[0:40] Everyone, we're going to get started. So, just please take a seat.

[0:48] » Good evening everyone and welcome to the work session of the city council for

[0:52] Monday, August 10th. It is now 5:31 and we will start our meeting. Can we get a

[0:58] roll call? Mayor Geritano

[1:01] » here. >> Council member Roblooski

[1:03] » here. >> Council member Tradier

[1:06] » here. >> Council member Utenberg

[1:07] » here. >> Council member Farmer.

[1:10] Council member Means >> here.

[1:12] » Council member Bockart. Council member Crayons

[1:15] » here. >> Council member O Alers

[1:17] » here. >> Council member Owen

[1:19] » here. >> Council member Mabberry

[1:21] » here. >> Council member Nyan

[1:23] » here. Council member Dodwell >> here.

[1:25] » Council member Marshall >> present. Council member Rambo

[1:28] » here. >> Council member Vanic

[1:30] » here. >> Council member CR

[1:32] » here. >> Thank you. So, we're going to move on to

[1:36] Mayor's comments and announcements. And uh we're going to have uh Captain

[1:42] Mandelle and the incoming commander of the Wildwood precinct, Captain Shana

[1:46] Austin Dorf, join us here. Um, as you uh may be aware, um, we've learned that

[1:52] Captain Jim Mandelle, who has served our city for the last eight years and, um,

[1:58] has done a great job working with our city here to serve the citizens, has

[2:04] been uh, reassigned to a different position with the St. Louis County

[2:08] Police and we have Captain Shannon Austinorf who will be coming in as the

[2:13] new commander. So, I'm going to hand it over to Captain Mandelle so he can share

[2:17] more about this update. >> Sure. Thank you, Mayor,

[2:31] one of the longer uh standing captains in a position uh at almost eight years.

[2:35] Usually at about five years, uh the chief likes to move uh move folks around

[2:40] for different experiences and different opportunities. So, uh, we obviously had

[2:44] a change of chiefs, uh, back in June. So, he's, uh, realigning his, uh,

[2:49] command staff, and I am fortunate enough to, uh, have been chosen to, to move on

[2:54] to a different assignment. Uh, Captain Oendorf and I have known each other for

[2:57] quite some time. Uh, when I was a supervisor of our highway safety unit,

[3:02] uh, Shana worked for me as one of my, uh, traffic officers. So, uh, we have a

[3:06] great rapport. Uh, a, uh, a long, uh, history of knowing each other and

[3:11] working together. Um, I feel very comfortable, uh, turning over the reigns

[3:15] to, uh, to Captain Oendorf. So, I will let her, uh, take it from here, but good

[3:23] evening. Thank you for having me. Thank you for this opportunity, uh, to come

[3:25] speak with you tonight. I'll keep it short. I know you guys have a long

[3:28] agenda ahead of you this evening. Um, so I am I have 27 years on with the county

[3:33] police department, all with St. county. Um, obviously I started out in patrol. I

[3:37] spent time in our highway safety unit. Um, I've spent 5 years in the city of

[3:41] Fenton as an officer. Um, I spent 10 months in the city of Valley Park as the

[3:46] commander, as a lieutenant. So, I'm familiar with budgets, um, the city, uh,

[3:50] what the city wants, what the city needs. Um, answering phone calls all

[3:54] time day and night from mayor, council me council members, etc. Um, and then

[3:59] for the last 15 months I've spent um uh in our intelligence operations bureau.

[4:04] So all the secretive stuff and all the the behind the scenes type things. Um

[4:08] I'm really looking forward to this opportunity um getting to know everyone

[4:12] and uh working with everyone to make Wildwood the safest place in St. Louis

[4:17] County. Thank you. Any questions? >> Yeah. Well, thank you, Captain Austin

[4:21] Dorf, and uh welcome to Wildwood. Uh we're excited to introduce you to our

[4:26] city and uh we look forward for you to bring your years of experience here. So

[4:32] again, want to extend a warm welcome. I'll check to see if we have any council

[4:35] members that have any comments or if you have a question, this would be a good

[4:39] time. Just raise your hand. Uh we have council member Rob Rambo.

[4:45] » Yes. I'd just like to thank Captain Mundo for his um wonderful service. It's

[4:51] just been great to deal with and um always pleasant and always responsive

[4:56] and um I think uh I think he deserves our our gratitude.

[5:01] » Agreed. Thank you um Council Member Rambo and I I did share with Captain

[5:04] Mandelle uh as we just learned about this news last week, we will schedule uh

[5:10] a recognition for him at our next meeting uh next month. So uh we'll take

[5:15] that opportunity to thank you for your years of service. Uh we have uh Council

[5:20] Member Dodwell and uh Council Member Owen was Did you have a comment as well?

[5:24] Okay, so Council Member Dodwell, >> welcome aboard. We certainly are going

[5:29] to miss Captain Mandelle and the crew that he's led, but um question for you.

[5:34] What do you think your biggest challenge is going to be moving into this role?

[5:39] » So I have some command experience in in patrol, but very little. Um so it's

[5:44] getting to know the citizens. What do the citizens need from us from the from

[5:49] the police department side? Um what does the council need from me? What does the

[5:53] mayor need from me? Those are the those are the big things. And and making sure

[5:57] I get to know the officers. That that's always huge. Um because they are people,

[6:01] too. Yes, we wear uniforms and it's and we wear a badge, but they have family,

[6:05] they have kids, they have things they like to do outside. It's getting to know

[6:08] the officers on my side of that that side of the house. But like I said, it's

[6:12] what is this? What does Wildwood? What do the citizens need? What does the

[6:15] council need? What does the mayor need? >> What can we do to help you in that

[6:19] process? >> Give me a little bit of time to settle

[6:22] in, get my feet underneath me, and get to know get to know everybody.

[6:29] » Council member Owen, >> so I I will just say I had uh breakfast

[6:33] this morning with Commissioner Ashworth um and he was very complimentary of you.

[6:37] So from that perspective, I think he says we are in very good hands. So, um

[6:41] I'm I welcome you to uh to the city of Wildwood. Thank you.

[6:47] » Anyone else that wishes to comment uh at this time?

[6:51] Okay. Well, I I don't see any. So, therefore, um that's all we have for

[6:57] you. Easy start uh here. [laughter] So, again, welcome to Wildwood. We're

[7:03] excited to uh get to know you better and and for you to get to know everyone in

[7:07] our city. So, it's a wonderful community.

[7:10] I'm sure you'll see exactly uh what makes this pl uh this city uh come

[7:15] together. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time.

[7:21] » Okay, great. Well, uh we'll move on. Uh we now have our four information section

[7:26] of the agenda. And as usual, uh we'll just pause right now to see if anyone

[7:31] has any questions or comments related to items that are in the for information

[7:37] section. And then if uh once we've reviewed any items that you may have,

[7:41] we'll move on to for action. Council member Do.

[7:45] » I don't know what you guys are going to do when I'm gone. Um

[7:49] [laughter] I got a question for Joe and a question for Rick. Um can Rick give us

[7:56] a quick update on the 109 BA roundabout stuff? I know you sent out a memo, but

[8:04] um I'd kind of like the public to hear. >> Um yes, thank you, Council Member

[8:11] Dodwell. Council members, I did post a memo on the agenda tonight to try to

[8:14] give you some background information on the the project. Um we do anticipate

[8:20] work starting soon, hopefully next week on that project. We ran into some

[8:25] issues. essentially the design plans did not match the elevations on the that the

[8:32] field survey came up with. So we had to go back to the drawing board and HR

[8:37] Green redesigned uh the features the tie-ins from the new

[8:42] construction to the existing pavements. So, it took a bit of back and forth with

[8:48] the contractor and the engineer and frankly the surveyor to get all this

[8:52] figured out and uh and determine really what the issue is. So, we think we've

[8:57] located it. We believe there was an error in the original design survey

[9:02] um that they utilized for design of the project and when they constructed the

[9:08] roundabout the what I understand as of the issue today

[9:14] is that they constructed the roundabout actually a little bit lower than should

[9:18] have been. So effectively the elevations to tie it back into the existing

[9:25] alignment had to be adjusted. And the fact of the matter is there is some curb

[9:29] and gutter that you may see removed and replaced um particularly on the north

[9:34] end of the project as a result. So the consultant HR drain is essentially owned

[9:40] up to the discrepancy. Um however the discrepancy was we believe the result at

[9:47] this point of the surveyor who is a subconsultant to HR green. So it's a

[9:53] little bit complicated but we're getting there.

[9:58] So, are we going to get a discount on anything for the errors that occurred?

[10:04] » Well, the answer the short answer is yes. Um, we have to work through all

[10:08] that and HR Green has owned up to the the error and um so the that is

[10:14] absolutely the expectation is to work through that with the contractor.

[10:19] » Yep. >> All right. Uh we have uh

[10:25] sure.

[10:37] » Okay, we'll uh come back to you. So, we'll give council member Vanic uh the

[10:42] opportunity now and then >> or Mr. Brown.

[10:44] » Okay, come on up. Couple weeks ago, I contacted city administrator and asked

[10:50] Beth, you know, when the construction, pardon me. Oh,

[10:59] uh, the construction of the, uh, path on Old State was going to begin and

[11:05] they said Monday. Well, of course, I guess the old joke is didn't specify

[11:11] which Monday, but uh the uh I mean, they had good weather last week.

[11:18] This thing was supposed to be starting construction in the spring. Here we are

[11:22] approaching the fall and we already got one extension from East West Gateway for

[11:27] the federal funding funding. And I'm beginning to become concerned that uh I

[11:35] don't know what the issue I I know there was issues with the u uh utilities and

[11:42] all that but when when is this project actually going to begin?

[11:47] » Monday. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. So um exactly. So, I was told

[11:54] they were going to start today and I was told they did show up, but I don't think

[11:57] much was done, frankly, other than to I think determine what they were going to

[12:03] do the rest of the week essentially. So, I am expecting them to to be out there

[12:07] tomorrow. That's what I was told today. So, I'm pretty optimistic they've got

[12:11] the green light. We did wrestle with a number of issues more recently

[12:15] pertaining to utility utilities and adjusting some grades for the for the

[12:20] trail, but um I know it's sounding a little bit like a like a broken record

[12:24] saying it, but um I do expect them to be working this week.

[12:28] » Any other committing? >> Just any updates on the crosswalk for um

[12:35] uh Lake Country Estates? So I think um with the city

[12:41] administrator's involvement, we are optimistic that we might have a path

[12:45] forward, but I can't I don't think either one of us can commit to that. But

[12:49] I know Thomas may want to refer to this directly because he had a conversation

[12:53] with Mr. Vanic more recently than I have. But um we have requested a

[12:58] follow-up conversation with Mr. Mr. Vanic um

[13:03] Klesa. Thank you. um to essentially plead our case one last time and I think

[13:10] at this point I'll turn it over to Thomas if he wants to add more based on

[13:13] his conversation. >> Thank you Mr. Brown with the mayor's

[13:15] permission. Thank you. U just a quick note on that. We I did have a discussion

[13:20] with Mr. Klesa regarding the crosswalk at Lake Country Lane and it does seem

[13:25] plausible that we could come up with an engineering solution. The one impediment

[13:29] that was provided was that the county uh pretty much had made a statement that

[13:33] the warrants at that location just not enough having not enough foot traffic.

[13:37] So they would be pushing at least at a minimum we could probably design our way

[13:42] into getting it done and getting a permit to do so. But they may very well

[13:47] be coming back and requesting from the city u the ability to maintain that in

[13:51] perpetuity if we want to have that one in. The other one at Lakeshore Meadows

[13:55] would be handled by the county. So this would be one unique instance that might

[13:58] be coming back to the city council for review.

[14:01] But we'll have that discussion. We had reached out to them uh talked to him

[14:05] last week. U we actually had the engineer and uh consultant that had

[14:10] submitted the most updated plans looking at that area. They have that in hand and

[14:14] now it's going to be uh Mr. Brown and I reaching out to Mr. Klesa to have kind

[14:18] of a catch-up meeting, but we should have more info soon.

[14:21] » So I think at this point we just kind of sit tight. Let's see if they're able to

[14:26] and if not, um, we'll certainly do our part to escalate.

[14:32] Okay. Um, Council Member Dodwell, do you want us to come back to you now? Okay.

[14:37] You're going to pass. All right. Is there anyone else that has anything

[14:41] under for information? Okay. Then we're going to move on uh to

[14:48] the rest of the agenda here. So, we're going to move into for action items. So,

[14:53] um, under planning and parks committee, the first item is a temporary lease

[14:57] agreement for the JP Connell House. Director Gunich.

[15:00] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of city council, as you may

[15:05] recall, since January of this year, the Historic Preservation Commission and to

[15:11] a certain degree, the Planning and Parks Committee has been discussing the JP

[15:15] Connell House, which is located on 14 acres at the intersection of Route 100

[15:22] and St. Albins's Road. JP Connell House is a significant structure in that it

[15:28] was constructed by the same builder that um did Old Pond School and it has very

[15:36] unique architecture along with the family itself having quite a history in

[15:41] the West St. Louis County area. Since January, there have been a number

[15:47] of proposals submitted by the current owner to restore the JP Connell House

[15:53] and for all intents and purposes reuse it for a purposeful activity.

[16:01] What that use may be has changed quite a bit. It started out as possibly light

[16:08] industrial, commercial, retirement center and etc etc. Eventually,

[16:16] the Historic Preservation Commission in May of this year made recommendations

[16:21] regarding the steps in a process to bring the JP Connell House back to life.

