Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cooperative Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CID board reviews cooperative-agreement 'waterfall', easement progress and contract incentive options for Highway 76 project
Summary
The Community Improvement District board reviewed a proposed redistribution ('waterfall') of CID sales-tax revenue, an easement and minor design change to restore an entrance on Highway 76, and draft incentive/disincentive language that would include liquidated-damage provisions. Legal counsel and members urged more review before any final changes are adopted.
The Community Improvement District board met on June 25, 2025, to discuss an updated funding "waterfall" in the 2018 cooperative agreement, progress on easement acquisition for the Highway 76 project and draft contract incentives and liquidated-damage provisions that staff say could speed construction and protect local businesses.
In a brief financial report, Crystal Veriaus, assistant finance director, said the CID’s year-to-date revenue is $2,172,502, with tax collections of $1,980,261 and year-to-date expenses of $165,313. "Year-to-date revenue is $2,172,502 and sales-tax collections are up 2.6% over this time last year," Veriaus said, presenting the board with the operating baseline that underpins the funding discussion.
A consultant presented a conceptual "waterfall" intended to illustrate section 4.3 of the cooperative agreement, explaining how receipts would first cover a 2% administrative fee, then debt-service obligations, and thereafter split into buckets for enforcement, operations and discretionary funds for future segments. "This is a very simple illustration of section 4.3 of the cooperative agreement," the presenter said, urging the board to treat the display as a conceptual outline that will be reflected in later redline edits to the contract.
Board members debated whether moving debt-service higher in the priority list would improve bond ratings while potentially reducing funds available for maintenance and certain operating expenses. Michael (speaker 7) cautioned that shifting priority could affect financing, saying lenders look at how debt is serviced when assessing creditworthiness. He also underscored enforcement of sales-tax collection as a priority to secure funds for debt-service obligations.
Legal constraints were flagged during the discussion. Michael read a statutory provision, reminding the board that the "governing body of the municipality established in the district shall not discriminate in the provisions of publicly funded services between areas included in such district," and warned the board must avoid funding arrangements that would effectively create unequal publicly funded services across the city. Counsel and multiple members said those statutory limits must be considered as the cooperative agreement is revised.
On project specifics, engineers described a minor design revision that reopens a previously removed second entrance to one parcel, restoring northbound and southbound access and removing painted restrictions that had limited turns. Jeremy (speaker 8) said his surveyor is finalizing the easement write-ups and expected to provide documents for execution imminently.
Staff also brought a detailed menu of contract incentives and disincentives, using MoDOT guidance and local project experience as examples. The presenter discussed milestone-based bonuses, schedule acceleration clauses and liquidated-damage calculations tied to road-user costs and contractor administration. As an illustration of one proposal, staff noted a liquidated-damage figure of about $8,400 per day for certain delay scenarios based on estimated road-user and administrative costs.
Several board members said they did not expect to take any final votes at the meeting and preferred waiting for absent legal counsel (Paul) to return and review redlines. The chair reiterated that the discussion was introductory and that staff would produce draft redlines, a detailed project schedule and any missing comparisons to the current waterfall for further review.
Votes at a glance: The board approved the minutes of the May 28 meeting by voice vote (ayes recorded; no roll-call tally in the transcript). A motion to adjourn carried by voice vote later in the meeting.
Next steps: Staff will circulate draft contract redlines that reflect the board’s feedback, provide the previously requested side-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed waterfalls, deliver a draft construction schedule for review, and schedule follow-up after legal counsel returns to advise on statutory constraints and final language.
