wasn't sure. That's

why I made sure before I said it over and over

again. I don't even remember it from law school, so I give you credit for speaking. I don't think

anybody who spoke it in the original is here to tell us.

Hopefully we don't make any more errors that require nunc pro tunc.

Okay, given all that, I'll introduce bill number 7095 amending ordinance 6917 nunc pro tunic and affirming the vacation of certain rights-of-way which were previously dedicated to the City of Clayton and are not necessary for right-of-way or used for travel by the public to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion, Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7095, first reading. An ordinance amending Ordinance 6917, Nunc Pro Tunc, and affirming the vacation of certain rights of way which were previously dedicated to the City of Clayton and are not necessary for right-of-way or used for travel by the public.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed?

Alderman Buse? I move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill number 7095 on the day of its introduction.

Seconded.

All those in

favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous

consent. I introduce bill number 7094, amending ordinance 6917 non pro tonque. I got to say it twice. And affirming the vacation of certain rights of way which were previously dedicated to the city of Clayton and are not necessary for right of way or use for travel by the public to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7095, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Ordinance 6917, Nunc Pro Tunc, and affirming the vacation of certain rights of way which were previously dedicated to the city of Clayton and are not necessary for right-of-way or used for travel by the public.

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder? Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell? Aye. Aldman Jeffery Yorg?

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Fader? Aye. Aldeman Hummel? Aye. Aldman York?

Aye.

Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. Last item on our agenda is a CUP extension for Concordia Seminary.

Yes, this is a resolution to consider an extension to a conditional use permit or CUP governing the construction of new residences and parking on the Concordia Seminar campus. The CUP was originally approved by the Board of Aldermen on November 12, 2024. On August 20, 2025, pursuant to provisions in the Code of Ordinances, The City of Clayton received a letter from Concordia Seminary requesting a one-year extension of the CUP approval. The letter states that the project remains the same. Staff are not aware of any change of circumstance in the area which would call into question the continued suitability of the land use or the project as originally approved. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen consider approving the resolution, granting a conditional use permit extension to Concordia Seminar with the stipulations contained in the resolution.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any questions or comments from the board?

Just, uh, I guess on the, the awareness that they are considering single family zoning, um, is there any new information on the other parcel, um, that, uh, they're, uh, in that consideration?

I'm not aware of any update on that particular proposal or idea.

And I noticed that it's just a one-year extension. Am I reading that correctly?

That is correct.

So we have reason to believe they think that they'll start in the next year.

They're nodding yes.

Awesome. Thanks. Oh, thank you for being here.

All right. Alderman Buse. I move to approve an extension to the conditional use permit for Concordia Seminary. Second. Any discussion?

all

those in favor

aye any opposed all right thank you um we have come to the end of our agenda um I believe we will need to go and do an executive session so I think maybe we'll not go around unless anybody has any burning issues they want to report on maybe we can save that for the next meeting um And our city clerk wanted me to remind everybody that the next meeting is not in two weeks. It's in three weeks on September 30th. So you want to double check your calendars. Alderwoman Waldman, if you could read or if you could perhaps make a motion.

I move that the board of aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by section 610.021 one, two, and three revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate, and or personnel negotiation of contract pursuant to section. 610.02112 RSMO and or proprietary information pursuant of section 610.0 2115 and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to section 610. 021 18 and 19 RSMO

I couldn't have said it better myself I second that

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader. Aye. Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldeman Jeffery Yorg.

Aldeman York.

Aye.

Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.