[16:28] Those included having a structural engineer visit the location, do an

[16:32] assessment of the structure itself, and see if it was savable at this stage,

[16:38] which it was. Thereafter, an incentive package was offered for what was

[16:43] described as the north half of the property, approximately four acres, and

[16:49] a incentive package in principle was endorsed for the south half or the

[16:54] remaining 10 acres. As time progressed and the structure was

[17:00] not stabilized, there was an urgency to the conversation and a temporary lease

[17:05] agreement was proposed. That lease agreement would be between the property

[17:10] owner and the city. And the city would take responsibility for up to 90 days to

[17:16] stabilize the asset and maintain the property until the incentive package

[17:23] could be finalized, presented to the historic preservation commission, the

[17:28] planning and parks committee of city council and then finally all of you,

[17:32] city council. At the July meeting of the planning and

[17:37] parks committee, it became apparent that the key issue here may not be the

[17:43] temporary lease agreement, but more so is the city council willing to offer an

[17:49] incentive package. This is a rural area for

[17:54] minus uh kelp contracting. There is development in the area, new

[18:00] development, and it is all large lot single family homes on on as part of

[18:07] residential subdivisions. And as the committee discussed the

[18:13] incentive package, adding a potential light industrial use, a commercial use,

[18:18] and at this stage, one that might include a drive-through facility.

[18:24] The committee did not endorse such at this location.

[18:28] And in the report, it notes the reasons for that lack of endorsement,

[18:34] such as the predictability that the master plan and its conceptual land use

[18:39] categories give to residents when they invest in property and build

[18:43] improvements. Meaning, if you ask city hall, we tell you it's intended for

[18:48] large lot single family homes and nothing else.

[18:53] Now we're saying that may not be the case. Also, protection of the non-urban

[18:59] resident district is key and that has been a key component of the city of

[19:04] Wildwood since its inception. in fact is what led to the incorporation and there

[19:10] were several others. Without the incentive package being

[19:15] endorsed by the committee even in components meaning the north portion and

[19:20] the south portion or collectively a temporary lease agreement in terms of

[19:26] the responsibility of the taxpayers to main maintain the property and asset for

[19:31] 90 up to 90 days was not reasonable. So the report you have before you tonight

[19:38] does not endorse any historic land any incentives for the historic preservation

[19:44] aspect associated with the property and with that action does not endorse

[19:52] entering into any type of temporary lease agreement with the property owner

[19:56] for the stabilization of the asset. Tonight the department is presenting

[20:02] that action. Certainly with that action, the likelihood of preserving the JP

[20:08] Connell House is now almost none to slim. And so tonight, the department and

[20:16] the committee are presenting their findings for comment or action. Thank

[20:21] you. Okay. Do we have any council members

[20:25] that would wish to comment or make a motion at this time?

[20:30] Uh, Council Member Mabberry,

[20:35] » I'm at a point where no way even close to know what motion

[20:40] could be without a whole ream of questions. So, um, may I may I just go

[20:46] for a question? >> Yes, please go right ahead. Thank you.

[20:50] » The the historical asset is valuable to the city. That's that's documented and

[20:58] that's obvious. Yes, sir.

[21:00] » The value of that house um has

[21:07] not just no value to the owner as the owner has stated, but it also is an

[21:13] impediment by logic

[21:17] to the development of that property at anything other than NU 3 acre density

[21:23] zoning. So, it's only with the existence of that historic asset stuck on that

[21:28] property and staying there that the city can even legally entertain an historic

[21:35] overlay, a Scott circumstances overlay or historic overlay, whatever those one

[21:40] or two different um conditions are. Uh

[21:49] the given given one option that the

[21:53] developer will immediately and instantaneously and very assertively

[22:00] um proceed with the enactment of a

[22:05] demolition permit for that property. Um,

[22:10] there will no longer be any mechanism the city can use

[22:14] to allow anything other than non-rouban density development for [clears throat]

[22:18] that 14 acres. So that 3 divided by 14 still equals four houses. Is that all

[22:25] correct? >> That is correct, sir.

[22:27] » All right. Now, just continuing this. um in order for the city to protect its

[22:33] historic asset which it values very highly. First of all to have weathered

[22:39] this 6 months or 7 months or more of exercises

[22:45] uh in not being able to succeed with a single viable proposal from the develop

[22:51] developer. Um,

[22:56] is there any means the city can use to put its

[23:01] put its money where it mouth is or to show its

[23:06] value of what it values this historic assets value is other than nothing than

[23:13] just four lots on 14 acres? Is there is it uh is it exposing the

[23:20] city to undertake condemnations proceedings against the 4 acres to the

[23:25] north of the creek um

[23:29] and retain the property for its value as a historic asset? Is that outlandish?

[23:36] Has that ever been done before? I'm just trying to come up with something

[23:40] creative to save that house where where the the owner developer

[23:48] is taking active steps to do exactly the opposite. And what seems to me the

[23:53] evidence of that uh just mine, not any of the other 15 council members, is that

[24:00] in in having the Planning and Parks Commission entertaining and then

[24:06] deciding that it's not very practical and not very wise and not very

[24:09] business-like and responsibility shown to the residents of the city to provide

[24:14] for conditions of an incentive package without even knowing what the developer

[24:18] is asking for as an incentive. despite the city's repeat

[24:23] begging for the for the developers um conditions of an incentive package once

[24:30] a drive-thru. Uh that's not what the spirit of the historic overlay district

[24:36] is at all. It's actually against that. So, um I've held the floor for too long.

[24:44] What's the viability of of condemnations proceedings for the four acres? We don't

[24:50] want to be guilty of a taking a malicious taking of all 14 acres. Just

[24:54] teach anyone a lesson. But for that four acres to the north of the creek with the

[24:59] house on it. Um what's what's the most creative thing we

[25:05] can do to save that asset? Well, certainly the city attorney knows

[25:09] much more about condemnation or the the rationes for such an action and how best

[25:16] to approach it. But I think from the perspective of the department,

[25:20] condemnation is used when you have an unwilling seller or participant. In this

[25:25] case, as Mr. Gray, the property owner has mentioned, this is his business

[25:30] developing property. So in lie of condemnation, an offer to purchase would

[25:36] probably be more wellreceived and not carry the baggage that a condemnation

[25:40] action can. The is followed that's that's

[25:47] so obvious even I didn't think of it. So we offer to purchase the property

[25:52] outright whether it's the four acres or whether it's all 14

[25:57] from the current owner. And from my understanding, this property was

[26:01] purchased just recently. So there's going to be a historical record of sale

[26:05] at what the property was purchased bar. There's going to be comps for the area

[26:10] for what raw land is worth out in that neck of the woods. Um,

[26:16] is that have you seen that done before where we where we buy out the

[26:21] competition uh of attempting to protect that historic asset? Has that been done

[26:29] in the past in the city's history? I would estimate that 90% of the property

[26:35] acquisitions the city has done has been in flood plane areas and they were a

[26:40] result of repeated flood events that just ultimately wore out the property

[26:44] owners, the residents of the homes and so those negotiations were mutually

[26:52] beneficial. The property owners wanted to leave the flood plane and the city

[26:58] wanted to remove the structures, the buildings so that the flood plane could

[27:02] flood and not impact them. Where we have practiced acquisition of properties not

[27:08] necessarily in the Glenco area or the flood plane of the Marramac River. Those

[27:13] two have been generally agreements that have been reached long before we got to

[27:17] a stage like this where we've tried to work through every possible scenario

[27:23] under the historic preservation and restoration code the master plan and

[27:28] its historic land use category but we just haven't been able to find the right

[27:32] formula so to offer us is is it something that would work I think

[27:39] acquisition can work if you're willing to pay the price the property owner

[27:43] request. But again,

[27:48] we're in a bit of a a budget scenario. Um, we've talked over the last year

[27:55] almost about where can we cut back, where can we focus. Um, certainly to me

[28:02] at this stage, if I were to be asked, is that a good expenditure of of of

[28:09] taxpayers money? I would say if I would say maintaining our current parks. We've

[28:15] got trails that need to be resurfaced. We've got sidewalks that need to be

[28:20] replaced. We have vandalism damage almost now weekly, it seems. So, from

[28:25] the perspective of the department, if we have excess funds to do acquisition, I'd

[28:31] like those to be directed to park maintenance, trail maintenance, etc. Um,

[28:36] that's where the people are. That's where we need to keep them safe and

[28:39] functional. Thank you, director. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'd

[28:45] be at a point if nobody wants more questions, I'd be at a point.

[28:51] Uh, perfect. >> Hey, Council Member Owen, please go

[28:55] ahead. I >> I got one comment. It seems like the

[28:57] person who purchased or acquired this property, if they're

[29:01] wanting a variance in our zoning to make it industrial, and that's the only way

[29:05] we can or commercial, and that's the only way we can satisfy them. It seems

[29:10] like their intent was to use it for that to begin with. So, they're really just

[29:14] they bought the property to get us to get it reszone holding the asset over

[29:20] our head. It says they've got a permit to demolish it, but if their intent is

[29:26] to use it for industrial and they're never going to be able to do that, why

[29:29] would they turn around and demolish the property of them and despite us? Um, so

[29:35] I I don't know that we want to move forward with um negotiating with them on

[29:42] a reszoning when the reality is, while we want the asset, we're not going to

[29:48] change the zoning to accommodate that. We do not want a drive-thru facility at

[29:54] that intersection. um way outside our our you know

[30:00] » the city limits or the the town master the town the town center. So being out

[30:07] in ward one I would say that I will speak for us we do not want that

[30:11] reszone. So that's that's a non-starter. Um just want to make that clear from

[30:18] Ward One's perspective that's not an option. I don't know if anybody thought

[30:21] it was but to preserve the building. But if we've got to give up the building to

[30:26] keep our master plan, I think that's that's more important.

[30:30] » And Mr. Owen, I believe that's what the committee said in their action.

[30:36] » All right. Great. Uh, Council Member Rambo.

[30:42] » Yeah. I uh I'd love to say this building uh I think looking back from 30 years in

[30:49] the future will feel about it like I personally do about Pawn School. It was

[30:56] a great thing to do and the the expense I don't know what the expenses were

[31:01] likely substantial but it's a great asset and it'll be there forever. Um uh

[31:06] we determined not only that it was gonna it was infeasible to buy the property

[31:12] itself but it was also going to cost a h 100red grand to stabilize it and it will

[31:16] cost out of our park budget which is only I mean that's that's a significant

[31:21] fraction of our park's budget and I just don't feel like we can afford uh to do

[31:26] that. I'm very sad about that and so that's why we worked the committee

[31:31] worked as hard as it did. I'm speaking as a member of the committee now. Um,

[31:35] uh, we tried every way we could think of to find a way to justify this. And, um,

[31:42] it what it came down to was a couple of acres for this home and a commercial

[31:48] venture that that was completely hidden from the road, drive-in, a few villas or

[31:54] something like that. It would it would um, meet sort of the spirit of our

[31:58] master plan without actually meeting the letter of the master plan. That's what

[32:02] these uh these special districts are intended to to do. And so we explored

[32:07] all those. We can't get there. And um I'm ready to just call it myself. Uh

[32:14] very reluctantly, I I don't think we can afford even if we could get the guy to

[32:19] donate the land to us, we couldn't afford the hundred grand for

[32:22] stabilization and half a million dollars for renovation just to do what with it?

[32:26] It would be an office or something like that. maybe a B&B um which we don't

[32:30] often like. So um I just don't don't think this is it's feasible to talk

[32:35] about anything other than just letting it go.

[32:38] » Okay. Council member Marshall. >> Mr. Ver, would you like a motion to move

[32:42] forward with the direction you were given from parks and planning to do it

[32:47] that way? What would you like from us? >> Mr. Marshall, if the city council would

[32:51] entertain a motion to endorse the action of the committee, that action then

[32:56] endorsed by city council can be presented to Mr. Gruie, the property

[33:01] owner. And then shortly hereafter, I'll be talking about the end of the

[33:05] moratorum and um I assume he'll proceed forward

[33:09] with his request for the demolition permit to remove the structure. And Mr.

[33:15] The reason he continues to speak about the structure is concerns about

[33:20] liability and the insurance costs associated with it.

[33:24] » I think the department's done a fantastic job in the historic group, but

[33:28] there's a certain point where he wants us to take all the risk and I just don't

[33:32] think that that we're in a position to do that. So, I'll make a motion to have

[33:35] the department move forward with the recommendation from the Parks and

[33:39] Planning Commission um and relay that information back.

[33:45] » Okay, we have a motion on the floor made by Council Member Marshall. Is there

[33:48] anyone that wishes to second that motion? Made by second by Council Member

[33:51] Attenburg. Any other discussion? Right. No discussion on uh all those in

[33:59] favor of the motion, please say I. >> I. [clears throat]

[34:03] Anyone oppose or abstain? >> Opposed.

[34:06] » Okay, we have one oppose. Uh the motion passes and we'll move on to the next

[34:10] item on the agenda which is the 2026 recreation event toward the Wildwood

[34:15] awards. >> Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor,

[34:19] members of city council, the department of planning has provided to you a letter

[34:23] regarding the upcoming tour to Wildwood. This would be the 22nd year of the tour

[34:29] to Wildwood. The the letter is provided just to acknowledge that when the

[34:34] recreation schedule was set as part of the budget process at the end of 2025

[34:40] and the schedule was presented to the planning and parks committee and

[34:44] ultimately city council. There is always kind of a question mark next to this

[34:48] particular event. The event has drawn a lot of interest of late. Um we have some

[34:54] ideas thanks to Mr. Utenberg and others about how to better market it. And so

[34:59] tonight, the department is advising the city council. We're proceeding forward.

[35:04] We believe this will be a great test opportunity and we'll report back how we

[35:09] did in terms of the new marketing goals, the additions we like to think that will

[35:14] make it more appealing and return the writership to past years. If not, then

[35:19] we can have the conversation about 2027. >> Okay. Do we have a motion on the floor?

[35:25] Uh, Council Member Attenburgg. Yeah, I'll make a motion, but may I um

[35:31] make a comment first? >> Yes, please go right ahead. Uh so

[35:34] director Vunich uh it might be beneficial to expand a little bit on the

[35:39] information you provided um mentioning that we used to partner

[35:44] with I believe it was the Missouri Bike Federation on this event and last year

[35:50] uh we did not partner with them because basically they weren't returning phone

[35:54] calls and uh as a result it was basically the first year that we had to

[35:58] sort of take this event on our own. Yeah, I think thank you Mr. Rottenberg.

