[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