[36:05] In the memo, in the letter, the department notes that for many years our

[36:09] partner was Trail Net, probably the most well recognized, wellknown entity for

[36:15] multimodal transportation advocacy. Following that, the Missouri Bicycle and

[36:22] P pedestrian Federation um became our partner. And last year,

[36:27] for whatever reason, I think they're suffering from some budget uh budget

[36:32] issues. They would not return our call until almost the beginning or middle

[36:37] part of September and the events at the beginning of October. So, as Mr.

[36:43] Atenberg alluded to, we had to do the marketing in a pretty short order. And I

[36:49] think that's part of the reason we ended up just a little over a hundred riders.

[36:53] Um we think we can do a much better job two months out for the most part and

[36:57] we'd like to give it a try. >> Thank you. Um with that I would make a

[37:02] motion to proceed with this um this event as outlined by the directors.

[37:08] » Okay question sir. >> Um we have a primary motion. Can we get

[37:13] a secondary on the floor and then we'll open up for discussion. I second by

[37:18] council member means. Uh so now we'll entertain discussion.

[37:23] Go ahead, Council Member Albs. >> Um, did you say you had a hundred

[37:27] writers last year? >> Yes.

[37:28] » Okay. What What is that a low number? >> It it is relatively speaking. One year

[37:36] when we used to hold the event at Lafayette High School and partner with

[37:40] Trail Net, we had 900 riders. Yes. And the police wanted to arrest me that day

[37:46] because the 900 riders were generally very disrespectful of them and our

[37:51] residents. So we stopped that design that event

[37:59] in in terms of how we promoted it um orchestrated it and we went to a maximum

[38:06] of 300 riders until the pandemic. we were getting 300 riders and after the

[38:11] pandemic we've kind of struggled to get that back to that part of it again I

[38:17] believe was um just kind of people getting back to what

[38:22] they had normally done um and I think we as the city can do a little better job

[38:27] of promotion um as I say Mr. Bur's given us a couple of ideas. We're looking at a

[38:33] theme. Um and I think um ultimately I would see this being successful if we

[38:40] can get around 200. >> Okay. Thank you. I didn't know the the

[38:44] history of it. I'm just kind of wonder how involved it was. Thanks.

[38:49] » All right. Uh we have a motion on the floor. Any other discussion? All right.

[38:53] Seeing none. Oh, Council Member Rambo. I just want to make a quick comment. I

[38:57] attended that massive event and um my impression was um many of the attendees

[39:06] felt as though it was um the Moonlight Ramble and not a cycling race or event

[39:13] of any kind. In other words, there were a lot of unserious people there on

[39:17] banana bikes and you know, weird costumes and stuff. And those are the

[39:21] kinds of people that you can't count on to be courteous and respectful because

[39:25] most cyclists uh honestly are um that way. And so um moving forward with this,

[39:33] I would just suggest wherever this goes, I guess it'll go back to committee, but

[39:36] wherever this goes, I would strongly suggest that we keep that in mind uh

[39:41] because we can attract um uh responsible cyclists and sort of minimize the

[39:46] effects of the those that are irresponsible. So thanks.

[39:51] » Okay. Uh we are at about 20 more minutes remaining in our work session. So just a

[39:57] quick check on the agenda. We do have two more items under for action and

[40:02] executive close session and then uh miscellaneous receive and file. So uh

[40:07] we'll continue to move forward. Uh but just be uh aware we may be running out

[40:11] of time and may have to come back after the main meeting for the rest of these

[40:15] items. So, moving on. Uh, next item. >> Mr. Chair, we need a vote on the motion.

[40:20] » Thank you. All right. Yes. So, now that uh motion on the floor that we have,

[40:25] does anyone need the motion repeated? >> All right. Uh, all those in favor,

[40:29] please say I. >> I. I.

[40:31] » I. >> Anyone opposed or abstain?

[40:33] » All right. Moving on. Uh, next item on the agenda, which is the temporary

[40:37] moratorium on demolitions of historic assets, uh, termination all wards.

[40:42] Director Vunich. >> Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and

[40:45] members of city council, as you know, at the start of this year, a temporary

[40:48] moratorum was put into place by city council and the demolition of historic

[40:53] assets that's on the city's inventory. One of the the key components that would

[40:58] trigger the moratorum ending was the adoption of the historic preservation

[41:04] plan. That plan is up for final reading tonight and if the final reading

[41:09] proceeds forward, the plan will be adopted. In the enabling legislation, it

[41:15] does allow the city council to extend the moratorum under justification. And

[41:20] so tonight, the department is advising you, you have that authority to extend

[41:25] it, but the plan will be adopted. The department sees no reason why to proceed

[41:30] forward after the adoption of the plan with any extension.

[41:35] Mr. Mayor, I would respectfully request a motion to not extend the moratorum

[41:41] beyond the period of time anticipated when it was adopted.

[41:46] » Okay. As uh the director requested, is there anyone that wishes to make that

[41:50] motion?

[41:54] » Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Mabbury.

[41:56] » Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have I'd recommend a motion to do the opposite and to extend

[42:02] the moratorum for a period of not less than 90 days.

[42:06] » So, you're making a motion. Is there anyone that wishes to second that

[42:09] motion?

[42:13] » All right. Uh, do >> is that a second?

[42:16] » No, I would ask Council Member Mabberry, my heart is with you, Bob. I'm I'm

[42:21] wondering what your specific rationale is uh for that because it does there

[42:26] doesn't seem to be a really strong one other than the motion. Uh and I I I'm

[42:31] trying to keep that out >> responding to the council members exact

[42:35] reason why I opposed the prior motion regarding the planning and and parks uh

[42:43] recommendation. Um, I don't know that it's going to take a $100,000 to

[42:49] stabilize the structure. I don't know that it's going to take a half million

[42:52] to do something that we want to do with that asset. I don't know those things.

[42:56] What I do know is if we no longer keep this moratorum in effect, that's less

[43:02] teeth the city has in order to cajul or shame or convince or sell the owner

[43:09] developer into entering finally u legitimate professional level

[43:15] communications about what it would take u

[43:20] uh to to make that property available for the city as a as a valuable asset.

[43:26] So if it's not a h 100,000 to stabilize and it's only 40 and if it's not a half

[43:30] million it's only 150. The the voters the residents of the city need the right

[43:36] to know what they're getting into. None of that can happen at all unless

[43:43] we first of all get a stay on the execution of that demolition permit and

[43:48] unless we can engage the owner into serious discussion finally on how to

[43:53] make a deal. Otherwise, the owner's got himself four houses on three acre lots,

[43:59] whatever he sell those things for. Um, but that's it. And that's really the

[44:04] explanation for why I'm making the motion to put a just put a stay on it.

[44:09] It's not It doesn't seem to me to hurt the thing. It's we're not paying

[44:13] employees to keep watch over that that provision. So, let it ride and give it

[44:20] another 90 days and see if we can get the uh the owner to come back to the

[44:24] table. I And if I if I had proof that it's going to cost 600K to make a go of

[44:30] that, then I'd say, well, we lost this one.

[44:35] » Well, uh again, uh just uh to make sure we're following Robert's rules, is there

[44:39] anyone that wishes to second? Otherwise, we're getting into discussion and

[44:42] debate. Um >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

[44:44] » Yeah. So I allowed that to allow the uh clarity on the reasoning for that

[44:49] motion. But yeah, do we have a second?

[44:54] Okay. I don't think we have a second. So um is there anyone that wishes to make

[44:59] another motion?

[45:06] Council member Marshall. >> The department's making a

[45:09] recommendation. I think we should go with the department's recommendation to

[45:13] um cease the uh ordinance that was put in place and that's the department's

[45:18] recommendation. So, I'll make that motion.

[45:20] » Okay. Is there anyone that wishes to second that motion? Uh Council Member

[45:24] CR. Okay. So, now we have that motion on the floor. Um we'll open up again for

[45:28] discussion uh now related to the motion. So, Council Member Rambo.

[45:31] » Yeah. I uh um folks that were there were there when we

[45:37] viewed the property recall that I actually caught a turkey buzzard in the

[45:40] upstairs bedroom to put it out and the none of the windows were open. Uh and so

[45:46] I you know I risked my life and the bird's life to um to get rid of it. Um

[45:52] there are there are there's a lot of stabilization that seems to be required

[45:56] on that structure just from what I know of construction and um so Joe I'm

[46:02] wondering if there are any other effects that we haven't considered in terms of

[46:07] other properties that we're looking at that we have a moratorum on or is this

[46:11] is it that because your verbiage said this was primarily for the JP Connell

[46:16] house which is no longer in play based on our last decision. So can you speak

[46:20] to that please? >> Certainly the moratorum was too late for

[46:24] the Mary Cliff residence on the Marinist retreat center. It did do an effective

[46:29] job from the perspective of the department with the Lal retreat center.

[46:34] um because there was interest in a purchase by a developer and the removal

[46:40] of all the assets and obviously the JP Connell there's a risk but again I go

[46:48] back to the committee's discussion about the historic land use category and the

[46:53] master plan and just the reluctance in the non- urban resident district areas

[46:58] to authorize anything more than what I would believe is a residential type of

[47:03] use at a at a limited increased density. At least that's the impression I left

[47:08] the committee meeting. >> Sure. And that was my impression as

[47:10] well. It there are you have affirmed that there are no hot button um

[47:16] properties out there that we need to be concerned with and the the only

[47:20] alternative for future properties is to keep this moratorium in place forever

[47:23] which is not a workable solution. >> Well, I will never turn my back on Lola

[47:27] Retreat Center. That could right >> that could blow up in our face any time.

[47:32] » Yeah. So certainly a moratorium on demolitions protects that more so than

[47:36] anything. But I also know that a moratorum isn't intended to be

[47:41] permanent. We have under the language until the end of the year. But again,

[47:48] we've been advising property owners that once the preservation plan is in place,

[47:54] which was intended to give us tools to offset demolitions through tax credits

[48:00] from the federal and state governments, etc. I just don't feel like are we

[48:05] forestalling the inevitable and just getting people's hopes up and then

[48:10] dashing those hopes because we just can't give the incentives people want.

[48:15] So our preservation plan will cover this um as best we can without having a

[48:20] moratorum >> as best we can. It it really in many

[48:24] ways it just reiterated what we already have available.

[48:28] » It didn't come up with what I would call the the silver bullet to save save us.

[48:34] But I I just feel like you we stand at the podium in front of

[48:40] the Historic Preservation Commission talking about preservation, talking

[48:44] about incentives, but the reality is a residents I think when they do the

[48:50] balancing um act or the pros and cons seeing a commercial use at T Highway T

[48:57] and Route 100 versus the removal of the structure that in many ways very much in

[49:03] distress test. It probably isn't a balance. It's not a balance they would

[49:07] favor, >> right? Thank you.

[49:10] » Okay, we have that motion. Anyone else wish to speak on this matter? Otherwise,

[49:16] uh uh council member CR.

[49:22] Yeah, he seconded it. All right. Uh looks like we have no other further

[49:27] discussion. There is a motion on the floor. Does anyone need that motion

[49:29] repeated? All right. All those in favor, please

[49:33] say I. >> I.

[49:36] » Anyone oppose or abstain? >> Opposed.

[49:38] » Okay, we have one oppose. And the motion passes. Uh, just being cognizant of

[49:43] time. Uh, we've got about 10 more minutes before our main meeting. I did

[49:47] ask the city administrator if we should start this next item. So um he did

[49:53] advise that this is a preliminary result but his recommendation regarding the uh

[49:59] archery hunting regulations and deer management survey were that uh we would

[50:04] wait for the full report to come out. That's what he was going to ask the

[50:08] council of. So uh let's see if we can uh you know see how this goes over the next

[50:15] 10 minutes or so. And if the council does agree that we do want to wait for

[50:19] the full report, then any discussion or in-depth discussion would probably be

[50:24] appropriate once we have all the information. So go ahead, city

[50:27] administrator Lee, go ahead and introduce this item.

[50:29] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, real quick note on this. I mean, the data is in this

[50:34] report, so it it has the broadline, you know, response rates and what the actual

[50:38] answers were for the the questions. what we're waiting on and [clears throat]

[50:42] what will be uh really fortuitous to have from Professor Nays is he's

[50:45] currently working to do a deep dive analysis on uh the open-ended questions.

[50:50] So, there was a general feedback provision. We actually received quite a

[50:52] bit of feedback from that. Um a lot of individuals that completed the survey

[50:56] ended up providing quite a few responses. So, we're analyzing that. Um

[51:00] the other thing that would be that's going to be nice to include too is just

[51:04] some data on the margin of error, some responsiveness rates on some of these

[51:08] questions. Uh so we wanted to make sure to get the data out to the city council

[51:11] for the survey. But nonetheless in September we'll have the full

[51:14] statistical analysis that also u provides a little bit more detail on you

[51:18] know the gender of the individual that came uh that answered the question. Um

[51:22] kind of getting some insights on the different wards that answered. Uh I will

[51:26] say based off the response we had about 502 valid responses in the survey which

[51:31] is pretty high for a survey like this. Um since we didn't do a mailed back

[51:35] version, which we did for the solar survey, uh that typically tends to, you

[51:39] know, you're just doing online, it does cut a few of the responses, but overall,

[51:43] um the responses are considered statistically valid. Um and

[51:46] representative of the city as a whole, where it does fall short is that we did

[51:50] not get enough responses to properly compare ward to ward. So when you look

[51:55] at the distribution which we'll have more info on in September um that is

[52:00] where it can get a little tricky of ward one feels this way ward two we don't

[52:04] have enough data to be able to encaps encapsulate all wards so um more

[52:08] information on that but just a brief overview of some of the results and u

[52:12] you know as time allows uh overall in June we had approved the deer management

[52:17] and policy survey that went out we mailed out um and working with professor

[52:22] Nays took the total number of properties which included apartments, condos,

[52:27] households. Um there's a total of 13,917 dwellings that were included. 1600 were

[52:34] selected to participate, 200 being from each ward. Um we mailed that out on June

[52:39] 29th and opened up the survey. The two weeks later, we also sent out a reminder

[52:45] postcard just providing them with a heads up. We only sent that to the

[52:48] individuals that had not submitted u a valid response. One in great thing we

[52:53] did with this survey was we had the use of a um an eightdigit participation code

[52:58] which was used to be used one time per household. Uh so if one person used it,

[53:03] uh the good news is we were able to track uh the IP address to make sure

[53:07] that it really was just one person answering for each. Um so overall uh

[53:11] Professor N's opinion is that it's stat statistically valid survey given that

[53:15] there's five over 500 responses um of the sample pool. I would agree with that

[53:19] sentiment. Uh, nonetheless, to go through some of the results, uh, here we

[53:24] got some pretty split feedback quite frankly on some of the questions with

[53:28] I'll just jump through these real quick to give an overview. Um, for the big

[53:33] question that we were trying to focus in on about our regulations, specifically

[53:36] talking about the minimum parcel size and whether parcel aggregation should be

[53:40] considered, Professor Nains looking at it saw that the majority of residents do

[53:45] want to see a little bit more of a permissive structure. But when you

[53:48] actually look at the data, the kind of the counter of that is over 50% of the

[53:53] respondents answered the answered that question with either keep it at 3 acres

[53:58] and don't change or keep it at 3 acres but allow partial aggregation. So it

[54:02] seems that the the majority are in support of the 3acre but maybe with some

[54:06] more uh le less restrictive provisions that go with it. Um but when you look at

[54:11] the individual responses themselves, the number one response when you compare all

[54:15] five answer choices together was the reduced to one acre and allow partial

[54:20] aggregation. So when you take all of that in a um as a whole, it can produce

[54:26] somewhat conflicting information there. It's not as cleancut as one would want

[54:30] it to be. Um that said, kind of going back to the general themes, over 50% did

[54:35] support u keeping it at three in some fashion, but a grand majority said that

[54:41] it could be more permissive. So just a quick note on that. Um going further, uh

[54:47] another interesting tell too was we wanted to make sure to ask the question

[54:50] of how strongly they felt about the change when it came to uh going down to

[54:55] one acre, keeping it three, whatever it may be. Um, and the interesting thing

[55:00] that came with that was that when um, looking at the 1acre minimum, folks that

[55:06] had answered very strongly tended to be the ones that also wanted it at one

[55:10] acre. So, they tend to, you know, really care about that answer. So, just a note

[55:14] there, the threeacre gnomes had a lot of somewhat. How strongly do they feel

[55:18] about their answer was somewhat. Um, so just another note of how the respondents

[55:24] were thinking. Um when you look at the actual regulations of what we require,

[55:29] it was pretty split but nonetheless majority of respondents

[55:34] uh majority of respondents did have registration or some type of permit. Um

[55:37] you know that was well almost 50% but one of the interesting things was we

[55:43] allowed that question. It it included registration um the proof of written

[55:47] permission from the land owner uh insurance

[55:51] and also just the reporting requirement. we had a ton of different things that we

[55:55] wanted to ask and see if they were interested in. Um, none of those answers

[55:58] actually got over 50%. So, it seems that, you know, the majority of the

[56:03] respondents actually were, you know, either skipping that question or they

[56:07] weren't they were choosing not to respond or they were um choosing one but

[56:11] not the other, which maybe that would that could be boiled down to they they

[56:14] care about some things or others, but it also could be they thought it was maybe

[56:17] a one selection question. We did have it listed in there. um select all that

[56:22] apply in bold lettering. That said, some folks could have uh mistake that for

[56:26] select one. So, just a note there, but it did seem that less than 50% of the

[56:31] respondents um for each of them actually mentioned that uh you know, we if you

[56:36] look at if you look at just the base statistics, it would actually suggest

[56:39] that there wouldn't be any restrictions, which that doesn't make much sense. Um

[56:42] so, more information on that will come. Um, and then the one of the last big

[56:47] ones too was the question more about the preferred approach to deer management as

[56:51] a whole, the holistic approach. And there were a couple different answer

[56:54] choices. One was prim primarily rely on recreational hunting um resume

[56:59] professional deer calling along with uh recreational hunting, just use

[57:04] professional calling and then don't support active uh deer management um

[57:08] activities. And then there was also an option for no preference or not sure. Uh

[57:12] that said when you looked at that question it was use a combination of

[57:16] both. That was the overwhelming um overwhelming answer. The second place

[57:20] was primarily rely on recreational and then the la uh second to last was the

[57:25] resume the professional and then last was u do not support any deer activity.

[57:29] So another interesting finding there was that the vast majority of residents in

[57:33] some fashion believe there should be some deer management activity if you

[57:36] take the inverse of the response to that question. So just a note there. Um, we

[57:40] did have uh over 241 individuals submit open-ended answers to the general

[57:46] feedback section. So, we're going through that now. Professor Nains is

[57:49] looking through that um to give a pretty much a bulleted summary of what is the

[57:54] primary impa input that we've been getting. U I don't want to speak too

[57:58] much on the folks that had submitted some answers, but it was a lot of, you

[58:01] know, just more operational questions. if you were reduce it down to one um

[58:05] what does that look like for you know if it goes on their property or how do you

[58:08] handle there were actually some questions too with who actually gets the

[58:11] insurance. So residents are actively engaged and the fact they answered the

[58:14] question the survey and then also responded back um and we're asking

[58:18] further questions does go to show that you know a lot of folks do really care

[58:21] and seeing this amount of response um over 500 folks responding to this in

[58:26] just a three four-w week time frame is pretty strong. Um and then you know the

[58:30] majority of respondents were men. Um just a quick note there too. And uh the

[58:36] age demographics we'll provide as well. But the other interesting point which is

[58:40] actually consistent with uh when we look at our parcel data and the number of

[58:44] this is actually really great for our statistical modeling. Uh the majority of

[58:48] households if you just go by addresses for land mass 3acre minimum uh 3acre

[58:54] lots make up 89% of the city. But when you actually look at number of

[58:58] addresses, so 13,917 uh dwellings if you will in Wildwood, u

[59:02] the vast majority of those are on less than one acre. The good news is from our

[59:06] survey is we actually got pretty much a duplicative uh duplicative uh result

[59:10] with majority of folks being on less than one acre about a relatively

[59:14] consistent percentage of 1 to three acres similar to the I think it's 3.9%

[59:18] wildwood and then um the remainder being the 3 acres or more. So when looking at

[59:22] this the parcel size this survey is very representative of the city of the whole

[59:26] as a whole. Um but unfortunately it doesn't give us the the crystal clear

[59:31] answer that we were hoping for. Um but it does give us quite a bit of

[59:34] information. Um we're able to do some research before here and now. We wanted

[59:38] to provide this to get the data out to the council. There's something you want

[59:42] us to push on or u make sure that's included in the final report, please let

[59:45] us know. U and then also if there's anything for further research to do in

[59:49] the interimm as well. same department's available for any questions. Thank you.

[59:55] » Okay. Uh again, uh it is 6:30 right now, so I'll look to see if we're gonna get

[1:00:00] into any in-depth discussion or questions, or if not, we will uh pick it

[1:00:06] up later. Council member Alers, >> um excuse me. I believe archery season

[1:00:12] starts in September. If we wait till September for further results, is that

[1:00:18] going to allow us the time to put a process in place if we

[1:00:24] want to do archery programs?

[1:00:30] » Uh could you clarify what what by archery program

[1:00:34] » allowing bow hunters to maybe hunt on like a acre aggregate or one to three

[1:00:42] acre aggregate. Those seem to be some of the popular ones in choice.

[1:00:46] » Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. So, if we were to change the code, so the the main

[1:00:51] question here would be going into the code changing our firearm and hunting

[1:00:54] regulations to reduce that down to one acre, we'd most likely look to make a

[1:00:59] couple other changes within that code provision as well. Um, typically that

[1:01:02] type of code since it does deal with firearms and, you know, a projectile if

[1:01:06] you will, would typically go to our board of public safety. The process

[1:01:09] that, you know, the department was looking at was if there were any changes

[1:01:13] to be recommended that it would be referred back most likely to board of

[1:01:16] public safety or here at the city council to get those recommendations. If

[1:01:19] there's something tonight, um, we could bring back further research on that. But

[1:01:23] when it comes to September, we'd have the final results. It would be very

[1:01:26] difficult to reduce it unless the council were to expedite the process.

[1:01:31] I mean, I think the obvious answer to the question is it takes two readings to

[1:01:35] change something and likely um we may even have to have a public hearing on

[1:01:40] that. So that would be probably at the way the process works now 3 months. Uh

[1:01:48] but you know if it goes to board of public safety or any other group it may

[1:01:52] doesn't have to go to planning and zoning for that. Okay. Um, then that may

[1:01:56] also add some time. All right. Um, go ahead, Council Member

[1:02:02] Dod. Well, we'll see. We're probably going to have to come back anyway. So,

[1:02:06] I'll just >> I just real quickly as we're on this

[1:02:08] topic, um, I understand the reason that we have been gathering all this

[1:02:14] information, etc. Um, while I also understand the enthusiasm to have

[1:02:18] archery uh in closer proximity or in smaller uh lots, I don't think we need

[1:02:25] to rush that process just because deer seasoning is opening this year. We chose

[1:02:32] not to call deer last year because we wanted to discuss and review this

[1:02:37] process. I see no reason to rush this process

[1:02:42] just to augment the potential for individuals uh to hunt in new places

[1:02:48] this year when they still have the ability to go to their old hunting

[1:02:53] grounds and go to it without a problem. >> All right. Um can I make one more

[1:03:00] comment? I I I also thought that um we wanted to get this in a timeline so we

[1:03:05] would have the opportunity to engage White Buffalo for the calling season

[1:03:11] which would be be 2027. So I thought that was the primary reason to try to

[1:03:16] have a timeline to meet was to beat the deadline to engage White Buffalo for

[1:03:21] next year if in fact we were going to do that. So that's just I just want to make

[1:03:24] that comment. >> All right. Well, um we we are now past

[1:03:28] uh the start of a regular city council meeting and we do have several more

[1:03:31] items that we will have to cover as part of the work session. So, we are going to

[1:03:37] um at this point uh uh take a recess with the uh work session and it's 6:34.

[1:03:45] So, I' I'd ask uh that everyone come back at 6:40 so that we can start our

[1:03:52] main council meeting. And therefore, we don't need a motion at this point,

[1:03:57] right, city attorney to uh take a recess on the work session.

[1:04:02] » If you want to declare the recess until object.

[1:04:05] » All right. Is there any objection to that? Okay. Well, with that then, uh, we

[1:04:10] we'll take a break right now for just a couple of minutes and we'll resume with

[1:04:13] the start of our main meeting at 6:40. Thank you.

[1:12:38] All right. Good evening everyone and thank you for your patience as we uh

[1:12:42] pause for a moment to start our main meeting of the city council for Monday,

[1:12:47] August 10th. Uh it is now 6:43 and we will begin with a roll call.

[1:12:54] Mayor Geritano >> here.

[1:12:56] » Council member Rablooski >> here.

[1:12:58] » Council member Traier >> here.

[1:13:00] » Council member Utenberg >> here.

[1:13:02] » Council member Farmer. Council member Means

[1:13:05] » here. >> Council member Bocker. Council member

[1:13:07] Crayons >> here.

[1:13:08] » Council member Elers >> here.

[1:13:10] » Council member Owen >> here.

[1:13:11] » Council member Mabberry >> here.

[1:13:13] » Council member Nyan >> here.

[1:13:15] » Council member Dodwell. >> Council member Marshall

[1:13:18] » present. >> Council member Rambo

[1:13:20] » here. >> Council member Vanic

[1:13:21] » here. Council member CR >> here.

[1:13:24] » Okay. Thank you. If you're able to join me, uh, please stand for the pledge of

[1:13:29] allegiance.

[1:13:33] » Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[1:13:38] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:13:45] justice for all.

[1:13:50] » Thank you. Okay, approval of the minutes will be part of the consent agenda and

[1:13:55] we'll move on to public participation. So, do we have any speakers for tonight?

[1:14:03] » Please go ahead with the first speaker. >> Karen Shannon wants to speak on Mabella

[1:14:07] development.

[1:14:14] » When you come forward, just please state your name and your award number. Uh if

[1:14:18] you're not familiar with the award, your address will suffice. Thank you.

[1:14:22] » Karen Chan and I'm in Ward One. I'm at 17127 Manchester Road. It's my

[1:14:27] understanding that tonight the second meeting of the development on my

[1:14:30] property by Lombardo will be heard. Um I just wanted you to consider the final

[1:14:34] vote for tonight on this development. This process has been very emotional and

[1:14:38] mentally draining and every month that goes by it also puts the financial

[1:14:41] burden on me. Lombardo is a reputable builder and they've worked very hard to

[1:14:45] meet all the requests of planning and zoning commission. The development meets

[1:14:49] all the requirements of the town center and provides another type of housing

[1:14:52] that will very much needed in Wildwood at an affordable price. I hope that when

[1:14:57] you're considering voting tonight that you'll remember all the positives that

[1:15:00] they have u bring this development will bring to Wildwood. Thank you.

[1:15:05] » Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Claire Hinrich want wishes to

[1:15:10] speak on the primary results.

[1:15:19] Good evening. My name is Claire Heinrich. I live in Ward 4 and I am

[1:15:22] running to represent Wildwood and Clarkson Valley in the Missouri House of

[1:15:26] Representatives. First, I'd just like to say thank you to the mayor and council

[1:15:31] as always for letting me speak here tonight. This past week, the primary

[1:15:36] election was held with this building attracting the largest number of voters

[1:15:40] in all of St. Louis County. I see this as a testament to our citizens civic

[1:15:45] responsibility and desire to shape their community. I got to stand out front all

[1:15:50] day in some very warm weather. Um, but in doing that, I also had the chance to

[1:15:57] meet so many wonderful people from our district. And I would just like to thank

[1:16:01] every member of our community who came out to vote even though they had to

[1:16:06] maybe stand in line and it was a little warm. Later in the night, I watched the

[1:16:10] election results come in and was heartened by the overwhelming rejection

[1:16:14] of both amendments four and five in our community where three out of every four

[1:16:19] residents in a bipartisan effort defeated this government overreach from

[1:16:24] our state's capital. As you might remember, my position was that these

[1:16:28] amendments as written were wholly unacceptable to our community and

[1:16:33] Missurrians across the state. I am now the last candidate running to represent

[1:16:37] our community at the state level who is in lock step with the consensus here in

[1:16:42] Wildwood. As all of you know, consensus in Wildwood is not always the easiest to

[1:16:48] achieve on every issue. We are a very independent group of people, but we are

[1:16:53] also a group that came together to reject halfbaked or completely unbaked

[1:16:59] ideas that sought to remove citizen input from the policies that impact our

[1:17:04] lives. I am so proud to be from a community where citizens stood up and

[1:17:09] made their voices heard. For the remainder of this campaign, I continue

[1:17:13] to work to meet the people of Wildwood and Clarkson Valley. I continue to put

[1:17:17] our community above party politics and I continue to be here to answer any

[1:17:22] questions or address any concerns should citizens have them. Thank you for your

[1:17:26] time. >> Thank you. The next speaker. All right.

[1:17:31] No other speakers. If you are online and wish to speak, this would be the time to

[1:17:35] use the raise hand feature and uh we will check for that. And we do not see

[1:17:41] any at this time. So, uh, we'll conclude with public participation.

[1:17:46] We'll move on to mayor's announcements. Uh, so if you just, uh, just beare bear

[1:17:52] with me as I come down to, uh, announce a proclamation.

[1:18:13] All right. Uh, thank you. And I'm going to present this proclamation

[1:18:19] for Officer John Bamer. So, come on up. And, uh, we're going to talk about you

[1:18:25] here.

[1:18:29] Captain Mandelle, uh, if you want to come on up, uh, as well, uh, and join

[1:18:34] us. Uh we're going to uh present this proclamation here this evening on behalf

[1:18:40] of the city of Wildwood. So I'm going to read what it says and then I'll share a

[1:18:45] couple of comments. Whereas officer John Bamer comes from a

[1:18:50] family of law enforcement and followed in his father's footsteps as a St. Louis

[1:18:55] County police officer. Whereas in 1995, he was hired as a security officer with

[1:19:02] the police department and was assigned to facility security at the county

[1:19:06] government complex in Clayton. Whereas in 1998, he entered the county and

[1:19:13] municipal police academy for training. And after graduation in 1999, Officer

[1:19:19] Bamer's first assignment as a police officer was in the North County precinct

[1:19:24] near his family roots. Whereas in July of 2000 and at the end

[1:19:30] of his probationary year, he was transferred to the city of Wildwood when

[1:19:35] the police department in the city was still new and staffed with a small group

[1:19:40] of about 20 officers. Whereas in 2014, Officer Bamer was

[1:19:46] assigned as a traffic enforcement officer in the neighborhood policing

[1:19:51] unit, working tirelessly and without complaint, performing traffic

[1:19:55] enforcement stops, issuing traffic citations,

[1:20:00] and at the same time was responsible for collecting various traffic data,

[1:20:04] evaluation, and reporting. Whereas Officer Bamer has served the

[1:20:09] city of Wildwood for the next 26 years, responding to various situations,

[1:20:15] managing daily activities, and easily recognized as the hardworking traffic

[1:20:21] cop who has been a fixture at most of the city's events. Whereas Officer Bamer

[1:20:27] has often been complimented on his dedication to his duties, which he

[1:20:31] consistently performed with honesty, integrity, and professionalism. Now

[1:20:37] therefore, it is hereby proclaimed that on this 10th day of August, 2026, and on

[1:20:42] the occasion of his retirement on September 1st, 2026,

[1:20:47] which is also the city's anniversary. So, the city of Wildwood hereby

[1:20:52] recognizes John Bamer for his 26 years of outstanding service in law

[1:20:57] enforcement and thanks him for his dedication to the residents of Wildwood.

[1:21:02] Congratulations. Thank you.

[1:21:55] Well, I do want to say don't go anywhere. You're going to talk, too. All

[1:21:59] right. And and Captain Mandelle, but I uh it it is uh I'm excited for your new

[1:22:07] step in your retirement here. Uh that's an exciting time, you know, when to

[1:22:11] retire and what you have ahead. I imagine you may have some ideas of what

[1:22:16] you plan to do. Uh but it's also sad for us here because Officer Bamer is a

[1:22:23] recognizable face in the city of Wildwood. Uh when I first got involved

[1:22:29] in Wildwood city government, that was back in 2015, so it's about 11 years

[1:22:34] ago. Um it's he is one of the faces that I got to know. he would always come to

[1:22:40] the meetings um and sit watch the meetings uh we we have officers as you

[1:22:47] see here in the evening. So uh you know it was great because he he got to see uh

[1:22:53] local government at work uh and especially back in those days you got

[1:22:57] your entertainment with it as well. So, um, you know, we we've been through a

[1:23:03] lot in this city and you've been here. Uh, the residents recognize you and know

[1:23:09] you, um, as we read in the proclamation, you're in the you're you're a traffic

[1:23:14] cop, too, uh, at times. And so, I'm sure you had to deal with folks that may not

[1:23:20] have been as happy when, uh, you had to stop them, but, uh, you know, comes with

[1:23:25] the job. So, uh, we are extremely grateful for your dedication. You're

[1:23:32] going to be missed and, uh, we hope that you will come back to see us in

[1:23:37] Wildwood. Uh, but we're excited that you get to enjoy your retirement and

[1:23:42] hopefully have some great big, uh, plans ahead. So, thank you so much for your

[1:23:47] service. Uh, and I'm going to let you speak because I think you certainly

[1:23:52] might want to say something, but you probably got a lot of good stories, too.

[1:23:56] I I I'm sure uh, you know, you've heard a lot of excuses, whether it's in

[1:24:01] traffic or or just what you've gotten to in a call. So, yeah, if you have

[1:24:06] anything interesting you want to share about your 26 years on the job, what

[1:24:10] what's one moment that stands out? Uh, I think we'd love to hear it. So, go

[1:24:14] ahead. >> Well, thank you, Mayor and Council.

[1:24:17] Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you very much, Captain. Thank you. Um, there's so

[1:24:22] many stories, it's hard to keep track, you know, but it's been actually an

[1:24:26] honor in working out in Wildwood. It's it's totally totally been, you know,

[1:24:31] great experience working for the city of Wildwood. Uh, you know, working out the

[1:24:35] Wildwood, I even got a nickname, you know, the black heart. I've got

[1:24:39] nicknames because I wrote so many tickets, you know, even on Mother's Day,

[1:24:43] I wrote 15 tickets. They called me the Mother's Day Marada. I got nickname. by

[1:24:47] a coworker. So, I've got a lot of nicknames that, you know, goes on and on

[1:24:51] and on. But, you know, there's, you know, it it's been great working for

[1:24:55] City of Wildwood and, you know, and everybody here in the council and the

[1:24:59] city. It's been, you know, great. >> Great. Thank you so much.

[1:25:10] » He's been truly a part of the family uh here in Wildwood. I'm going to uh let

[1:25:16] Captain Mandel say a few words and >> thank you. Uh

[1:25:23] traffic enforcement is a necessity obviously in the Wildwood uh as I hear

[1:25:27] from many of the council people. Uh we want traffic enforcement and uh John was

[1:25:33] one of those guys that did that job uh every day. Uh always with a smile on his

[1:25:38] face. Uh and as the mayor mentioned, it's not a popular uh job, not popular

[1:25:43] interaction. Um prior to my assignment here, going back some time, I was a

[1:25:48] supervisor of our uh highway safety unit. And that that groups, that's all

[1:25:53] they did was write tickets. And you know, to their credit, uh I could count

[1:25:59] on one hand how many times, you know, I got a complaint on those officers. And

[1:26:03] that's what they did every day, all day. And and John is the same way. uh that

[1:26:08] that just shows professionalism. They do the job right. Uh they they do it uh in

[1:26:14] a professional manner. They treat people with respect and and they get the job

[1:26:18] done. So, he was one of the my go-tos. So, I got to look for a new go-to on on

[1:26:22] some stuff now, but uh he's done a great job and I appreciate him being here.

[1:26:27] Thanks, John. Yeah.

[1:26:32] » Well, thank you very much for uh again serving the city and and don't go too

[1:26:38] far. Okay. Come and visit us. All right. And uh we will have uh a special

[1:26:45] proclamation next month. Uh we just learned uh Captain Mandelle who has

[1:26:50] served our city for eight years. Um we you know the St. Louis County police,

[1:26:54] they do rotate uh their staff, their leadership. So he is going to be moving

[1:27:00] on to an exciting assignment. Um so earlier in the work session this evening

[1:27:06] we we got to meet the new incoming commander of the precinct, Captain Shana

[1:27:10] Ostendorf, who will be uh starting her new assignment um actually what this

[1:27:16] Sunday I believe. So um we're going to recognize Captain Mandelle who has

[1:27:21] served the city for eight years at our next council meeting uh next month. So,

[1:27:26] uh, we want to thank you for that. Um, but again, uh, we also will miss you

[1:27:30] very much. So, uh, thanks again for this. We're going to resume our meeting.

[1:27:53] Okay, moving on in the agenda. We do not have any items under section 7

[1:27:58] communications petitions. So we'll move on to section 8 all business under

[1:28:03] legislation. We have three bills. We'll handle these separately. Uh first bill

[1:28:08] uh is bill 3070 and before the council for a second reading concerns ward one

[1:28:18] and I get a motion for the second reading of bill 3070

[1:28:24] made by council member Owen. Is there a second made by council member means. Um

[1:28:31] all those in favor please say I. >> I.

[1:28:34] » All right. Uh, Colleen, please go ahead and read bill 3070.

[1:28:39] » Bill 3070, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, amending chapter

[1:28:44] 390, traffic section 12 of the municipal code of the city of Wildwood

[1:28:50] by establishing a regulation of the kinds and classes of traffic permitted

[1:28:55] on Wild Horse Creek Road. >> Okay. Thank you. Now, uh, Director

[1:29:00] Brown, we do, uh, call you up, but I know that there is, uh, Council Member

[1:29:04] Owen who would like to make a motion related to this item. Uh, go ahead and

[1:29:10] » Yeah. Um, I think last in last month's meeting, we talked about um enhancing

[1:29:16] this uh, particular bill or regulation to include more traffic beyond just

[1:29:23] tractor trailers. So, I'd like to make a motion that we refer this back to the

[1:29:28] board of public safety for further review uh to see if we can not only

[1:29:32] include tractor trailers in this, but other type of commercial vehicles. And

[1:29:36] as stated last month, my concern is for the public safety of our cyclists as

[1:29:41] much as our uh vehicle traffic on Wild Horse Creek. Um, many of us ride that

[1:29:46] road and find uh dump trucks cutting through or other type of commercial

[1:29:51] vehicles and I'd like to see if we can find a way to restrict more traffic than

[1:29:56] just the tractor trailer. So, that's my motion is refer back to the board of

[1:29:59] public safety to see if we can enhance it.

[1:30:02] » Okay. Um, so we do have a motion be made on the floor. Um, and and is there

[1:30:07] anyone that wishes to second that motion to send it back to board of public

[1:30:10] safety made by council member Robleski? So, uh, the motion is on the floor.

[1:30:16] Rick, since, uh, I knew this was coming, spared you a little bit from getting

[1:30:19] into this, um, knowing that there was a request to send this back. But do you

[1:30:23] have anything else you wish to say? >> Um, mayor, I do not. And Bill, for any

[1:30:27] questions, otherwise the next meeting of public safety is Thursday evening.

[1:30:32] » Okay. So, with that then, uh, since we have this motion, all those in favor of

[1:30:36] the motion to send it back to board of public safety, please say I. I.

[1:30:40] » I. >> Anyone oppose or abstain?

[1:30:42] » Okay. This will go to board of public safety and we should see it then come

[1:30:47] back to us. Uh moving on, bill 3072 is before the council for second reading

[1:30:53] and concerns ward one. Is there a motion for the second reading of bill 3072

[1:31:02] made by council member Alers. Is there a second? Made by council member Robelki.

[1:31:07] All those in favor please say I. >> I.

[1:31:09] » I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Okay. Colleen, please go ahead and read bill

[1:31:14] 3072. >> Bill 3072, an ordinance by the city

[1:31:19] council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the the change in

[1:31:23] zoning in association with four properties that form a 10.43 43 acre

[1:31:29] tract of land from the NU non-urban residence district

[1:31:35] to the R6A 4000 ft residence district with a planned residential development

[1:31:41] overlay district PRD all being located on the north side of Manchester Road

[1:31:47] historic Route 66 west of State Route 109 thereby allowing for up to 62

[1:31:53] attached single family dwellings of which no more than four of These units

[1:31:58] being a single building cluster while being supported by an associated street

[1:32:03] and pedestrian network, storm water management facilities and required

[1:32:08] public spaces. All of such consistent with the town center regulating

[1:32:13] regulating plans designation of the property as neighborhood general and

[1:32:17] edge districts as well as being endorsed by the planning and zoning commission in

[1:32:22] its letter of recommendation dated June 1, 2026

[1:32:26] PZ 2 and 2A-26. Mia Bella in car in care of Doug Nance

[1:32:33] Lombardo Homes of St. Louis LLC.

[1:32:38] » Okay. Uh, Director Vunich. >> Mr. Mayor, just to recap, this

[1:32:42] particular item was presented at public hearing at the city council's last

[1:32:47] meeting on July 13th. As part of that process, the bill was also introduced

[1:32:55] and read for the first time. There have been no changes to the bill that was

[1:33:00] presented as part of that process. If there are any questions, department

[1:33:05] would be glad to answer them. And just a note, for the planned residential

[1:33:10] development overlay district to be approved, it does require a super

[1:33:14] majority of city council members in support. Okay.

[1:33:19] » Okay. Uh Director Vunish, thank you for providing that clarification.

[1:33:24] And again, this uh is in Town Center, so falls under the Town Center rules.

[1:33:30] » Yes. Um this particular property has been part of Town Center since its

[1:33:34] inception. it was part of Andre Dwani's team inclusion and during the updates um

[1:33:42] it has been retained. I would note that this particular site more so than most

[1:33:49] and I would probably categorize it as the same as the department development

[1:33:53] that's occurring at Taylor Road and Main Street. It's very unique in that it

[1:33:58] adjoins Pond School on the east, the new development, the reserve at Wildwood to

[1:34:04] the north and west and across the street are two institutional uses, places of

[1:34:10] worship and a 7 acre property on the corner of Route 109 and Manchester Road

[1:34:18] that has commercial zoning. So relatively speaking, you have a

[1:34:23] residential project that really doesn't join much other residential.

[1:34:29] » Uh director Vun is just maybe one more explanation. Uh just a question I'd

[1:34:33] heard uh you know it is non-urban but everything has been non- urban obviously

[1:34:39] right I mean >> yes

[1:34:41] » collectively in 1965 St. Louis County Council said everything

[1:34:45] west of Lindberg we're going to reszone to match our new updated zoning

[1:34:49] ordinance and for the most part as I mentioned west of Lindberg Boulevard a

[1:34:54] non- urban district was established it was truly a holding category the intent

[1:35:01] was to designate all properties with a district but that district was a holding

[1:35:06] category so as development went from the center so to speak north west and house.

[1:35:13] The pattern would establish what the future land use would be on adjoining

[1:35:18] properties. They didn't necessarily have a land use plan per se. The zoning was

[1:35:24] the land use plan. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions or

[1:35:29] comments from council? Uh council member Rambo.

[1:35:32] » Yeah, real quickly. Um Joe, this is a geography quiz. I was um

[1:35:38] approaching this with the clear understanding that it was in Town

[1:35:44] Center. Um and um but the some of the drawings say it's on T Highway and some

[1:35:51] of them say it's on Old Manchester. And so my question is could you please make

[1:35:56] that distinction for me just for my own edification?

[1:35:59] » Well, if there's any reference to St. Alburn's Road and State Highway T,

[1:36:02] that's a mistake on the department's part. I'll accept that responsibility.

[1:36:07] Lombardo Homes >> on the actual drawings um the the site

[1:36:12] plan, the site development plan, etc. >> Yeah,

[1:36:14] » Lombardo Homes is doing the 14 3acre lots out at State Highway T and Route

[1:36:20] 100. Okay. >> So, there may be some confusion just

[1:36:25] getting the notes correct, so to speak. So, this is in town center. It adjoins

[1:36:32] Old Pound School. >> Okay. to let them know because their

[1:36:34] their their their map in the upper right hand corner is clearly an error.

[1:36:40] » I will certainly pass it on and I know Lombardo's homes has representatives

[1:36:45] here tonight, so I'm sure they'll correct it.

[1:36:47] » Thank you. >> Before the next submitt.

[1:36:50] » Okay. Anyone else uh with the question or any comments uh with this bill that

[1:36:55] we have on the floor? >> Thank you.

[1:36:57] » Okay. As a reminder, uh Director Vundes did say this is a plan residential

[1:37:01] development. So, in order to pass, it requires a super majority. Um, all

[1:37:06] right. Seeing no other discussion, Colleen, roll call.

[1:37:10] » Council member Rablooki, >> yes.

[1:37:12] » Council member Traier, >> yes.

[1:37:15] » Council member Ottenberg, >> yes.

[1:37:17] » Council member Means, >> yes.

[1:37:19] » Council member Crayons, >> yes.

[1:37:21] » Council member Alers, >> yes.

[1:37:23] » Council member Owen. >> Council member Mabberry,

[1:37:28] » yes. >> Council member Nyan,

[1:37:30] » yes. Council member Dodwell, >> yes.

[1:37:32] » Council member Marshall, >> yes.

[1:37:34] » Council member Rambo, >> yes.

[1:37:36] » Council member Vanic, >> yes.

[1:37:37] » Council member CR, >> yes.

[1:37:41] » Colleen, we got more than 11. All right. Okay. Mill passes. Uh, moving on then.

[1:37:46] Uh, we'll go to bill 3074. Uh, can I get a motion for uh the second

[1:37:53] reading of bill 307 W 74 and concerns all wards made by council member

[1:38:01] Dodwell, seconded by council member Attenburg. All those in favor, please

[1:38:04] say I. >> I.

[1:38:07] » Okay. Please read uh bill 3074. Bill 3074,

[1:38:13] an ordinance of the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, hereby

[1:38:18] endorsing and ratifying the final draft of the Wildwood Historic Preservation

[1:38:23] Plan, which has been under development by this community since January 2025,

[1:38:28] and subject to a rigorous set of public input processes, multiple reviews by

[1:38:34] city officials and others, and now completed so as to allow it to be

[1:38:39] implemented to better integrate its goals. goals and strategic actions into

[1:38:44] the city's long-standing master planning efforts related governmental processes

[1:38:49] and associated community initiatives all being consistent with the planning and

[1:38:54] zoning commission's letter of recommendation dated July 6, 2026 on

[1:38:59] this matter PZ9-26 city of Wildwood planning and zoning

[1:39:04] commission and care of the department of planning.

[1:39:09] Director Vunage, do you have anything else you wish to add?

[1:39:11] » Mr. Mayor, the bill has remained unchanged since its introduction

[1:39:15] approximately one month ago. If there are any questions or comments regarding

[1:39:20] the bill or the plan itself, the Department of Planning will do its best

[1:39:23] to answer them at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have anyone that has any

[1:39:28] questions or comments related to this bill?

[1:39:31] » Okay. Seeing none, uh, go ahead and please proceed with roll call.

[1:39:36] » Council member Tier. >> Yes. Council member Utenberg,

[1:39:39] » yes. >> Council member Means,

[1:39:41] » yes. >> Council member Crayons,

[1:39:43] » yes. >> Council member Elers,

[1:39:45] » yes. >> Council member Owen,

[1:39:47] » Council Member Mabberry, >> yes.

[1:39:49] » Council member Nyan, >> yes.

[1:39:51] » Council member Dodwell, >> yes.

[1:39:52] » Council member Marshall, >> yes.

[1:39:54] » Council member Rambo, >> yes.

[1:39:55] » Council member Vanic, >> yes.

[1:39:57] » Council member CR, >> yes.

[1:39:59] » Council member Roblooski, >> yes.

[1:40:01] » Okay, bill passes. Moving on then to new business uh legislation.

[1:40:06] We have two bills uh listed for tonight. If there's no objection from the

[1:40:11] council, I'd like to uh have these read and mass

[1:40:16] and then I will be following up with the request for second reading of bill 3075

[1:40:24] uh which is related to a uh stream gauge. So uh no objection for sec uh

[1:40:29] reading these two in mass. I don't see any. So, can I get a motion for the

[1:40:33] first reading of bills 3075 and bills uh and bill 3076?

[1:40:40] Council member Marshall uh with the motion and seconded by council member

[1:40:44] CR. All those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:40:48] » I. Go ahead and please read the bills. Bill 3075, an ordinance of the city of

[1:40:55] Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a site

[1:40:59] access agreement for stream gauge monitoring with the state of Missouri

[1:41:04] and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to allow for the installation

[1:41:09] and maintenance of a stream gauge monitoring station to be located on Wild

[1:41:13] Horse Creek Road, bridge number 392 over Pilman Creek, which will provide real

[1:41:19] time flood data and track flood conditions on Wild Horse Creek within

[1:41:24] the city of Wildwood. Bill 3076, an ordinance of the city council of the

[1:41:30] city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a deed, legal description, and accompany

[1:41:36] accompanying exhibit B for the dedication of 4,937

[1:41:41] square foot of common ground area, now owned by the Homeowners Association of

[1:41:47] Hickory Manor, Village D, to the city of Wildwood, Missouri, for public rideway

[1:41:52] purposes forever and to be used in conjunction with the development of a

[1:41:57] pedestrian and cycling multipleuse trail that will link Town Center with Green

[1:42:02] Pines Park. >> All right. Uh we'll have uh the first

[1:42:06] item, the city administrator Lee, do you wish to speak to that?

[1:42:10] » Yes. Thank you, mayor. Uh, bill 305 um contains an ordinance that would allow

[1:42:15] the city to enter into agreement with Missouri DNR um to allow them to install

[1:42:20] a stream gauge monitor over near Pullman Road off of Wild Horse Creek. Um, this

[1:42:27] isn't going to cost the city anything. And the one thing that we were able to

[1:42:31] get them to agree to as well is if they were to make um any adjustments to it in

[1:42:36] the future um or they needed to update the tech or access it where it would

[1:42:40] require a road change or a road closure or anything along those lines, they

[1:42:43] would notify the city and get the proper permits. So, nonetheless, all this is

[1:42:47] doing is allowing them to put a stream gauge on um on the bridge. The good news

[1:42:52] is that once this stream gauge is uh attached to the bridge, we'll be able to

[1:42:56] access a URL on their website um to track the the level of the stream at any

[1:43:01] given time. And the goal is going to be if there's ever flooding, which this is

[1:43:04] a notorious uh area that has flash flooding in Wildwood, um whenever we do

[1:43:10] see when we tend to observe those conditions in the field, we're going to

[1:43:14] be tracking what the water level is at that location so we can get a better

[1:43:18] grasp of when it is flooding. So, great great news. Glad that MDNR is doing

[1:43:22] this. And just a quick shout out to um Les Cruz with Monarch Fire Protection

[1:43:27] District, too, because he was the one that got in touch with um got in touch

[1:43:31] with the MDNR and got them interested in the first place. So, just wanted to make

[1:43:35] a quick shout out there, but no cost to the city. Thank you.

[1:43:39] » Thank you. Uh any questions? Again, this is for information at this time. Council

[1:43:43] member Dodwell, >> is this an in perpetuity setup or a

[1:43:48] certain timeline? Yeah. So they they would have it in they'd have it

[1:43:52] installed in perpetuity. I believe it's uh for 10 years if I'm correct that

[1:43:55] they're starting with, but I think it would be for Yeah, it should be for a

[1:43:59] longer period of time. Um the key is if they were to update it because

[1:44:02] technology does change. Um and if they want to do that, they would reach out to

[1:44:05] us and coordinate the proper installation, but nonetheless, um it

[1:44:09] seems like they're doing this across the state. They have uh numerous locations

[1:44:14] already, but it's almost like the cities have to reach out to them to kind of get

[1:44:18] that first initial interest, but seeing this grow and they're actually trying to

[1:44:21] expand the website. We'll definitely share that with the committee and

[1:44:24] council at a future date, but it is a very great tool and we're happy MDNR is

[1:44:27] doing it. >> Great. Any uh council member Owen? So,

[1:44:32] I'll just say being being the out in Ward One on Wild Horse Creek, I know

[1:44:37] exactly where this is going in and uh that road when we do get excessive rains

[1:44:42] on Wild Horse, that's where it comes out. It's right on that bend at the

[1:44:46] Pilman Creek input. Uh my wife has had to turn back at that particular location

[1:44:52] just recently. So, I think it's going to be helpful for us to understand what the

[1:44:55] water levels are, not only when it comes out of the creek, so we can determine,

[1:44:59] you know, if there's anything we need to do to rectify that or if potentially we

[1:45:03] could tie that into future signage that would just come on to let people know

[1:45:07] there was flooding or at least notify us here at city hall so that we could send

[1:45:11] police down there to put signs up or something. So, I I was really excited

[1:45:14] about it when it came up.

[1:45:19] Uh, council member Marshall >> that there are signs going in. Um, did

[1:45:24] we not approve that to put the signs in that stress it's high water?

[1:45:28] » Yep. There will be signs installed there and it's it's will be flashing when

[1:45:32] there is water that's on the road. This is just an added bonus if you will to be

[1:45:35] able to better >> and this has also got to help us when it

[1:45:37] comes for a water erosion at least one area to start on the northern side to

[1:45:42] see if we can't work it down. So, anytime we can get that kind of help and

[1:45:45] tie those different departments in, I think it's a great way to go forward.

[1:45:48] Agreed. >> Council member Rambo.

[1:45:51] » Yeah. Um, some of y'all know I do a lot of paddling and I've been availing

[1:45:56] myself of these um these gauges for probably four decades. They had a

[1:46:02] primitive one on the St. Francis. That was the first place, but now they're

[1:46:05] going in all over. And I I just checked one on the upper Js Fork because a

[1:46:11] friend of mine lives there and we were going to paddle it, but it's the water

[1:46:14] is sometimes not that high. Um I'm saying that to say that um that the the

[1:46:21] data have that you get from these things has dramatically improved. Now you get

[1:46:27] graphs and so forth of what the history was and whatnot. And to Ed's point, uh

[1:46:32] this will be um immensely valuable to us as we try to get people more aware of

[1:46:38] the fact that we've got flooding issues. And um you know here is what they don't

[1:46:43] have to they no longer have to wait to watch a horse float by on the news. They

[1:46:48] can see it graphically and if we publicize this on our website I think it

[1:46:53] will be really really helpful. And um the the DNR has a um the next parcel

[1:46:58] over my great grandpa's parcel from from me um has the test well for that entire

[1:47:04] area of the county and I look at it all the time just because it tells me what

[1:47:07] my aquifer is doing and so on and so forth. and um they provide water quality

[1:47:11] information and all this kind of stuff. So, this is a this is a wonderful thing

[1:47:15] and I'm thrilled that it's that it's free and I'm I'm thrilled to support it.

[1:47:19] Anyway, that's it. >> Thank you, Council Member Rambo. I I

[1:47:23] thought you were going to start off by saying that you pulled a horse out of

[1:47:26] the creek. Uh >> no, but remember that a few years ago on

[1:47:30] Fox Creek? >> Uh they've had gators, I think, or you

[1:47:35] know, quite interesting. Uh >> all right. Well, anyway, um always

[1:47:40] interested uh in your outdoors adventures, Council Member Rambo. So, um

[1:47:45] any other questions or comments? All right. Uh seeing none, then that'll be

[1:47:49] back. Uh but we actually we will come back to that just momentarily because

[1:47:53] city administrator said um he would like to ask for a second reading since

[1:47:57] there's no monetary impact. Um the second uh item that we read, bill 3076.

[1:48:05] Uh, Director Vunage, do you have anything you would like to add?

[1:48:10] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And certainly, if there are more detailed questions, Mr.

[1:48:14] Brown, our director of public works, has been um intimately involved in the trail

[1:48:19] project itself, which is necessitating the purchase of this area of future

[1:48:25] rideway. As you know, the the Department of

[1:48:29] Public Works was successful in obtaining a grant from the East West Gateway

[1:48:33] Council of Governments to extend the multipleuse trail that terminates at the

[1:48:37] northern edge of the villages at Brightleaf South to Green Pines Park. To

[1:48:43] make the trail functional, an area of common ground in conjunction with

[1:48:48] Hickory Manor subdivision was necessary through negotiation. The common ground

[1:48:54] is to be deed as public right away to the city of Wildwood and I believe Mr.

[1:48:59] Brown is under some duress in terms of timing. So both Mr. Brown and I would

[1:49:05] respectfully request that city council consider a second reading of this bill

[1:49:10] tonight. And if there are any questions, both Mr. Brown and I are available.

[1:49:14] Thank you. >> Okay. Any questions or uh comments

[1:49:19] related to this? Otherwise, we're going to move into uh second reading.

[1:49:23] » All right. So, uh any objection if we do a second reading of both of these bills

[1:49:28] tonight. >> All right. Then, uh and I got a motion

[1:49:32] for a second reading of bills 3075 and 3076.

[1:49:37] Council member Dodwell. Is there a second on the motion? Council member

[1:49:41] Nyan. All those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:49:44] » I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Okay. Colleen, can you read uh both of these

[1:49:49] bills for the second time? Bill 3075, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood,

[1:49:54] Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a site access

[1:49:59] agreement for stream gauge monitoring with the state of Missouri and the

[1:50:03] Missouri Department of Natural Resources to allow for the installation and

[1:50:08] maintenance of a stream gauge monitoring station to be located on Wild Horse

[1:50:12] Creek Road, bridge number 392 over Pilman Creek, which will provide real

[1:50:18] time flood data and track flood conditions on Wild Horse Creek within

[1:50:23] the city of Wildwood. Bill 3076, an ordinance of the city council of the

[1:50:29] city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a deed legal description in accompanying

[1:50:35] exhibit exhibit exhibit B for the dedication of 4,937

[1:50:41] square ft of common ground area, now owned by the homeowners association of

[1:50:46] Hickory Manor Village D to the city of Wildwood, Missouri for public rightway

[1:50:52] purposes forever and to be used in conjunction function with the

[1:50:56] development of a pedestrian and cycling multipleuse trail that will link Town

[1:51:01] Center to Green Pines Park. >> All right. Do we have any other

[1:51:05] questions uh or comments with the both of these bills?

[1:51:10] All right. Seeing none, uh Colleen, then uh roll call, please.

[1:51:15] » Council member Utenberg, >> yes.

[1:51:17] » Council member Means, >> yes.

[1:51:19] » Council member Crayons, >> yes.

[1:51:20] » Council member Alers, >> yes.

[1:51:22] » Council member Owen, >> yes. Council member Mabberry,

[1:51:25] » yes. >> Council member Nyan,

[1:51:27] » yes. >> Council member Dodwell,

[1:51:29] » yes. >> Council member Marshall,

[1:51:30] » yes. >> Council member Rambo,

[1:51:32] » yes. >> Council member Vanic,

[1:51:34] » yes. >> Council member CR,

[1:51:35] » yes. >> Okay, moving along. Uh, we do not have

[1:51:39] anything under uh section 10 of the agenda. And oh,

[1:51:45] » oh, do we did we miss you? Okay.

[1:51:52] » Yes. Thank you.

[1:51:54] » Yes. >> Okay. Yep. That that matters. Um luckily

[1:52:01] it was not down to being close. So, right. So, uh Okay. Well, that passes.

[1:52:06] So, we're moving along. Um we we do not have anything under section 10 of the

[1:52:10] agenda and 11 will be part of the consent agenda. Is there uh any

[1:52:14] objection with the consent agenda as presented?

[1:52:19] Okay. Then uh can I get a motion for approval of the consent agenda made by

[1:52:24] council member Trier? Is there a second on the um made by council member Rambo?

[1:52:30] All those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:52:33] » Anyone opposed or abstain? All right, that motion passes. Uh

[1:52:38] anything under miscellaneous? All right, Council Member Marshall,

[1:52:42] » I was have going back through some old files and I'd like to make a motion that

[1:52:47] the council looks at a request for quotes or an RFP for legal services.

[1:52:54] It's we did it last time in 2015, so it's been 11 years and I think

[1:53:00] technologies changed, probably our needs have changed, but I'd like to propose

[1:53:04] that we as a council review that. I remember and I'm sure we have the

[1:53:09] records of the [clears throat] different questions and what we requested in the

[1:53:13] last review, but I think 11 years we we should take another stab at it and see

[1:53:18] if we could update the service expectations that we have. So, I'd like

[1:53:22] to make that motion. >> Okay. I would refer that to the admin

[1:53:25] and public works committee. That's the purview of that committee. So, if

[1:53:30] there's no objection, >> I don't care who does it. I just like

[1:53:32] the council can make a motion to do it and then we could get it into the budget

[1:53:35] this year.

[1:53:39] Well, again, I would have the admin public works committee look into the

[1:53:43] matter. So, I would request a motion be that the uh admin public works committee

[1:53:48] look into the matter of legal services. >> I'll change that.

[1:53:51] » I'll change my original motion to do that.

[1:53:54] » So, refer a motion uh if it would be appropriate, refer the motion of uh

[1:54:00] reviewing legal services to the admin public works committee. Um, is there a

[1:54:04] second on that motion made by council mry? Um, all those in favor, please say

[1:54:09] I. >> I.

[1:54:10] » I. I. >> Anyone oppose or abstain?

[1:54:14] » Abstain. >> Okay. One abstension. All right. So,

[1:54:16] we'll send that over to Edmond Public Works to look at to that. And uh,

[1:54:21] anything else under miscellaneous? Okay. A motion to adjurnn.

[1:54:29] Okay. Council member CR and seconded by Council Member Dodwell. All those in

[1:54:33] favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:54:35] » All right. Uh May meeting is adjourned. We do need to continue with the work

[1:54:41] session. Uh let me see. Do we have anyone that would like to uh pause

[1:54:46] momentarily for a few minutes or or do we want to move right into the work

[1:54:50] session again? All right, we're going to keep going.

[1:54:55] So, we're going to go back to uh the item that was being discussed under the

[1:55:00] work session, which is

[1:55:05] related to the the archery hunting regulations and deer management policy.

[1:55:11] So, um city administrator Lee. >> Yep. So, picking up on the conversation

[1:55:16] that was left off, I will mention um that we have uh we haven't necessarily

[1:55:22] been keeping close contact with White Buffalo. We did talk with them and um I

[1:55:26] know that was mentioned to make sure it was in time. They still have the ability

[1:55:30] in January and parts of February right now, but u we have been not reaching out

[1:55:36] to them as much because we have not given direction by the council. So, one

[1:55:39] thing there. Um that said, we were told that uh from them in an earlier stage

[1:55:44] that we would most likely need to have our, you know, our ducks in a row with

[1:55:47] an agreement um earlier in the season this year if we were wanting to secure

[1:55:51] them for services. And what is considered earlier in the

[1:55:57] season? What's our do we have like a deadline we need to be working towards

[1:56:00] if we want to do that? >> Yeah, they would I would

[1:56:05] well uh I would say that we would need to have it based on the discussions we

[1:56:09] had with them last year um and also of recently when they had called um we

[1:56:14] would want to have something in hand October.

[1:56:17] No coming up. >> Council member Donwell,

[1:56:21] » I'd like to make a motion that we uh have the city administrator move forward

[1:56:26] with engaging White Buffalo for our deer management for the 2026

[1:56:32] 27 year as we continue to work with our

[1:56:37] hunting regulations for our bow hunters.

[1:56:44] So, we have a motion on the floor. Um, and council member Owen, you're second

[1:56:50] the motion. Can we make sure everyone's clear? Colleen, do you have that?

[1:56:54] » Okay. Uh, everyone understand the motion? Motion's on the floor for

[1:56:58] discussion now. Does anyone wish to discuss at this time?

[1:57:04] Council member Alers. >> No sense in rushing this either. Thank

[1:57:08] you. Okay,

[1:57:13] » I don't get it. >> I said no sense in rushing this action

[1:57:20] either. >> All right. Um, anyone else? Any other

[1:57:25] discussion on the matter related to the motion on the floor?

[1:57:29] » Um, okay. Um,

[1:57:33] » let's see. We're We're discussing. Yeah. So, I'm just trying to decide who is up

[1:57:37] first. Um, all right. Council member Dodwell then and then we'll come back to

[1:57:40] Council Member Vanic. >> The reason I brought this forward is

[1:57:44] because I live in Ward 4. It was the one of the first areas for the deer

[1:57:49] management project. Um, prior to the start of that project, we had, and I've

[1:57:55] said this multiple times, we had herds of 20 deer, two to three herds every day

[1:58:02] coming through the dense side of the city. Um we are

[1:58:07] now back up to about um 8 to 10 deer. The whole plan for the program was that

[1:58:16] we would pick a new spot and then we would also do follow-up visits to some

[1:58:22] of the previously hit areas because this is a practice that's going to have to

[1:58:27] continue forward. Uh while I fully support uh where we're headed with um

[1:58:33] the bow hunting and to provide our residents with more um options for bow

[1:58:39] hunting in our densely populated areas. I am concerned about bow hunting. I have

[1:58:48] had residents uh come to me personally as a council

[1:58:53] member because they've had deer come into their yard space from off of streer

[1:58:58] areas where deer hunting is possible on 3 acres

[1:59:02] and deer have moved into more of the dense subdivisions and fallen dead in

[1:59:10] those areas. So, I just want to make sure that we do not do away with the

[1:59:15] deer culling. Um, that we have professional individuals doing that in a

[1:59:25] quick, humane, and concerted effort. While I understand the

[1:59:31] cost for that, I think a lot of the taxpayers in Ward four and five and um

[1:59:38] probably even a couple of others really appreciate the fact that we uh reduce

[1:59:44] the number of deer uh in the area. So, I'm just going to continue to push for

[1:59:48] that and I hope that we can come to some decision on moving forward with the 20

[1:59:55] 6 27 year before um White Buffalo gets booked.

[2:00:03] » All right, Council Member Vanic and then uh Council Member Rambo, were you

[2:00:07] wishing to speak on the matter or >> Okay, so Council Member Vanic.

[2:00:12] » Okay. Uh this question is probably directed towards Mr. Young, that's a

[2:00:17] procedural question and uh a motion's been made that wasn't

[2:00:25] specifically identified within the within the agenda that we'd be voting on

[2:00:29] this tonight. Um, and without public input, uh,

[2:00:36] are are we, if we move forward with this, would we

[2:00:42] be in violation of the sunshine laws and letting the public giving them 24-hour

[2:00:49] notice give their input to to such a motion

[2:00:54] » on this particular item? because as I understand it, it is within the subject

[2:00:59] matter of an agenda item. Uh and further action will be required go before the

[2:01:06] city council uh which would then allow for that public input and specificity.

[2:01:11] But that's the intent behind these work sessions is to have general topics

[2:01:16] discussion with direction for further action that would allow that that

[2:01:25] I think that was the difference. I think one other time there was a motion but

[2:01:29] that was at the main meeting if I recall. So this we're in the work

[2:01:32] session so it's not a final action at this time. Um, okay. So, yeah. And

[2:01:39] council member Trot. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just want to be clear with this

[2:01:43] motion. What What are we getting? Are we authorizing the city to engage White

[2:01:49] Buffalo? >> My uh I can speak on Mayor.

[2:01:54] » Yes. >> My interpretation of that was just to

[2:01:56] reach out to see if it's feasible if they could even come back out. not

[2:01:59] necessarily execute agreement if I misunderstood the motion but

[2:02:03] » the motion was to get a proposal from them for the upcoming year.

[2:02:09] » Okay. So that that answers my question. Thank you. Um so with that, how are we

[2:02:15] what information are we provided? What are what do we expect White Buffalo to

[2:02:19] bid on? Are we going to provide them with areas to target? Typically, I mean,

[2:02:24] we didn't carry out operations in 2026 and 2020, well, earlier this year. If

[2:02:29] they were to come back, I would recommend u they would come back with

[2:02:33] recommendation too, but would be going back pretty much to the same service

[2:02:36] area that was identified for work in 2026. The count's probably going to be

[2:02:40] different because there's going to be an adjustment in the number. That said, we

[2:02:43] still we haven't done an updated deer count either since um December of last

[2:02:47] year. >> So, would that be a component of this

[2:02:50] proposal is a updated deer count? uh they typ they could provide those

[2:02:55] services, but if that's something that the council would want us to look into,

[2:02:59] we would they can provide those services, but typically we've used a

[2:03:02] different um either the police department and then they would review

[2:03:05] the data, but someone else collecting the raw data itself just so it's it's a

[2:03:09] kind of separating out the system. >> Thank you,

[2:03:13] Council Member Rambo. >> Yeah, I had to leave unfortunately for a

[2:03:18] minute and um a lot evidently transpired. I thought this was just a um

[2:03:22] discussion of the preliminary findings and we would review the full report and

[2:03:27] make uh recommendations and decisions uh at the next uh council meeting. So, I'm

[2:03:32] a little bit behind the curve. I'm sorry for that. But um um uh I do think it's

[2:03:39] mandatory for us to do a count and figure out how to fund that. um we can

[2:03:44] do it when the deer when the leaves fall and so forth. But if we if we have any

[2:03:49] hope of doing any meaningful analysis of any problem that program that we put in

[2:03:55] place, it starts with how many deer we have, how many go away um etc. So we

[2:04:02] have we have um uh modified the um the the approach and um um modified the

[2:04:13] science beyond recognition and so forth. And I think we need to do a better job

[2:04:18] of getting that back into um into the bounds of of logic and and reason and

[2:04:24] whatever that whatever that um uh whatever that takes is the right thing

[2:04:29] to do. I have I personally just as an aside I have no objection to 1 acre

[2:04:36] versus 3 acre because it doesn't affect my ward. We I probably have the fewest

[2:04:40] homes that are on 1 acre minimums and um the the folks that are on the 1 acre and

[2:04:48] smaller lot sizes. Those are the ones that seem to be enthusiastic about that

[2:04:52] on the council. And so who the heck am I to say because it won't affect me? Um, I

[2:04:57] do have some strong observations concerning the 1acre minimums and what

[2:05:03] that would do to any other sorts of collection efforts and um what that will

[2:05:08] do to affect affect uh residents, but I will hold that until our discussions in

[2:05:15] the next couple of months. I just wanted to to um to uh say that I support the

[2:05:20] idea of counting. counting is mandatory and I support the idea of re-engaging

[2:05:25] with White Buffalo just to see what they suggest uh we ought to do. It's a nocost

[2:05:32] option and it's just a question. That's it. Thanks.

[2:05:35] » Any other discussion? Okay. Uh we do have that motion. Does

[2:05:40] anyone need the motion repeated? All right. Uh being that uh we do have I

[2:05:46] think different opinions, probably just best to do roll call so we see where we

[2:05:50] land with that. Hope. Oh, wait. Do we have

[2:05:54] » fun? >> Oh, can you read the motion again?

[2:06:00] » Um, I believe the motion was to move forward to get a proposal from White

[2:06:05] Buffalo, Farright Buffalo for the 2026 2027 Colleen season.

[2:06:13] » Again, this is not a final action since we are in the work session. Um, it would

[2:06:18] have to be uh come back and then eventually u be read read in our main

[2:06:24] meeting. >> Excuse me. Will there be an vote on

[2:06:28] the the original the original um uh >> the survey?

[2:06:33] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. We're we're coming back. I mean

[2:06:35] the motion was just brought up while we're um you know discussing.

[2:06:38] » Okay. Okay. >> Yeah.

[2:06:40] So, uh, seeing no other hands, um, we'll just do a roll call and see where we

[2:06:45] land with that. >> Council member Means,

[2:06:49] » yes. >> Council member Crayons,

[2:06:52] » I'm going to say no. >> Council member Alers,

[2:06:55] » no. >> Council member Owen,

[2:06:56] » yes. >> Council member Mabberry,

[2:06:58] » yes. >> Council member Nyan,

[2:07:00] » yes. >> Council member Dodwell,

[2:07:02] » yes. >> Council member Marshall,

[2:07:04] » yes. >> Council member Rambo,

[2:07:06] » yes. >> Council member Vanic,

[2:07:08] » no. Council member CR, >> no.

[2:07:10] » Council member Rablooki, >> no.

[2:07:13] » Council member Traier, >> no.

[2:07:15] » Council member Ottenberg, >> no.

[2:07:23] » Wow. Every time we talk about this topic, it's a tie.

[2:07:27] » Yeah. >> Um

[2:07:29] » I mean, >> my What? Wait, do we can you we have a

[2:07:35] question back here about this or >> votes?

[2:07:38] » Oh, what the vote is? >> Okay,

[2:07:41] » you need nine votes. >> Five. Is it five?

[2:07:44] » Yeah. >> Oh, okay. See if it's

[2:07:48] » still need nine. >> Wait a minute. The city attorney has uh

[2:07:52] comment. >> Yeah, you don't need nine because this

[2:07:56] is just a recommendation. Brings the board, not the approval of ordinance,

[2:07:59] but it's not a true tie because you only have seven. Next day,

[2:08:04] » it's not

[2:08:08] » Say again. >> You've got two people that are not here.

[2:08:15] » So, it's not a true tie. >> It's not a tie of the council.

[2:08:18] » What is it?

[2:08:23] » Okay. So, the city attorney says it's a failed vote. For it to be a true tie, it

[2:08:26] would be >> failed vote. So

[2:08:32] okay um so we're back to discussion here uh you know with the survey and

[2:08:38] therefore city administrator do you have anything else that you wish to add with

[2:08:42] that or >> what would you be your recommendation?

[2:08:45] » Yeah the only thing is we'll be having this will return u we are going to have

[2:08:48] the formal report come back to the city council. it'll have a little bit more

[2:08:52] information about the um give us a little bit more of a well-rounded

[2:08:56] approach on the margin of error so we can really start making some um

[2:09:00] extrapolations from the data that we have in front of us and then how that

[2:09:03] applies to the residency as a whole. U but overall I think this gives us some

[2:09:07] pretty clean direction. One thing I did want to mention though is when it does

[2:09:09] come back um we do have you know there's there's generalized questions that are

[2:09:14] in there but uh there won't necessarily be a vote on the survey except just

[2:09:20] accepting it but if there is you know conclusions or changes to the code or um

[2:09:24] changes in policy that come from this then there would be votes on that at the

[2:09:28] next work session. So the plan is um at the September work session we'll have

[2:09:31] that final report and professor names should be available for questions. Thank

[2:09:35] you.

[2:09:40] All right. So, we'll proceed then with the remainder of the agenda here. So, we

[2:09:45] do have a close session uh which we'll need to go into. So, and then we do come

[2:09:51] back out here for a miscellaneous receiving file. So, perhaps what we can

[2:09:57] do is address the miscellaneous receive and file. If there's no objection from

[2:10:02] the council, then uh once we get that out of the way, then we would go into

[2:10:08] the remaining item, which is the executive close session, and then we'll

[2:10:12] come back out after that's complete and adjourn the meeting. So, if there any

[2:10:17] any objection to changing the order of the agenda? All right. So, seeing none,

[2:10:22] go ahead with the uh miscellaneous receive and file.

[2:10:26] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of city council, before you tonight as

[2:10:30] the first item is a preliminary plat recommendation report acted upon by the

[2:10:36] planning and zoning commission at its August 3rd, 2026 meeting. The

[2:10:41] preliminary plat recommendation report supports the submitt of a plat for 15 3

[2:10:50] plus acre lots that would be located on the west side of Christy Avenue south of

[2:10:55] Manchester Road. Two of the 15 lots have existing

[2:11:00] dwellings located on them and they'll be retained and as part of the preliminary

[2:11:06] plat. The intent is to provide access from Christy Avenue to each of the lots

[2:11:13] via a private roadway that will be built to the city's rural roadway standards.

[2:11:20] There is an overall storm water management plan for the private street

[2:11:26] and each of the lots will be required to provide on-site storm water management

[2:11:31] facilities. Those typically are rock sumps or um amended soils, rain gardens,

[2:11:39] etc. The planning and zoning commission had recommended a waiver to the

[2:11:44] centralized wastewater treatment plant. That waiver was granted by resolution of

[2:11:50] this city council. So each of the lots will have on-site treatment via a

[2:11:55] individualized wastewater treatment system, septic tank and drain field. The

[2:12:01] vote by the planning and zoning commission was unanimous and if there

[2:12:05] are any questions regarding this particular project, the department be

[2:12:09] glad to answer them. And I would note that Mr. Marshall and Mayor Geritano are

[2:12:14] on the planning and zoning commission and have firsthand experience as well.

[2:12:18] So, thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:12:22] All right. Any questions? Okay. Again, this is receive and file.

[2:12:27] So, >> and the last item, Mr. Mayor and members

[2:12:30] of city council is Rockwood School District would like to build two 120

[2:12:35] foot sheds at Lafayette High School and Babler Elementary School. They are

[2:12:41] intending to use the company tough shed. And so the sheds will have lap siding,

[2:12:46] shingled roofs and complimentary colors. And the planning and zoning commission

[2:12:51] endorsed the locations as well as the architectural styles. If there are any

[2:12:56] questions regarding the two sheds, department be glad to answer them at

[2:12:59] this time. >> Any questions? Uh, Council Member Mabry,

[2:13:06] » I noticed this one. I just wondered uh why do they need two tiny sheds? What

[2:13:11] are they going to put in them? >> Well, the one at Lafayette High School

[2:13:14] is uh by the athletic fields and there is an existing shed there that looks

[2:13:20] like it's been there for a very very long time and so I believe this is a

[2:13:24] replacement and I think as was described to me there for just general storage of

[2:13:30] the equipment that they need at the athletic field. The other at Babler

[2:13:34] Elementary is next to the track in the playground. And again, my understanding

[2:13:38] is it's for storage play equipment. >> I just had a concern that if these were

[2:13:45] new installations, doesn't sound like they are. It sounds like they're

[2:13:49] replacements. Why do they need a permit to put a replacement anything in?

[2:13:53] » Uh they are considered structures. They'll be on permanent foundations. So,

[2:13:57] they'll also need a county building permit.

[2:14:00] » Even a replacement in kind. It's interesting. Um, the first thing I

[2:14:05] thought of was kids will be kids. Um, so that's a target-rich environment for

[2:14:12] finding out what's in it and then taking it if it's something a kid can use,

[2:14:15] which is game equipment. Um, I guess we're not supposed to put our nose in

[2:14:20] worrying about security for the high school. That was all I really had as a

[2:14:24] concern for admitting sheds on a sports field.

[2:14:29] That's all. Well, I will say tough sheds are some of the better constructed types

[2:14:34] that you can purchase and they usually include um security um measures, blocks,

[2:14:41] etc. And so from the perspective of the department, we wanted to make sure the

[2:14:46] location was okay and we believe the architecture for a shed is about as good

[2:14:51] as it gets. >> Thank you.

[2:14:53] » You're welcome. Thank you,

[2:14:58] » Council Member Rambo. >> Yeah, Joe. Um, we at

[2:15:05] um the folks at Pond Elementary wanted to build an outdoor uh sort of a just a

[2:15:11] rain protected area for an outdoor classroom and it wound up costing them

[2:15:16] $100,000 plus because we ran them through all these architectural um

[2:15:20] requirements and so on and so forth. that wasn't that much bigger than these

[2:15:24] sheds. Are we gonna do the same same thing with these sheds or are we just

[2:15:29] gonna let them do what they want? >> Well, in actuality, I differed opinion

[2:15:35] regarding the type of structure it was. It was a covered balcony plus storage

[2:15:42] and it involved um extending over the existing retaining wall. So, there were

[2:15:47] some structural. >> It was the foundational stuff.

[2:15:49] » Yes, >> I see. And again these are not

[2:15:53] habitable. I assume someone will go in and pick up a piece of equipment but

[2:15:58] that building or structure for upon school. Obviously children will be in it

[2:16:03] » different. Okay. Got it. But we had they had to do stone work on the base to make

[2:16:09] it look you know architecturally um appropriate and all those kinds of

[2:16:13] things. So I was just uh double checking. We are we are changing

[2:16:18] architectural review uh process. So hopefully in the future you won't have

[2:16:22] to identify that as a particular issue. >> Thank you.

[2:16:27] » Okay. Thank you director. All right. Before we uh proceed with the uh item to

[2:16:33] go into close executive session, I was uh just advised by uh the city attorney

[2:16:39] uh regarding the uh tie vote with the um motion that was made by council member

[2:16:45] Dodwell. So uh do you want to go ahead and uh explain that?

[2:16:50] » After reviewing the city code and the provisions of the city charter, I

[2:16:54] realized I was incorrect in my answer that I gave you a moment ago about the

[2:16:57] mayor's authority to break a tie. this were a situation where it was an

[2:17:00] ordinance that required nine votes, that would have been correct. However,

[2:17:04] because this is a simple motion where a majority of those present voting would

[2:17:09] uh prevail uh because the vote that landed in a tie was 77, the mayor would

[2:17:14] retain his right. I apologize. >> So therefore, um then this uh is a tie

[2:17:21] at this time and would be >> okay. So, uh, given that, um, the

[2:17:27] significant costs that are involved in this and the fact that we're in the

[2:17:31] midst of looking at a survey, um, and the fact that this has been a

[2:17:36] topic that the city has had to deal with since basically its incorporation for 30

[2:17:41] years, uh, I think at this point, uh, we're close to seeing the survey results

[2:17:46] that will help influence where we go. And therefore, uh, my vote, uh, would be

[2:17:51] on the, uh, uh, the negative side. uh regarding the matter. So again, I just

[2:17:57] uh bear with a little patience and just trying to get to what the survey says,

[2:18:02] what changes will happen. I'm also a little concerned too that um it would

[2:18:06] feel a little open-ended going to White Buffalo without us dictating exactly

[2:18:11] what the scope is. Uh and if that scope is still accurate from the last time

[2:18:16] that these documents were updated. So um that's it just would exercise caution

[2:18:23] and therefore uh vote no. Okay. So moving on then we are going to

[2:18:29] move into the executive close session and we do need to go in there for RSMO

[2:18:36] 610.021 021 section one uh legal actions, causes of

[2:18:43] action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential

[2:18:47] or privileged communications between public governmental body or its

[2:18:52] representatives and its attorneys. So, can we get a motion to go into executive

[2:18:57] close session made by council member Crayons? Is there a second made by

[2:19:01] council member Robleski? We'll need a roll call.

[2:19:08] Yes. >> Yes.

[2:19:12] » Yes. >> Yes.

[2:19:15] » Yes.

[2:19:21] » Yes. >> Yes.

[2:19:24] » Yes.

[2:19:28] » Yes. >> Yes.

[2:19:31] » Yes. >> Okay. We will move into the community

[2:19:36] room and we will come back after executive session is complete and we

[2:19:42] will conclude our main eating.

[3:28:48] return back from close executive session. Uh we don't have any other

[3:28:53] items but the adjournment. So can we get a motion to adjourn the meeting? Made by

[3:28:58] council member Dodwell, seconded by council member CR. All those in favor,

[3:29:02] please say

August 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript