City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. We're going to get started. So just take a seat. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the work session of the City Council for Monday, August 10th. It is now 531, and we will start our meeting. Can we get a roll call?

Mayor Garitano.

Here.

Councilmember Wroblewski. Here. Councilmember Trottier. Here. Councilmember Ottenberg. Here. Councilmember Farmer. Councilmember Means. Here. Councilmember Bockert. Councilmember Kranz. Here. Councilmember Albers. Here. Councilmember Owen. Here. Councilmember Mabry. Here. Councilmember Nyhan. Here. Councilmember Dodwell. Here. Councilmember Marshall.

Present.

Councilmember Rambo? Here. Councilmember Vanek? Here. Councilmember Kummer?

Here.

Thank you. So we're going to move on to mayor's comments and announcements and we're going to have Captain Mandel and the incoming commander of the Wildwood Precinct, Captain Shanna Ostendorf join us here. As you may be aware, we've learned that Captain Jim Mandel who has served our city for the last eight years, and has done a great job working with our city here to serve the citizens has been reassigned to a different position with the st louis county police and we have captain shannon ostendorf who will be coming in as the new commander so i'm going to hand it over to captain mundell so he can share more about this update

One of the longer-standing captains in a position at almost eight years. Usually at about five years, the chief likes to move folks around for different experiences and different opportunities. So we obviously had a change of chiefs back in June. So he's realigning his command staff and I am fortunate enough to have been chosen to move on to a different assignment. Captain Ossendorf and I have known each other for quite some time. When I was a supervisor of our highway safety unit, Shannon worked for me as one of my traffic officers. So we have a great rapport, a long history of knowing each other and working together.

feel very comfortable uh turning over the reins to uh the captain ossendorf so i will let her uh take it from here good evening thank you for having me thank you for this opportunity uh to come speak with you tonight i'll keep it short i know you guys have a long agenda ahead of you this evening um so i'm i have 27 years on with the county police department on with st louis county um obviously i started out in patrol i spent time in our highway safety unit um i've spent five years in the city of fenton as an officer i spent 10 months in the city of valley park as the commander as a lieutenant so i'm familiar with budgets on the city what the city wants what the city needs answering phone calls all time day and night from mayor council council members etc And then for the last 15 months, I've spent in our Intelligence Operations Bureau. So all the secretive stuff and all the behind the scenes type things. I'm really looking forward to this opportunity, getting to know everyone and working with everyone to make Wildwood the safest place in St. Louis County. Thank you. Any questions?

Yeah. Well, thank you Captain Ostendorf and welcome to Wildwood. We're excited to introduce you to our city and we look forward for you to bring your years of experience here. So again, want to extend a warm welcome. I'll check to see if we have any council members that have any comments, or if you have a question, this would be a good time. Just raise your hand. We have council member Rob Rambo.

Yes, I'd just like to thank Captain Mundell for his wonderful service. It's just been great to deal with and always pleasant and always responsive. And I think he deserves our gratitude.

Great. Thank you, Councilmember Rambo. And I did share with Captain Mundell, as we just learned about this news last week, we will schedule a recognition for him at our next meeting next month. So we'll take that opportunity to thank you for your years of service. We have Councilmember Doddwell and Councilmember Owen, did you have a comment as well? Okay, so Councilmember Doddwell.

Welcome aboard. We certainly are going to miss Captain Mondale and the crew that he's led. But question for you, what do you think your biggest challenge is going to be moving into this role?

So I have some command experience in patrol, but very little. So it's getting to know the citizens. What do the citizens need from us, from the police department side? What does the council need from me? What does the mayor need from me? Those are the big things. And making sure I get to know the officers, that's always huge because they are people too. Yes, we wear uniforms and we wear a badge, but they have family, they have kids, they have things they like to do outside. So it's getting to know the officers on my side of that side of the house. But like I said, it's what is Wildwood? What do the citizens need? What does the council need? What does the mayor need?

What can we do to help you in that process?

Give me a little bit of time to settle in, get my feet underneath me, and get to know everybody.

Councilmember Owen. So I would just say I had breakfast this morning with Commissioner Ashworth, and he was very complimentary of you. So from that perspective, I think he says we are in very good hands. So I welcome you to the city of Wildwood.

Thank you.

Anyone else that wishes to comment at this time? Okay, well, I don't see any. So therefore, that's all we have for you. Easy start here. So again, welcome to Wildwood. We're excited to get to know you better and for you to get to know everyone in our city. So it's a wonderful community. I'm sure you'll see exactly what makes this city come together. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Okay, great. Well, we'll move on. We now have our for information section of the agenda and as usual, we'll just pause right now to see if anyone has any questions or comments related to items that are in the for information section. And then if once we've reviewed any items that you may have, we'll move on to for action. Councilmember Dodmo.

I don't know what you guys are going to do when I'm gone. I got a question for Joe and a question for Rick. Can Rick give us a quick update on the 109BA roundabout stuff? I know you sent out a memo, but I'd kind of like the public to hear.

Yes, thank you. Council Member Dodd-Well, council members. I did post a memo on the agenda tonight to try to give you some background information on the project. We do anticipate work starting soon, hopefully next week on that project. We ran into some issues. Essentially the design plans did not match the elevations that the field survey came up with. So we had to go back to the drawing board and HR Green redesigned the features, the tie-ins from the new construction to the existing pavements. So it took a bit of back and forth with the contractor and the engineer and frankly the surveyor to get all this figured out. and determine really what the issue is. So we think we've located it. We believe there was an error in the original design survey that they utilized for design of the project. And when they constructed the roundabout, What I understand of the issue today is that they constructed the roundabout actually a little bit lower than it should have been. So effectively, the elevations to tie it back into the existing alignment had to be adjusted. And the fact of the matter is there is some curb and gutter that you may see removed and replaced, particularly on the north end of the project as a result. So the consultant HR Green is essentially owned up to the discrepancy. However, the discrepancy was, we believe, the result at this point of the surveyor who is a sub-consultant to HR Green. So it's a little bit complicated, but we're getting there.

So are we going to get a discount on anything for the errors that occurred?

Well, the short answer is yes. We have to work through all that. And HR Green is owned up to the error. And so that is absolutely the expectation, is to work through that with the contractor. Yep.

All right. We have, sure. Okay, we'll come back to you. So we'll give Council Member Vanek the opportunity now and then we'll- Or Mr. Brown. Okay, come on up.

A couple of weeks ago, I contacted City Administrator and asked about, you know, when the construction of the path on Old State was going to begin. And they said Monday. Well, of course, I guess the old joke is it didn't specify which Monday, but the I mean, they had good weather last week. This thing was supposed to be starting construction in the spring. Here we are approaching the fall, and we already got one extension from East West Gateway for the federal funding funding. And I'm beginning to become concerned that I don't know what the issue, I know there was issues with the utilities and all that, but when is this project actually going to begin?

Monday? I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. So exactly. So I was told they were going to start today. And I was told they did show up. But I don't think much was done, frankly, other than to, I think, determine what they were going to do the rest of the week, essentially. So I am expecting them to be out there tomorrow. That's what I was told today. So I'm pretty optimistic they've got the green light. We did wrestle with a number of issues more recently pertaining to utilities and adjusting some grades for the trail. But I know it's sounding a little bit like a broken record saying it, but I do expect them to be working this week. Weather permitting.

Any updates on the crosswalk for Lake Country Estates?

So I think with the city administrator's involvement, we are optimistic that we might have a path forward, but I can't, I don't think either one of us can commit to that, but I know Thomas may want to refer to this directly because he had a conversation with Mr. Vanik more recently than I have, but we have requested a follow-up conversation with Mr. Vanik. Colessa, thank you, to essentially plead our case one last time. And I think at this point, I'll turn it over to Thomas if he wants to add more based on his conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Brown, with the mayor's permission. Thank you. Just a quick note on that. I did have a discussion with Mr. Colessa regarding the crosswalk at Lake Country Lane, and it does seem plausible that we could come up with an engineering solution. The one impediment that was provided was that the county Pretty much had made a statement that the warrants at that location just not enough have having not enough foot traffic. So they would be pushing at least at a minimum. We could probably design our way into getting it done and getting a permit to do. So, but they may very well be coming back and requesting from the city. Um, the ability to maintain that in perpetuity if we want to have that 1 and the other 1 at Lakeshore meadows would be handled by the county. So this would be 1 unique instance that might be coming back to the city council for review. But we'll have that discussion. We had reached out to him, talked to him last week. We actually had the engineer and consultant that had submitted the most updated plans looking at that area. They have that in hand. And now it's going to be Mr. Brown and I reaching out to Mr. Colessa to have kind of a catch-up meeting. But we should have more info soon.

So I think at this point, we just kind of sit tight. Let's see if they're able to. And if not, we'll certainly do our part to escalate. Okay. Council member Dodwell, do you want us to come back to you now? Okay. You're going to pass. All right. Is there anyone else that has anything under for information? Okay, then we're going to move on to the rest of the agenda here. So we're going to move into for action items. So, under planning and parks committee, the 1st item is a temporary lease agreement for the J. P. Connell house director.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, as you may recall, since January of this year, the Historic Preservation Commission and to a certain degree, the Planning and Parks Committee has been discussing the J.P. Connell House, which is located on 14 acres at the intersection of Route 100 and St. Albans Road. J.P. Connell House is a significant structure in that it was constructed by the same builder that did old pond school. And it has very unique architecture along with the family itself having quite a history in the West St. Louis County area. Since January, there have been a number of proposals submitted by the current owner to restore the J.P. Connell House and, for all intents and purposes, reuse it for a purposeful activity. What that use may be has changed quite a bit. It started out as possibly light industrial, commercial, retirement center, and et cetera, et cetera. Eventually, the Historic Preservation Commission in May of this year made recommendations regarding the steps in a process to bring the J.P. Connell House back to life. Those included having a structural engineer visit the location, do an assessment of the structure itself and see if it was savable at this stage, which it was. Thereafter, an incentive package was offered for what was described as the north half of the property, approximately four acres. And an incentive package in principle was endorsed for the south half or the remaining 10 acres. As time progressed and the structure was not stabilized, there was an urgency to the conversation and a temporary lease agreement was proposed. That lease agreement would be between the property owner and the city. And the city would take responsibility for up to 90 days to stabilize the asset and maintain the property until the incentive package could be finalized, presented to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Parks Committee of City Council, and then finally all of you, City Council. At the July meeting of the Planning and Parks Committee, it became apparent that The key issue here may not be the temporary lease agreement, but more so is the city council willing to offer an incentive package? This is a rural area for minus kelp contracting. There is development in the area, new development, and it is all large lot, single family homes as part of residential subdivisions. And as the committee discussed the incentive package, adding a potential light industrial use, a commercial use, and at this stage, one that might include a drive-through facility The committee did not endorse such at this location. And in the report, it notes the reasons for that lack of endorsement, such as the predictability that the master plan and its conceptual land use categories gives to residents when they invest in property and build improvements. Meaning if you ask City Hall, we tell you it's intended for large lot single family homes and nothing else. now we're saying that may not be the case also protection of the non-urban resident district is key and that has been a key component of the city of wildwood since its inception in fact is what led to the incorporation and there were several others without the incentive package being endorsed by the committee even in components meaning the north portion and the south portion or collectively A temporary lease agreement in terms of the responsibility of the taxpayers to maintain the property and asset for up to 90 days was not reasonable. So the report you have before you tonight does not endorse any historic land, any incentives for the historic preservation aspect associated with the property. And with that action, does not endorse entering into any type of temporary lease agreement with the property owner for the stabilization of the asset. Tonight, the department is presenting that action. Certainly, with that action, the likelihood of preserving the J.P. Connell House is now almost zero. none to slim and so tonight the department and the committee are presenting their findings for comment or action thank you okay do we have any council members that will wish to comment or make a motion at this time uh council member mabry

I'm at a point where no way even close to know what motion could be without a whole ream of questions. So may I just go for a question?

Yes, please go right ahead. Thank you.

The historical asset is valuable to the city. That's documented and that's obvious.

Yes, sir.

The value of that house has not just no value to the owner, as the owner has stated, but it also is an impediment by logic. to the development of that property at anything other than NU three acre density zoning. So it's only with the existence of that historic asset stuck on that property and staying there that the city can even legally entertain a historic overlay, a SCOT circumstances overlay or historic overlay, whatever those one or two different conditions are. The. Given given one option that the developer will immediately and instantaneously and very assertively. Proceed with the enactment of a demolition permit for that property. There will no longer be any mechanism the city can use. To. allow anything other than non-urban density development for that 14 acres so that 3 divided by 14 still equals four houses is that all correct that is correct sir all right now just continuing this um in order for the city to protect its historic asset which it values very highly first of all to weather this six months or seven months or more of uh exercises in not being able to succeed with a single viable proposal from the developer. Is there any means the city can use to put its money where its mouth is or to show its value of what it values this historic assets value is other than nothing than just four lots on 14 acres is there is it uh is it exposing the city to undertake condemnations proceedings against the four acres to the north of the creek and retain the property for its value as a historic asset David Price- Is that outlandish is that ever been done before i'm just trying to come up with something creative to save that House where where the the owner developer. is taking active steps to do exactly the opposite and what seems to me the evidence of that just mine not any of the other 15 council members is that in in having the planning and parks commission entertaining and then deciding that it's not very practical and not very wise and not very business-like and responsibility shown to the residents of the city to provide for conditions of an incentive package without even knowing what the developer is asking for as an incentive, despite the city's repeat begging for the developer's conditions of an incentive package once a drive-through. That's not what the spirit of the historic overlay district did at all. It's actually against that. So I've held the floor for too long. What's the viability of condemnations proceedings for the four acres? We don't want to be guilty of a taking, a malicious taking of all 14 acres, just teach anyone a lesson. But for that four acres to the north of the creek with the house on it, What's the most creative thing we can do to save that asset?

Well, certainly the city attorney knows much more about condemnation or the rationales for such an action and how best to approach it. But I think from the perspective of the department, condemnation is used when you have an unwilling seller or participant. In this case, as Mr. Gruy, the property owner, has mentioned, this is his business, developing property. So in lieu of condemnation, an offer to purchase would probably be more well-received and not carry the baggage that a condemnation action can.

The follow-up, that's... That's so obvious, even I didn't think of it. So we offer to purchase the property outright, whether it's the four acres or whether it's all 14 from the current owner. And from my understanding, this property was purchased just recently. So there's going to be a historical record of sale at what the property was purchased bar. There's going to be comps for the area for what raw land is worth out in that neck of the woods. is that have you seen that done before where we will we buy out the competition uh of attempting to protect that historic asset has that been done in the past in the city's history

I would estimate that 90% of the property acquisitions the city has done has been in floodplain areas. And they were a result of repeated flood events that just ultimately wore out the property owners, the residents of the homes. And so those negotiations were mutually beneficial. The property owners wanted to leave the floodplain and the city wanted to remove the structures of the building so that the floodplain could flood and not impact them. Where we have practiced acquisition of properties not necessarily in the Glencoe area or the floodplain of the Merrimack River, those two have been generally agreements that have been reached long before we got to a stage like this where we tried to work through every possible scenario under the historic preservation and restoration code, the master plan and its historic land use category, but we just haven't been able to find the right formula. So to offer us, is it something that would work? I think acquisition can work if you're willing to pay the price the property owner requests, but again, We're in a bit of a budget scenario. We've talked over the last year almost about where can we cut back? Where can we focus? Certainly to me at this stage, if I were to be asked, is that a good expenditure of taxpayers' money? I would say maintaining our current parks. We've got trails that need to be resurfaced. We've got sidewalks that need to be replaced. We have vandalism damage almost now weekly, it seems. So from the perspective of the department, if we have excess funds to do acquisition, I'd like those to be directed to park maintenance, trail maintenance, et cetera. That's where the people are. That's where we need to keep them safe and functional.

Thank you, Director. Mr. Mayor, I'd be at a point if nobody wants more questions, I'd be at a point.

Perfect. Hey, Council Member Owen, please go ahead.

I got one comment. It seems like the person who purchased or acquired this property, if they're wanting a variance in our zoning to make it industrial and that's the only way we can or commercial and that's the only way we can satisfy them it seems like their intent was to use it for that to begin so they're really just they bought the property to get us to get it rezoned holding the asset over our head it says they've got to permit to demolish it But if their intent is to use it for industrial and they're never going to be able to do that, why would they turn around and demolish the property of them despite us? So I don't know that we want to move forward with negotiating with them on rezoning when the reality is, while we want the asset, we're not going to change the zoning to accommodate that. We do not want a drive-through facility at that intersection, way outside our center of the city. limits or the town center. So being out in Ward 1, I would say that I will speak for us, we do not want that rezoned. So that's a non-starter. Just want to make that clear from Ward 1's perspective, that's not an option. I don't know if anybody thought it was, but to preserve the building. But if we've got to give up the building to keep our master plan, I think that's more important.

And Mr. Owen, I believe that's what the committee said in their action.

All right. Great. Council Member Rambo.

Yeah. I'd love to say this building, uh, I think looking back from 30 years in the future will feel. About it, like, I personally do about pond school. It was a great thing to do and the, the expense. I don't know what the expenses were likely substantial, but it's a great asset and it'll be there forever. Um. Uh, we determined not only that it was going to, it was infeasible to buy the property itself, but it's also going to cost 100 grand to stabilize it and it will cost out of our park budget, which is only. I mean, that's a significant fraction of our parks budget and I just don't feel like we can afford to do that. I'm very sad about that. And so that's why we work the committee work as hard as it did. I'm speaking as a member of the committee now. Um. We tried every way we could think of to find a way to justify this. And what it came down to was a couple of acres for this home and a commercial venture that was completely hidden from the road. Drive in a few villas or something like that. It would, it would meet sort of the spirit of our master plan without actually meeting the letter, the master plan. That's what these these special districts are intended to do. And so we explored all those. We can't get there and I'm ready to just call it myself very reluctantly. I don't think we can afford. Even if we could get the guy to donate the land to us, we couldn't afford the 100 grand for stabilization and half a 1M dollars for renovation just to do what with it. It would be an office or something like that. Maybe a B and B. Um, which we don't often like, so, um, I just don't don't think this is it's feasible to talk about anything other than just letting it go.

Okay, council member Marshall.

Mr. Winchard, do you like a motion to move forward with the direction you were given from Parks and Planning to do it that way? What would you like from us?

Mr. Marshall, if the City Council would entertain a motion to endorse the action of the committee, that action then endorsed by City Council can be presented to Mr. Grewe, the property owner. And then shortly hereafter, I'll be talking about the end of the moratorium. And I assume he'll proceed forward with his request for the demolition permit to remove the structure. And Mr. Owen, the reason he continues to speak about the structure is concerns about liability and the insurance costs associated with it.

I think the department's done a fantastic job and historic. Group, but there's a certain point where he wants us to take all the risk and I just don't think that that we're in a position to do that. So I'll make a motion to have the department move forward with the recommendation from the parks and planning commission. And relay that information back.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Maybe a council member Marshall. Is there anyone that was just the 2nd, that motion made by 2nd by council member. Any other discussion. Right. No discussion on all those in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Anyone oppose or abstain? Oppose. Okay. We have one oppose. The motion passes and we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the 2026 Recreation Event Tour de Wildwood Awards.

Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of City Council, the Department of Planning has provided to you a letter regarding the upcoming Tour de Wildwood. This would be the 22nd year of the Tour de Wildwood. The letter is provided just to acknowledge that when the recreation schedule was set as part of the budget process at the end of 2025 and the schedule was presented to the Planning and Parks Committee and ultimately City Council, there was always kind of a question mark next to this particular event. The event has drawn a lot of interest of late. We have some ideas, thanks to Mr. Ottenberg and others, about how to better market it. And so tonight, the department is advising the city council we're proceeding forward. We believe this will be a great test opportunity. and we'll report back how we did in terms of the new marketing goals the additions we like to think that will make it more appealing and return the ridership to past years if not then we can have the conversation about 2027. okay do we have a motion on the floor uh councilmember ottenberg

Yeah, I'll make a motion, but may I make a comment 1st? Yes, please go ahead. Uh, so. It might be beneficial to expand a little bit on the information you provided. Um, mentioning that we used to partner with, I believe it was a Missouri bike Federation. On this event, and last year. We did not partner with them because basically they weren't returning phone calls.

and uh as a result it was basically the first year that we had to sort of take this event on our own yeah i think you thank you mr ottenberg in the memo in the letter the department notes that for many years our partner was trail net probably the most well-recognized well-known entity for multimodal transportation advices Following that, the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation became our partner. And last year, for whatever reason, I think they're suffering from some budget issues, They would not return our call until almost the beginning or middle part of September and the events at the beginning of October. So as Mr. Attenberg alluded to, we had to do the marketing in a pretty short order. And I think that's part of the reason we ended up just a little over 100 riders. We think we can do a much better job two months out for the most part. And we'd like to give it a try.

Thank you. Um, with that, I would make a motion to proceed with this, um, this event as outlined by the director.

Okay, a question, sir, um, we have a primary motion. Can we get a secondary on the floor? And then we'll open up a discussion. 2nd, by council member means, uh, so now entertain discussion.

That council member albums, um, did you say you had a 100 writers last year? Yes. Okay. What? Is that a low number?

It is, relatively speaking. One year when we used to hold the event at Lafayette High School and partner with TrailNet, we had 900 riders. Yes. And the police wanted to arrest me that day because the 900 riders were generally very disrespectful of them and our residents. So we stopped that design, that event, in terms of how we promoted it, orchestrated it, and we went to a maximum of 300 riders. Until the pandemic, we were getting 300 riders. And after the pandemic, we've kind of struggled to get back to that. Part of it again, I believe, was just kind of people getting back to what they had normally done. um and i think we as the city can do a little better job of promotion um as they say mr at first given us a couple of ideas we're looking at a theme um and i think um ultimately i would see this being successful if we can get around 200. okay thank you i didn't know the history of it i'm just kind of worried about how it was thanks great uh we have a motion on the floor any other discussion

all right seeing uh oh councilmember rambo i just want to make a quick comment i attended that massive event and um my impression was um many of the attendees felt as though it was um the moonlight ramble and not a cycling Race or event of any kind. In other words, there were a lot of serious people there on banana bikes and weird costumes and stuff. And those are the kinds of people that you can't count on to be courteous and respectful because most cyclists honestly are that way. And so. Moving forward this, I would just suggest that wherever this goes, I guess it would go back to committee, but wherever this goes, I would strongly suggest that we keep that in mind because we can attract. responsible cyclists and sort of minimize the effects of those that are irresponsible. So, thanks.

Okay, we are at about 20 more minutes remaining in our work session. So just a quick check on the agenda. We do have. 2 more items under fraction and executive closed session and then miscellaneous receiving file. So we'll continue to move forward, but just be where we may be running out of time and may have to come back after the main meeting for the rest of these items. so moving on uh next item we need a vote on the motion thank you all right yes so now the uh motion on the floor that we have does anyone need the motion repeated all right uh all those in favor please say aye aye aye anyone oppose or abstain all right moving on uh next item on the agenda which is the temporary moratorium on demolitions of historic assets uh termination all wards director

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, as you know, at the start of this year, a temporary moratorium was put into place by City Council on the demolition of historic assets that's on the city's inventory. One of the key components that would trigger the moratorium ending was the adoption of the historic preservation plan. That plan is up for final reading tonight, and if the final reading proceeds forward, the plan will be adopted. In the enabling legislation, it does allow the city council to extend the moratorium under justification. And so tonight the department is advising you who you have that authority to extend it, but the plan will be adopted and the department sees no reason why to proceed forward after the adoption of the plan with any extension. Mr. Mayor, I would respectfully request a motion to not extend the moratorium beyond the period of time anticipated when it was adopted.

Okay. As the director requested, is there anyone that wishes to make that motion? Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Mabry.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'd recommend a motion to do the opposite and to extend the moratorium for a period of not less than 90 days.

So you're making a motion. Is there anyone that wishes to second that motion? All right. Is that a 2nd?

No, I would ask council member. My heart is with you, Bob. I'm wondering what your specific rationale is for that because it doesn't there doesn't seem to be a really strong 1 other than emotion. And I, I'm trying to keep that up.

responding to the council members the exact reason why i opposed the prior motion regarding the planning and and parks uh recommendation um i don't know that it's going to take a hundred thousand dollars to stabilize the structure i don't know that it's going to take a half million to do something that we want to do with that asset i don't know those things what i do know is if we no longer keep this moratorium in effect that's less teeth the city has in order to cajole or shame or convince or sell the owner developer into entering finally legitimate professional level communications about what it would take uh uh to to make that property available for the city as a as a valuable asset so if it's not a hundred thousand to stabilize and it's only 40 and if it's not a half a million it's only 150. the the voters the residents of the city need the right to know what they're getting into none of that can happen at all unless we first of all get a stay on the execution of that demolition permit and unless we can engage the owner into serious discussion finally on how to make a deal otherwise the owner's got himself four houses on three acre lots whatever you sell those things for, but that's it. And that's really the explanation for why I'm making the motion to just put a stay on it. It doesn't seem to me to hurt anything. We're not paying employees to keep watch over that. that provision so let it ride and give it another 90 days and see if we can get the uh the owner to come back the table i i and if i if i had proof that it's going to cost 600k to make a go of that then i'd say well we lost this one

Well, again, just to make sure we're following Robert's rules, is there anyone that wishes to second? Otherwise, we're getting into discussion and debate. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. So I allowed that to allow the clarity on the reasoning for that motion. But yeah, do we have a second? Okay. I don't think we have a second. So is there anyone that wishes to make another motion?

councilmember marshall the department's making a recommendation i think we should go with the department's recommendation to um cease the uh ordinance that was put in place and that's the department's recommendation so i'll make that motion okay is there anyone that wishes to second that motion uh councilmember cummer okay so now we have that motion on the floor um we'll open up again for discussion uh now related to the motion so councilmember rambo yeah i uh um

Folks that were there when we viewed the property recall that I actually caught a turkey buzzard in the upstairs bedroom to put it out and none of the windows were open. And so I risked my life and the bird's life to get rid of it. There's a lot of stabilization that seems to be required on that structure just from what I know of construction. And so Joe, I'm wondering if there are any other effects that we haven't considered in terms of other properties that we're looking at that we have a moratorium on or is this is it because your verbiage said this was primarily for the J.P. Connell House, which is no longer in play based on our last decision. So can you speak to that, please?

Certainly, the moratorium was too late for the Mary Cliff residence on the Marinist Retreat Center. It did do an effective job from the perspective of the department with the LaSalle Retreat Center because there was interest in a purchase by a developer and the removal of all the assets and obviously the J.P. Connell House. There's a risk, but again, I go back to the committee's discussion about the historic land use category in the master plan, and just the reluctance in the non-urban resident district areas to authorize anything more than what I would believe is a residential type of use at a limited increased density. At least that's the impression I left the committee meeting. Sure.

And that was my impression as well. You have affirmed that there are no hot button properties out there that we need to be concerned with. And the only alternative for future properties is to keep this moratorium in place forever, which is not a workable solution.

Well, I will never turn my back on La Salle Retreat Center. That could blow up in our face any time. So certainly a moratorium on demolitions protects that more so than anything. But I also know that a moratorium isn't intended to be permanent. We have under the language until the end of the year, But again, we've been advising property owners that once the preservation plan is in place, which was intended to give us tools to offset demolitions through tax credits from the federal and state governments, et cetera, I just don't feel like, are we forestalling the inevitable and just, getting people's hopes up and then dashing those hopes because we just can't give the incentives people want.

So our preservation plan will cover this as best we can without having a moratorium.

As best we can. It really, in many ways, it just reiterated what we already have available. It didn't come up with what I would call the silver bullet to save us. But I just feel like We stand at the podium in front of the Historic Preservation Commission talking about preservation, talking about incentives, but the reality is our residents, I think when they do the balancing act or the pros and cons, seeing a commercial use at Highway T and Route 100 versus the removal of the structure that

in many ways very much in distress it probably isn't about it's not a balanced favor favor right thank you okay we have that motion before anyone else wish to speak on this matter otherwise uh uh council member cummer yep you seconded it all right uh looks like we have no other further discussion there is a motion on the floor does anyone need that motion repeated All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone oppose or abstain opposed. Can we have 1 oppose and the motion passes just being cognizant of time. We've got about 10 more minutes before our main meeting. I did ask the city administrator if we should start this next item. So. He did advise that this is a preliminary result, but his recommendation regarding the archery, hunting regulations and dear management survey where that. uh we would wait for the full report to come out that's what he was going to ask the council of so uh let's see if we can uh you know see how this goes over the next 10 minutes or so and if the council does agree that we do want to wait for the full report then any discussion or in-depth discussion would probably be appropriate once we have all the information so go ahead city administrator lee go ahead and introduce the site thank you ma'am

um real quick note on this i mean the data is in this report so it has the broad line you know response rates and what the actual answers were for the the questions what we're waiting on and what will be really fortuitous to have from professor naines is he's currently working to do a deep dive analysis on the open-ended questions so there was a general feedback provision we actually received quite a bit of feedback from that A lot of individuals that completed the survey ended up providing quite a few responses. So we're analyzing that. The other thing that would be, it's gonna be nice to include too, is just some data on the margin of error, some responsiveness rates on some of these questions. So we wanted to make sure to get the data out to the city council for the survey, but nonetheless, in September, we'll have the full statistical analysis that also provides a little bit more detail on the gender of the individual that came, that answered the question. kind of getting some insights on the different wards that answered. I will say, based off the response, we had about 502 valid responses in the survey, which is pretty high for a survey like this. Since we didn't do a mailed back version, which we did for the solar survey, that typically tends to, you know, you're just doing online, it does cut a few of the responses, but overall, The responses are considered statistically valid and representative of the city as a whole. Where it does fall short is that we did not get enough responses to properly compare ward to ward. So when you look at the distribution, which we'll have more info on in September, that is where it can get a little tricky of ward one feels this way, ward two, we don't have enough data to be able to encapsulate all wards. um more information on that but just a brief overview of some of the results and you know as time allows uh overall in june we had approved the deer management and policy survey that went out we mailed out and working with professor naines took The total number of properties, which included apartments, condos, households, there's a total of 13,917 dwellings that were included. 1,600 were selected to participate, 200 being from each ward. We mailed that out on June 29th and opened up the survey. the two weeks later we also sent out a reminder postcard just providing them with a heads up we only sent that to the individuals that had not submitted a valid response one great thing we did with this survey was we had the use of a an eight digit participation code which was used to be used one time per household so if one person used it the good news is we were able to track the ip address to make sure that it really was just one person answering for each So overall, Professor Nain's opinion is that it's a statistically valid survey given that there's over 500 responses of the sample pool. I would agree with that sentiment. Nonetheless, to go through some of the results here, we got some pretty split feedback, quite frankly, on some of the questions. I'll just jump through these real quick to give an overview. For the big question that we were trying to focus in on about our regulations, specifically talking about the minimum parcel size and whether parcel aggregation should be considered. Now, Professor Nansland, looking at it, saw that the majority of residents do want to see a little bit more of a permissive structure, but when you actually look at the data, the counter of that is over 50% of the respondents answered that question with either keep it at three acres and don't change or keep it at three acres, but allow parcel aggregation. So it seems that the majority are in support of the three acre, but maybe with some less restrictive provisions that go with it. But when you look at the individual responses themselves, the number one response when you compare all five answer choices together was to reduce to one acre and allow parcel aggregation. So when you take all of that as a whole, it can produce somewhat conflicting information there. It's not as clean cut as one would want it to be. um that said kind of going back to the general themes over 50 percent did support um keeping it at three in some fashion but a grand majority said that it could be more permissive so just a quick note on that um going further uh another interesting tell too was we wanted to make sure to ask the question of how strongly they felt about the change when it came to uh going down to one acre keeping in three whatever it may be And the interesting thing that came with that was that when looking at the one acre minimum, folks that had answered very strongly tended to be the ones that also wanted it at one anchor. So they tend to really care about that answer. So just a note there, the three acre norms had a lot of somewhat, how strongly do they feel about their answer was somewhat. So just another note of how the respondents were thinking. When you look at the actual regulations of what we require, it was pretty split, but nonetheless, majority of respondents did have registration or some type of permit. That was, well, almost 50%. But one of the interesting things was we allowed that question. It included registration, the proof of written permission from the landowner, insurance, And also just the reporting requirement, we had a ton of different things that we wanted to ask and see if they're interested in none of those answers actually got over 50%. So it seems that. You know, the majority of the respondents actually were. You know, either skipping that question, or they weren't, they were choosing not to respond or they were. um choosing one but not the other which maybe that would that could be boiled down to they they care about some things or others but it also could be they thought it was maybe a one selection question we did have it listed in there um select all that apply in bold lettering that said some folks could have uh mistake that for select one so just a note there but it did seem that less than 50 percent of the respondents uh for each of them actually mentioned that uh you know we if you look at if you look at just the base statistics it would actually suggest that there wouldn't be any restrictions which that doesn't make much sense so more information on that will come and then the one of the last big ones too was the question more about the preferred approach to deer management as a whole the holistic approach and there were a couple different answer choices one was for my primarily rely on recreational hunting resume professional deer culling along with recreational hunting just use professional culling and then don't support active deer management activities and then there was also an option for no preference or not sure that said when you looked at that question it was use a combination of both that was the overwhelming overwhelming answer the second place was primarily rely on recreational and then the second to last was the resume the professional and then last was do not support any deer activity. So another interesting finding there was that the vast majority of residents in some fashion believe there should be some deer management activity if you take the inverse of the response to that question. So just a note there, we did have over 241 individuals submit open ended answers to the general feedback section. So we're going through that now. Professor Naines is looking through that to give a pretty much a bulleted summary of what is the primary input that we've been getting. I don't want to speak too much on the folks that had submitted some answers, but it was a lot of just more operational questions if you reduce it down to one. What does that look like for, you know, if it goes on their property or how do you handle it? There were actually some questions, too, with who actually gets the insurance. So residents are actively engaged in the fact they answered the question, the survey, and then also responded back. And we're asking further questions does go to show that, you know, a lot of folks do really care. And seeing this amount of response, over 500 folks responding to this in just a three, four week time frame is pretty strong. um and then you know the majority of respondents were men just a quick note there too and uh the age demographics will provide as well but the other interesting point which is actually consistent with uh when we look at our parcel data and the number of this is actually really great for our statistical modeling uh the majority of households if you just go by addresses For land mass, three acre minimum, three acre lots make up 89% of the city. But when you actually look at number of addresses, so 13,917 dwellings, if you will, in Wildwood, the vast majority of those are on less than one acre. The good news is from our survey is we actually got pretty much a duplicative result with majority of folks being on less than one acre. about a relatively consistent percentage of one to three acres, similar to the, I think it's 3.9% wildwood. And then the remainder being the three acres or more. So when looking at the parcel size, this survey is very representative of the city as a whole, but unfortunately it doesn't give us the crystal clear answer that we were hoping for. um but it does give us quite a bit of information we're able to do some research before here now we wanted to provide this to get the data out to the council there's something you want us to push on or make sure that's included in the final report please let us know and then also if there's anything for further research to do in the interim as well same apartments available for any questions

Thank you. Okay. Again, it is 630 right now. So I'll look to see if we're going to get into any in depth discussion or questions or if not, we will pick it up later. Council member Albers.

Excuse me, I believe archery season starts in September. If we wait till September for further results, is that. Going to allow us the. time to put a process in place if we want to do archery programs?

Could you clarify by archery program?

Allowing bow hunters to maybe

hunt on like acre aggregate or one to three acre aggregate those seem to be some of the popular ones in choice yeah gotcha okay so if we were to change the code so the the main question here would be going into the code changing our firearm and hunting regulations to reduce that down to one acre we most likely look to make a couple other changes within that code provision as well Typically, that type of code, since it does deal with firearms and a projectile, if you will, would typically go to our Board of Public Safety. The process that the department was looking at was if there were any changes to be recommended, that it would be referred back most likely to Board of Public Safety or here at the City Council to get those recommendations. If there's something tonight, we could bring back further research on that. But when it comes to September, we'd have the final results. It would be very difficult to reduce it unless the council were to expedite the process.

I mean, I think the obvious answer to the question is, it takes 2 readings to change something and. Likely, we may even have to have a public hearing on that. So. That would be probably at the way the process works now 3 months. But, you know, if it goes to board of public safety, or any other group, it may doesn't have to go to planning and zoning for that. Okay. Then that may also add some time. All right, go ahead council member. We'll see. We're probably going to have to come back anyway.

So I'll just quickly as we're on this topic. I understand the reason. That we have been gathering all this information, et cetera. While I also understand the enthusiasm to have archery. uh in closer proximity or in smaller lots I don't think we need to rush that process just because deer seasoning is opening this year we chose not to call deer last year because we wanted to discuss and review this process I see no reason to rush this process just to augment the potential for individuals to hunt in new places this year when they still have the ability to go to their old hunting grounds and go to it without a problem.

All right, I know more comment. I also thought that. We wanted to get this in a timeline, so we would have the opportunity to engage. White Buffalo for the calling season, which would be 2027. so I thought that was the. Primary reason to try to have a timeline to meet was to beat the deadline to engage white Buffalo for next year. If in fact, we were going to do that. So that's just I just want to make that come.

All right, well, we, we are now past the start of a regular city council meeting and we do have several more items that we will have to cover as part of the work session. So we are going to at this point. Take a recess with the. work session and it's 6 34 so it i'd ask uh that everyone come back at 6 40 so that we can start our main council meeting and therefore we don't need motion at this point like city attorney to uh take a recess on the work session if you want to declare the reasons all right is there any objection to that Okay, well, with that, then we will take a break right now for just a couple of minutes and we'll resume with the start of our main meeting at 640. thank you. All right, good evening everyone and thank you for your patience as we pause for a moment to start our main meeting of the city council for Monday, August 10th. It is now 643 and we will begin with a roll call.

Mayor Garitano.

Here.

Councilmember Wroblewski. Here. Councilmember Trottier.

Here.

Councilmember Ottenberg.

Here.

Councilmember Farmer. Councilmember Means.

Here.

Councilmember Bockert. Councilmember Kranz. Here. Councilmember Elbers. Here. Councilmember Owen. Here. Councilmember Mabry. Here. Councilmember Nyhan. Here. Councilmember Dodwell. Councilmember Marshall.

Present.

Councilmember Rambo. Here. Councilmember Vanik.

Here.

Councilmember Kummer.

Here. Thank you. If you're able to join me, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay. You approval of the minutes will be part of the consent agenda and we'll move on to public participation. So, do we have any speakers for tonight?

Please go ahead with the 1st speaker Karen Shannon wants to speak on development.

You come forward, just please state your name and your ward number. If you're not familiar with your ward, your address will suffice. Thank you.

Karen Chan and I'm in Ward 1, I'm at 17127 Manchester Road. It's my understanding that tonight the second meeting of the development on my property by Lombardo will be heard. I just wanted you to consider the final vote for tonight on this development. This process has been very emotional and mentally draining and every month that goes by, it also puts a financial burden on me. lombardo is a reputable builder and they've worked very hard to meet all the requests of planning and zoning commission the development meets all the requirements of the town center and provides another type of housing that will very much need an involvement at an affordable price i hope that when you're considering voting tonight that you remember all the positives that they have bringing this development will bring to wildwood thank you okay thank you do we have any other speakers claire heinrich one wishes to speak on the primary results

Good evening. My name is Claire Heinrich. I live in Ward 4 and I am running to represent Wildwood and Clarkson Valley in the Missouri House of Representatives. First, I'd just like to say thank you to the mayor and council, as always, for letting me speak here tonight. This past week, the primary election was held with this building attracting the largest number of voters in all of St. Louis County. I see this as a testament to our citizens' civic responsibility and desire to shape their community. I got to stand out front all day in some very warm weather. But in doing that, I also had the chance to meet so many wonderful people from our district. And I would just like to thank every member of our community who came out to vote, even though they had to maybe stand in line and it was a little warm. Later in the night, I watched the election results come in and was heartened by the overwhelming rejection of both Amendments 4 and 5 in our community, where three out of every four residents in a bipartisan effort defeated this government overreach from our state's capital. As you might remember, my position was that these amendments as written were wholly unacceptable to our community and Missourians across the state. I am now the last candidate running to represent our community at the state level who is in lockstep with the consensus here in Wildwood. As all of you know, consensus in Wildwood is not always the easiest to achieve on every issue. We are a very independent group of people, but we are also a group that came together to reject half-baked or completely unbaked ideas that sought to remove citizen input from the policies that impact our lives. I am so proud to be from a community where citizens stood up and made their voices heard. For the remainder of this campaign, I continue to work to meet the people of Wildwood and Clarkson Valley. I continue to put our community above party politics, and I continue to be here to answer any questions or address any concerns should citizens have them. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. The next speaker. All right, no other speakers. If you are online and wish to speak, this would be the time to use the raise hand feature and we will check for that. And we do not see any at this time. So we'll conclude with public participation. We'll move on to mayor's announcements. So if you just bear with me as I come down to announce a proclamation. all right uh thank you and i'm going to present this proclamation for officer john behmer so come on up and uh we're gonna talk about you here captain mundell uh if you wanna come on up uh as well uh and join us uh we're going to uh present this proclamation here this evening on behalf of the city of wildwood So I'm going to read what it says, and then I'll share a couple of comments. Whereas Officer John Boehmer comes from a family of law enforcement and followed in his father's footsteps as a St. Louis County police officer. Whereas in 1995, he was hired as a security officer with the police department and was assigned to facility security at the county government complex in Clayton. Whereas in 1998, he entered the county and municipal police academy for training. And after graduation in 1999, Officer Boehmer's first assignment as a police officer was in the north county precinct near his family roots. Whereas in July of 2000 and at the end of his probationary year, he was transferred to the city of Wildwood when the police department in the city was still new and staffed with a small group of about 20 officers. Whereas in 2014, Officer Boehmer was assigned as a traffic enforcement officer in the neighborhood policing unit, working tirelessly and without complaint, performing traffic enforcement stops, issuing traffic citations, and at the same time was responsible for collecting various traffic data evaluation and reporting. Whereas Officer Boehmer has served the city of Wildwood for the next 26 years, responding to various situations, managing daily activities, and easily recognized as the hardworking traffic cop who has been a fixture at most of the city's events. whereas Officer Boehmer has often been complimented on his dedication to his duties, which he consistently performed with honesty, integrity, and professionalism. Now, therefore, it is hereby proclaimed that on this 10th day of August, 2026, and on the occasion of his retirement on September 1st, 2026, which is also the city's anniversary, So the city of Wildwood hereby recognizes John Boehmer for his 26 years of outstanding service and law enforcement and thanks him for his dedication to the residents of Wildwood. Congratulations. Well, I do want to say, don't go anywhere. You're going to talk too, all right? And Captain Mundell, but I'm excited for your new step in your retirement here. That's an exciting time, you know, when to retire and what you have ahead. I imagine you may have some ideas of what you plan to do, but it's also sad for us here because Officer is a recognizable face in the city of Wildwood. Uh, when I 1st got involved in wild with city government, that was back in 2015. so it's about 11 years ago. Um, it's he is 1 of the faces that I got to know he would always come to the meetings. and sit, watch the meetings. We have officers as you see here in the evening. So it was great because he got to see local government at work. And especially back in those days, you got your entertainment with it as well. So, um, you know, we, we've been through a lot in the city and you've been here the residents recognize you and know you as we read in the proclamation. You're in that you're a traffic cop to at times and so I'm sure you had to deal with folks that may not have been as happy when you had to stop them. But, you know, comes with the job. So we are extremely grateful for your dedication. You're going to be missed. And we hope that you will come back to see us in Wildwood, but we're excited that you get to enjoy your retirement and hopefully have some great big plans ahead. So, thank you so much for your service and I'm going to let you speak because I think you certainly might want to say something, but. You probably got a lot of good stories, too. I'm sure, you know, you've heard a lot of excuses, whether it's in traffic or just what you've gotten to in a call. So, yeah, if you have anything interesting you want to share about your 26 years on the job, what's one moment that stands out? I think we'd love to hear it. So go ahead.

well thank you mayor and council thank you very much joe thank you very much captain thank you um there's so many stories it's hard to keep track you know but it's been actually an honor and working out in wildwood it's totally totally been you know great experience working with the city of wildwood uh you know working out the wildwood i even got a nickname you know the black heart i've got nicknames because i wrote so many tickets know even on mother's day i wrote 15 days ago they called me the mother's day morata i got nicknamed by a co-worker so i've got a lot of nicknames that you know goes on and on and on but you know there's you know it's been great work for city wildwood and you know and everybody here in the council and the city it's been you know great great thank you so much

He's been truly a part of the family here in Wildwood. I'm going to let Captain Mendel say a few words.

Thank you. Traffic enforcement is a necessity, obviously, in the Wildwood. As I hear from many of the council people, we want traffic enforcement and John was one of those guys that did that job every day, always with a smile on his face. As the mayor mentioned, it's not a popular job, not popular interaction. Part of my assignment here, going back some time, I was a supervisor of our highway safety unit. That group, all they did was write tickets. To their credit, I could count on one hand how many times I had a complaint on those officers, and that's what they did every day, all day. And John is the same way. That just shows professionalism. They do the job right. They do it in a professional manner. They treat people with respect, and they get the job done. So he was one of my go-tos, so I've got to look for a new go-to on some stuff now. But he's done a great job, and I appreciate him being here. Thanks, John.

well thank you very much for uh again serving the city and and don't go too far okay come and visit us All right. And we will have a special proclamation next month. We just learned Captain Mundell, who has served our city for eight years. We know the St. Louis County Police, they do rotate their staff, their leadership. So he is going to be moving on to an exciting assignment next. So earlier in the work session this evening, we got to meet the new incoming commander of the precinct, Captain Shanna Ostendorf, who will be starting her new assignment actually this Sunday, I believe. So we're going to recognize Captain Mundell, who has served the city for eight years at our next council meeting next month so we want to thank you for that but again we also will miss you very much so thanks again for this we're going to resume our meeting Okay, moving on in the agenda, we do not have any items under section 7 communications petitions. So we'll move on to section 8 all business under legislation. We have 3 bills. We'll handle these separately. 1st, bill is bill 3070 and before the council. for a second reading concerns Ward 1. Can I get a motion for the second reading of Bill 3070, made by Councilmember Owen, is there a second? Made by Councilmember Means. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right, Colleen, please go ahead and read Bill 3070.

Bill 3070, an ordinance of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, amending Chapter 390, Traffic Section 12 of the Municipal Code of the City of Wildwood by establishing a regulation of the kinds and classes of traffic permitted on Wild Horse Creek Road.

Okay, thank you. now uh director brown we do call you up but i know that there is a council member owen who would like to make a motion related to this item uh go ahead and yeah um i think last and last month's meeting we talked about um enhancing this uh particular bill

or regulation to include more traffic beyond just tractor trailers. So I'd like to make a motion that we refer this back to the Board of Public Safety for further review to see if we can not only include tractor trailers in this, but other type of commercial vehicles. And as stated last month, my concern is for the public safety of our cyclists as much as our vehicle traffic on Wild Horse Creek. Many of us ride that road and find dump trucks cutting through or other type of commercial vehicles. And I'd like to see if we can find a way to restrict more traffic than just the tractor trailer. So that's my motion is refer it back to the Board of Public Safety to see if we can enhance it.

Okay. So we do have a motion be made on the floor. And is there anyone that wishes to second that motion to send it back to Board of Public Safety? Made by Council Member Robleski. So the motion is on the floor. Rick, since I knew this was coming, it spared you a little bit from getting into this, knowing that there was a request to send this back. But do you have anything else you wish to say?

Mayor, I do not. I don't have any questions. Otherwise, the next meeting of Public Safety is Thursday evening.

okay so with that then uh since we have this motion all those in favor of the motion to send it back to board of public safety please say aye aye aye anyone opposed or abstain okay this will go to board of public safety and we should see it then come back to us uh moving on bill 3072 is before the council for second reading and concerns ward one is there a motion for the second reading of bill 3072 Made by Councilmember Albers. Is there a second? Made by Councilmember Robleski. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay, Colleen, please go ahead and read Bill 3072.

Bill 3072, an ordinance by the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the change in zoning in association with four properties that form a 10.43 acre tract of land from the NU non-urban residence district to the R6A 4,000 square foot residence district with a planned residential development overlay district, PRD, all being located on the north side of Manchester Road, historic Route 66, west of State Route 109, thereby allowing for up to 62 attached single family dwellings of which no more than four of these units being a single building cluster while being supported by an associated street and pedestrian network stormwater management facilities and required public spaces all of such consistent with the town center regulating plans designation of the property as neighborhood general and edge districts as well as being endorsed by the planning and zoning commission in its letter of recommendation dated june 1 2026 pz2 and 2a-26 mia bella in car in care of doug nance lombardo homes of st louis llc okay uh director vunich mr mayor just to recap this particular item was presented at public hearing at the city council's last meeting on july 13th

as part of that process the bill was also introduced and read for the first time there have been no changes to the bill that was presented as part of that process if there are any questions department would be glad to answer them and just a note for the planned residential development overlay district to be approved it does require a super majority of city council members in support

DARYL FOX, OK, Director Vunic, thank you for providing that clarification. And again, this is in Town Center, so falls under the Town Center rules.

yes um this particular property has been part of town center since its inception it was part of andre stawany's team inclusion and during the updates it has been retained i would note that this particular site more so than most and i would probably categorize it as the same as the department development that's occurring at taylor road and main street it's very unique in that It adjoins Pond School on the east, the new development, the reserve at Wildwood to the north and west and across the street are two institutional uses, places of worship and a seven acre property on the corner of Route 109 and Manchester Road that has commercial zoning. So relatively speaking, you have a residential project that really doesn't join much other residential.

Director Voonage, just maybe one more explanation. Just a question I'd heard. You know, it is non-urban, but everything has been non-urban, obviously, right? Yes.

collectively in 1965, St. Louis County Council said everything west of Lindbergh, we're going to rezone to match our new updated zoning ordinance. And for the most part, as I mentioned, west of Lindbergh Boulevard, a non-urban district was established. It was truly a holding category. the intent was to designate all properties with a district but that district was a holding category so as development went from the center so to speak north west and south the pattern would establish what the future land use would be on adjoining properties they didn't necessarily have a land use plan per se the zoning was the land use plan

Great, thank you. Any questions or comments from council member Rambo?

Yeah, real quickly. Joe, this is a geography quiz. I was approaching this with the clear understanding that it was in Town Center. But some of the drawings say it's on T Highway, and some of them say it's on Old Manchester. And so my question is, could you please make that distinction for me just for my own edification?

There's any reference to St. Albans Road and State Highway T. That's a mistake on the department's part. I'll accept that responsibility. Lombardo Homes.

on the actual drawings of the site development plan, et cetera.

Lombardo Homes is doing the 14 three-acre lots out at State Highway T and Route 100. So there may be some confusion just getting the notes correct, so to speak. So this is in town center. It adjoins Old Pound School.

Okay, so let them know because their map in the upper right-hand corner is clearly in error.

I will certainly pass it on, and I know Lombardo Homes has representatives here tonight, so I'm sure they'll correct it before the next submittal.

Okay.

Anyone else with a question or any comments with this bill that we have on the floor?

Thank you.

Okay. As a reminder, Director Boonage did say this is a planned residential development, so in order to pass, it requires a supermajority. All right. Seeing no other discussion, Colleen, roll call.

Councilmember Wroblewski? Yes. Councilmember Trottier?

Yes.

Councilmember Ottenberg? Yes. Councilmember Means? Yes. Councilmember Kranz?

Yes.

Councilmember Albers? Yes. Councilmember Owen? Councilmember Mabry?

Yes.

Councilmember Nyhan? Yes. Councilmember Dodwell? Yes. Councilmember Marshall? Yes. Councilmember Rambo? Yes. Councilmember Vanik? Yes. Councilmember Kummer?

Yes. Colleen, you got more than 11, right? Okay, mill passes. Moving on then, we'll go to Bill 3074. Can I get a motion for the second reading of Bill 3074 and concerns all wards? Made by Councilmember Doddwell, seconded by Councilmember Ottenberg. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, please read Bill 3074.

Bill 3074, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, hereby endorsing and ratifying the final draft of the Wildwood Historic Preservation Plan, which has been under development by this community since January 2025, and subject to a rigorous set of public input processes, multiple reviews by city officials and others, and now completed so as to allow it to be implemented to better integrate its goals and strategic actions into the city's long-standing master planning efforts, related governmental processes, and associated community initiatives, all being consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's letter of recommendation dated July 6, 2026, on this matter, PZ9-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission in Care of the Department of Planning.

Director Voonage, do you have anything else you wish to add?

Mr. Mayor, the bill has remained unchanged since its introduction approximately one month ago. If there are any questions or comments regarding the bill or the plan itself, the Department of Planning will do its best to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Okay, do we have anyone that has any questions or comments related to this bill? Okay, seeing none, go ahead and please proceed with roll call.

Councilmember Trottier?

Yes.

Councilmember Ottenberg? Yes. Councilmember Means? Yes. Councilmember Kranz? Yes. Councilmember Albers? Yes. Councilmember Owen? Councilmember Mabry? Yes. Councilmember Nyhan? Yes. Councilmember Dodwell? Yes. Councilmember Marshall? Yes. Councilmember Rambo? Yes. Councilmember Vanik? Yes. Councilmember Kummer? Yes. Councilmember Wroblewski? Yes.

Bill passes. Moving on then to new business legislation. We have two bills listed for tonight. If there's no objection from the council, I'd like to have these read en masse. And then I will be following up with the request for a second reading of Bill 3075, which is related to a stream gauge. So no objection for reading these two en masse. I don't see any. So can I get a motion for the first reading of Bills 3075 and Bill 3076? Councilmember Marshall with the motion and seconded by Councilmember Kummer. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Go ahead and please read the bills.

Bill 3075, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a site access agreement for stream gauge monitoring with the state of Missouri and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to allow for the installation and maintenance of a stream gauge monitoring station to be located on Wild Horse Creek Road bridge number 392 over Pillman Creek, which will provide real-time flood data and track flood conditions on Wild Horse Creek within the City of Wildwood. Bill 3076, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a deed, legal description, and accompanying Exhibit B for the dedication of 4,937 square feet of common ground area now owned by the homeowners association of hickory manor village d to the city of wildwood missouri for public right-of-way purposes forever and to be used in conjunction with the development of a pedestrian and cycling multiple use trail that will link town center with green pines park

All right, we'll have the 1st item. The city administratively do you wish to speak to that?

Yes. Thank you. Mayor bill 305 contains an ordinance that would allow the city to enter into agreement with Missouri to allow them to install a stream gauge monitor over near Pullman road off of wild horse creek. This isn't going to cost the city anything and the 1 thing that we were able to get them to agree to as well as if they were to make any adjustments to it in the future, or they needed to update the tech or access it where it would require a road change or a road closure or anything along those lines, they would notify the city and get the proper permits. So. nonetheless all this is doing is allowing them to put a stream gauge on on the bridge the good news is that once this stream gauge is attached to the bridge we'll be able to access a url on their website to track the the level of the stream at any given time and the goal is going to be if there's ever flooding which this is a notorious area that has flash flooding in wildwood whenever we do see when we tend to observe those conditions in the field we're going to be tracking uh what the water level is at that location so we can get a better grasp of when it is flooding so great great news glad that mdnr is doing this and just a quick shout out to um les cruz with monarch fire protection district too because he was the one that got in touch with um got in touch with the mdnr and got them interested in the first place so just wanted to make a quick shout out there but no cost to the city thank you thank you uh any questions again just for information at this time councilmember dodwell

Is this an in perpetuity setup or a certain timeline?

Yeah, so they would have it installed in perpetuity. I believe it's for 10 years, if I'm correct, that they're starting with. But I think it would be for, yeah, it should be for a longer period of time. The key is if they were to update it, because technology does change, and if they want to do that, they would reach out to us and coordinate the proper installation. But nonetheless, it seems like they're doing this across the state. They have numerous locations already. but it's almost like the cities have to reach out to them to kind of get that first initial interest but seeing this grow and they're actually trying to expand the website we'll definitely share that with the committee and council at a future date but it is a very great tool and we're happy mdnr is doing it great any uh council member ellen so i'll just say uh being being uh out in ward one on wild horse creek i know exactly where this is going in

And that road, when we do excessive rains on wild horse, that's where it comes out. It's right on that bend at the Pillman Creek input. My wife has had to turn back at that particular location just recently. So I think it's going to be helpful for us to understand what the water levels are, not only when it comes out of the creek, so we can determine if there's anything we need to do to rectify that or if potentially we could tie that into future signage that would just come on to let people know there was flooding or at least notify us here at City Hall so that we could send police down there to put signs up or something. So I was really excited about it when it came up.

Councilmember Marshall.

There are signs going in. Did we not approve that to put the signs in that stress it's high water?

Yep, there will be signs installed there and it will be flashing when there is water that's on the road. This is just an added bonus, if you will, to be able to better.

This has also got to help us when it comes for a water erosion. It takes 1 area to start on the northern side to see if we can't work it down. So anytime we can get that kind of help and tie those different departments. And I think it's a great way to go forward.

Agreed. Council member Rambo.

Yeah, some of y'all know I do a lot of paddling and I've been availing myself of these. These gauges for probably 4 decades. They had a primitive 1 on the St Francis. That was the 1st place, but now they're going in all over and I just checked 1 on the upper Jack's fork because a friend of mine lives there and we're going to paddle it. But it's the water isn't sometimes not that high. I'm saying that to say that that. the data that you get from these things has dramatically improved. Now you get graphs and so forth of what the history was and whatnot. And to Ed's point, this will be immensely valuable to us as we try to get people more aware of the fact that we've got flooding issues. And here is what, they no longer have to wait to watch a horse float by on the news. They can see it. And if we publicize this on our website, I think it will be really, really helpful. And the DNR has the next parcel over, my great-grandpa's parcel from me, has the test well for that entire area of the county. And I look at it all the time just because it tells me what my aquifer is doing and so on and so forth. And they provide water quality information and all this kind of stuff. So this is a wonderful thing, and I'm thrilled that it's free, and I'm thrilled to support it. Anyway, that's it.

Thank you. Council member Rambo. I thought you were going to start off by saying that you pulled a horse out of the creek. No, but remember that a few years ago on Fox Creek? They've had gators, I think, or, you know, quite interesting. all right well anyway um always interested uh in your outdoors adventures councilmember rambo so um any other questions or comments all right uh seeing none then i'll be back uh but we actually we will come back to that just momentarily because the city administrator said he would like to ask for a second reading since there's no monetary impact

um second uh item that we read bill 3076 uh director voonage do you have anything you would like to add thank you mr mayor and certainly if there are more detailed questions mr brown our director of public works has been intimately involved in the trail project itself which is necessitating the purchase of this area of future right-of-way As you know, the Department of Public Works was successful in obtaining a grant from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments to extend the multiple-use trail that terminates at the northern edge of the villages at Brightleaf south to Green Pines Park. To make the trail functional, an area of common ground in conjunction with Hickory Manor subdivision was necessary. Through negotiation, Common ground is to be deeded as public right of way to the city of Wildwood. And I believe Mr. Brown is under some duress in terms of timing. So both Mr. Brown and I would respectfully request that city council consider a second reading of this bill tonight. And after any questions, both Mr. Brown and I are available. Thank you.

Okay, any questions or comments related to this? Otherwise, we're going to move into second reading. All right, so any objection if we do a second reading of both of these bills tonight? All right, then I got an emotion for a 2nd, reading of bills 3 07 5 and 3 07 6 council member. Dodd. Well, is there a 2nd on the motion council member 9? All those in favor please say aye aye aye. Anyone opposed or abstain. Okay, Colleen, can you read both of these bills for the 2nd time?

Bill 3075, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a site access agreement for stream gauge monitoring with the state of Missouri and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to allow for the installation and maintenance of a stream gauge monitoring station to be located on Wild Horse Creek Road, bridge number 392. over Pillman Creek, which will provide real-time flood data and track flood conditions on Wild Horse Creek within the City of Wildwood. Bill 3076, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a deed legal description in accompanying exhibit B for the dedication of 4,937 square feet of common ground area now owned by the Homeowners Association of Hickory Manor Village D to the City of Wildwood, Missouri for public right-of-way purposes forever and to be used in conjunction with the development of a pedestrian and cycling multiple-use trail that will link Town Center to Green Pines Park.

All right. Do we have any other questions or comments with the bulk of these bills? All right. Seeing none, Colleen, roll call, please.

Council Member Ottenberg. Yes. Council Member Means. Yes. Council Member Kranz. Yes. Council Member Albers. Yes. Council Member Owen. Yes. Council Member Mabry. Yes. Council Member Nyhan. Yes. Council Member Dodwell. Yes. Council Member Marshall. Yes. Council Member Rambo. Yes. Council Member Vanek. Yes. Council Member Kummer.

Yes.

Okay. Moving along. Uh, we do not have anything under, uh, section 10 of the agenda and. Oh, do we, did we miss you? Okay.

Yes.

Thank you. Yes. Okay, yep, that matters. Luckily, it was not down to being close, right? So, okay, well, that passes. So we're moving along. We do not have anything under Section 10 of the agenda, and 11 will be part of the consent agenda. Is there any objection with the consent agenda as presented? okay then can i get a motion for approval of the consent agenda made by council member trottier is there a second on the um made by council member rambo all those in favor please say aye aye aye anyone oppose rip stain all right that motion passes um anything under miscellaneous all right council member marshall i was going back through some old files and i'd like to make a motion

That the council looks at a request for votes or an RFP. Or legal services, we did it last time in 2015. So it's been 11 years and I think technology's changed. Probably our needs have changed, but I'd like to propose that we, as a council review that. I remember, and I'm sure we have the records of the different questions and what we requested. In the last review, but I think 11 years, we should take another stab at it and see if we could update. The service expectations that we have, so I'd like to make that motion.

Okay. I would refer that to the admin and public works committee. That's the purview of that committee. So, if there's no objection, I don't care who does it.

I just like the council to make a motion to do it. And then we could get it into the budget this year.

Well, again, I would have the admin public works committee look into the matter. So I would request a motion be that the admin public works committee look into the matter of legal services.

I'll change that. I changed my original motion to do that. Okay.

So refer a motion, if it would be appropriate, refer the motion of reviewing legal services to the Admin Public Works Committee. Is there a second on that motion made by Councillor Mabry? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone oppose or abstain?

Abstain.

Okay, one abstention. All right, so we'll send that over to Admin Public Works to look into that. And anything else on the miscellaneous? Okay, a motion to adjourn. Okay, Councilmember Kummer and seconded by Councilmember Donwell. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, May meeting is adjourned. We do need to continue with the work session. Let me see, do we have anyone that would like to pause momentarily for a few minutes or do we want to move right into the work session again? All right, we're going to keep going. So, we're going to go back to the item that was being discussed under the work session, which is. related to the archery hunting regulations and deer management policy. So City Administrator Lee.

Yep, so picking up on the conversation that was left off, I will mention that we haven't necessarily been keeping close contact with White Buffalo. We did talk with them and I know that was mentioned to make sure it was in time. They still have the ability in January and parts of February right now, we have been not reaching out to them as much because we have not given direction by the council. So one thing there. That said, we were told that from them in an earlier stage that we would most likely need to have our ducks in a row with an agreement earlier in the season this year if we were wanting to secure them for services.

And what is considered earlier in the season? Do we have like a deadline where we need to be working together to do that?

Yeah, they would... well i would say that we would need to have it based on the discussions we had with them last year um and also recently when they had called um we would want to have something in hand october still coming up councilmember donwell i'd like to make a motion that we uh have the city administrator move forward with engaging white buffalo for

our deer management for the 2026-27 year as we continue to work with our hunting regulations for our bow hunters.

So we have a motion on the floor. And Councilmember Owen, you're seconding the motion. Can we make sure everyone's clear? Colleen, do you have that? okay uh everyone understand the motion like motions on the floor for discussion now does anyone wish to discuss at this time councilmember albers no sense in rushing this either thank you okay i don't get it i said no sense in rushing this action either All right. Anyone else? Any other discussion on the matter related to the motion on the floor? Okay. Let's see. We're discussing. Yeah. So just trying to decide who is up first. All right. Councilmember Dodd. Well, then and then we'll come back to Councilmember Vanik.

The reason I brought this forward is because I live in Ward 4. It was one of the first areas for the deer management project. Prior to the start of that project, we had, and I've said this multiple times, we had herds of 20 deer, two to three herds every day coming through the dense side of the city. We are now back up to about... 8 to 10 deer the whole plan for the program was that we would pick a new spot and then we would also do follow-up visits to some of the previously hit areas because this is a practice that's going to have to continue forward while i fully support where we're headed with the bow hunting and to provide our residents with more options for bow hunting in our densely populated areas i am concerned about bow hunting i have had residents come to me personally as a council member because they've had deer come into their yard space from off of strecker areas where deer hunting is possible on three acres and Deer have moved into more of the dense subdivisions and fallen dead in those areas. So I just want to make sure that we do not do away with the deer culling that we have professional individuals doing that in a quick, humane, and concerted effort. While I understand the cost for that, I think a lot of the taxpayers in Ward 4 and 5 and probably even a couple of others really appreciate the fact that we reduced the number of deer in the area. So I'm just going to continue to push for that. And I hope that we can come to some decision on moving forward with the 2021 6-27 year before White Buffalo gets booked.

All right. Council Member Vanek and then Council Member Rambo, were you wishing to speak on the matter or... Okay, so Councilmember Bannon.

Okay, this question is probably directed towards Mr. Young. That's a procedural question and a motion's been made that wasn't specifically identified within the agenda that we'd be voting on this tonight and without public input. Are we, if we move forward with this, would we be in violation of the Sunshine laws and letting the public, given them 24-hour notice, give their input to such a motion?

On this particular item, because as I understand it, it is within the subject matter of an agenda item. uh and further action will be required to go before the city council which would then allow for that public input and specificity but that's the intent behind these work sessions is to have general topics discussion with direction for further action that would allow that okay

And I think that was the difference. I think 1 other time there was a motion, but that was in the main meeting if I recall. So. This we're in the work session, so it's not a final action at this time. Um. Okay, so, yeah, can't remember. Yeah.

Yeah, I just want to be clear with this motion. What what are we getting? Are we authorizing the city to engage white Buffalo?

My interpretation of that was just to reach out to see if it's feasible, if they could even come back out, not necessarily execute agreement if I misunderstood the motion.

The motion was to get a proposal from them for the upcoming year.

Okay. So that answers my question. Thank you. So with that, what information are we providing? What do we expect White Buffalo to bid on? Are we going to provide them with areas to target?

Typically, I mean, we didn't carry out operations in 2026 and 2020, well, earlier this year. If they were to come back, I would recommend, they would come back with a recommendation too, but we'd be going back pretty much to the same service area that was identified for work in 2026. The count's probably going to be different because there's going to be an adjustment in the number. That said, we still, we haven't done an updated deer count either since December of last year.

So would that be a component of this proposal as a updated deer account?

They could provide those services, but if that's something that the council would want us to look into, they can provide those services, but typically we've used a different, either the police department and then they would review the data, but someone else collecting the raw data itself, just so it's kind of separating out the system.

Thank you. Councilmember Rambo.

Yeah, I had to leave unfortunately for a minute and a lot evidently transpired. I thought this was just a discussion of the preliminary findings and we would review the full report and make recommendations and decisions at the next council meeting. So I'm a little bit behind the curve. I'm sorry for that. But, um, um. I do think it's mandatory for us to do a count and figure out how to fund that. We can do it when the leaves fall and so forth, but if we have any hope of doing any meaningful analysis of any program that we put in place, it starts with how many deer we have, how many go away, etc. So we have modified the approach and modified the science beyond recognition and so forth. And I think we need to do a better job of getting that back into the bounds of logic and reason and whatever that whatever that takes is the right thing to do. I have, I personally, just as an aside, I have no objection to 1 acre versus 3 acre because it doesn't affect my ward. I probably have the fewest homes that are on 1 acre minimums and the folks that are on the 1 acre and smaller lot sizes. Those are the ones that seem to be enthusiastic about that on the council. And so. Who the heck am I to say? Because it won't affect me. I do have some strong. Observations concerning the 1 acre minimums and what that would do to any other sorts of collection efforts. And what that will do to affect. affect residents, but I will hold that until our discussions in the next couple of months. I just wanted to say that I support the idea of counting. Counting is mandatory, and I support the idea of reengaging with White Buffalo just to see what they suggest we ought to do. It's a no cost option, and it's just a question. That's it. Thanks.

Any other discussion? OK, we do have that motion. Does anyone need the motion repeated? All right, being that we do have, I think, different opinions, probably just best to do a roll call so we see where we land with that. Oh, wait, do we have? Oh, can you read the motion again?

um i believe the motion was to move forward to get a proposal from white buffalo far right buffalo for the 2026 2027 culling season again this is not a final action since we are in the work session um it would have to be uh come back and then eventually uh be read in our main meeting excuse me will there be a vote on

the the original the original um uh the survey yeah yeah yeah we're coming back I mean motion was just brought up while we're um you know disgusting okay yeah so uh seeing no other hands um we'll just do a roll call and see where we land with that Councilmember Means yes Councilmember Kranz I want to say hello

Councilmember Albers? No. Councilmember Owen? Yes. Councilmember Mabry?

Yes.

Councilmember Nyhan? Yes. Councilmember Dodwell? Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes.

Councilmember Rambo? Yes. Councilmember Vanik? No. Councilmember Kummer? No. Councilmember Wroblewski? No. Councilmember Trottier?

No.

Councilmember Ottenberg?

No.

Every time we talk about this topic, it's a tie.

Yeah.

I mean, my, wait, do we, can you, we have a question back here about this? Oh, what the vote is?

Okay. You need nine votes.

Five? Is it five? Yeah. Oh. Still got to be nine.

Wait a minute. The city attorney has commented.

yeah you don't need nine because this is just a recommendation brings in the board not the approval in ordinance but it's not a true tie because you only have seven it's not a date it's not say again you've got two people that are not here so it's not a true tie it's not a tie of the count what is it it

Okay. So the city attorney says a failed vote for it to be a true tie. It would be failed vote. So, okay. Um, so we're back to discussion here, uh, you know, with the survey and therefore city administrator, do you have anything else that you wish to add with that or what would you be your recommendation?

Yeah, the only thing is we'll be having, this will return, we are going to have the formal report come back to the city council. It'll have a little bit more information about the, give us a little bit more of a well-rounded approach on the margin of error so we can really start making some extrapolations from the data that we have in front of us and then how that applies to the residency as a whole. But overall, I think this gives us some pretty clean direction. One thing I did want to mention, though, is when it does come back, we do have, you know, there's generalized questions that are in there, but There won't necessarily be a vote on the survey except just accepting it. But if there is conclusions or changes to the code or changes in policy that come from this, then there would be votes on that at the next work session. So the plan is at the September work session, we'll have that final report and Professor Nanes should be available for questions. Thank you.

all right so we'll proceed then with the remainder of the agenda here so we do have a closed session uh which we'll need to go into so and then we do come back out here for a miscellaneous receiving file so perhaps what we can do is address the miscellaneous receiving file if there's no objection from the council then uh once we get that out of the way then we would go into the remaining item which is the executive closed session and then we'll come back out after that's complete and adjourn the meeting so if there any objection to changing the order of the agenda all right so seeing none go ahead with the miscellaneous receiving file thank you Mr. Mayor

mr mayor members of city council before you tonight as the first item is a preliminary plat recommendation report acted upon by the planning and zoning commission at its august 3rd 2026 meeting the preliminary plat recommendation report supports the submittal of a plat for 15 three plus acre lots that would be located on the west side of christie avenue south of manchester road Two of the 15 lots have existing dwellings located on them, and they'll be retained. And as part of the preliminary plan, the intent is to provide access from Christie Avenue to each of the lots via a private roadway that will be built to the city's rural roadway standards. There is an overall stormwater management plan for the private street. And each of the lots will be required to provide on-site stormwater management facilities. Those typically are rock sumps or amended soils, rain gardens, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended a waiver to the Centralized Waste Water Treatment Plant. that waiver was granted by resolution of this city council so each of the lots will have on-site treatment via a individualized wastewater treatment system septic tank and drain field The vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimous. And if there are any questions regarding this particular project, the department would be glad to answer them. And I would note that Mr. Marshall and Mayor Garitano are on the Planning and Zoning Commission and have firsthand experience as well. So thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any questions?

again this is receiving file so yes moonage and the last item mr mayor and members of city council is rockwood school district would like to build two 120 square foot sheds at lafayette high school and babbler elementary school they are intending to use the company tough shed and so the sheds will have lap siding shingled roofs and complementary colors And the Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed the locations as well as the architectural styles. If there are any questions regarding the two sheds, the department would be glad to answer them at this time.

Any questions? Council Member Mabry.

I noticed this one. I just wondered, why do they need two tiny sheds? What are they going to put in them?

Well, the one at Lafayette High School is by the athletic fields, and there is an existing shed there that looks like it's been there for a very, very long time. And so I believe this is a replacement. And I think, as was described to me, there's for just general storage of the equipment that they need at the athletic field. The other at Babel Elementary is next to the track and the playground. And again, my understanding is it's for storage play equipment.

I just had a concern that if these were new installations, it doesn't sound like they are. It sounds like they're replacements. Why do they need a permit to put a replacement anything in?

They are considered structures. They'll be on permanent foundations, so they'll also need a county building permit.

Even a replacement in kind. That's interesting. The first thing I thought of was... David Dismukes, Kids will be kids so that's a target rich environment for finding out what's in it and then taking it if it's something a kid can use, which is game equipment. David Dismukes, I guess we're not supposed to put our nose in worrying about security for the high school that was all I really had is a concern for meeting sheds on a sports field. David Dismukes, that's all.

Well, I will say tough sheds are some of the better constructed types that you can purchase. And they usually include security measures, locks, et cetera. And so from the perspective of the department, we wanted to make sure the location was okay. And we believe the architecture for a shed is about as good as it gets.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Council Member Rambo.

Yeah, Joe, we at. The folks at Pond Elementary wanted to build an outdoor sort of just a rain-protected area for an outdoor classroom, and it wound up costing them $100,000 plus because we ran them through all these architectural requirements and so on and so forth. That wasn't that much bigger than these sheds. Are we going to do the same thing with these sheds, or are we just going to let them do what they want?

Well, in actuality, I differ in opinion regarding the type of structure it was. It was a covered balcony plus storage, and it involved extending over the existing retaining wall. So there were some structural.

It was the foundational stuff.

Yes. I see. And again, these are not habitable. I assume someone will go in and pick up a piece of equipment. But that building structure for a pond school, obviously children will be in it.

Okay, got it. But they had to do stonework on the base to make it look architecturally appropriate and all those kinds of things. So I was just double checking.

We are changing architectural review process. So hopefully in the future, you won't have to identify that as a particular issue.

Thank you. Okay, thank you director. All right before we proceed with the item to go into closed executive session. I was just advised by the city attorney. Regarding the tie vote. With the motion that was made by council member dog. Well, so do you want to go ahead and explain that?

After reviewing the city code and the provisions of the city charter, I realized I was incorrect in my answer that I gave you a moment ago about the mayor's authority to break a tie. If this were a situation where it was an ordinance that required nine votes, that would have been correct. However, because this is a simple motion where a majority of those present voting would prevail because the vote that landed on a tie was 7-7, the mayor would retain his right. I apologize.

So, therefore, then this is a tie at this time and would just be okay. So, given that the significant costs that are involved in this, and the fact that we're in the midst of looking at a survey. And the fact that this has been a topic that the city has had to deal with since basically it's incorporation for 30 years. I think at this point, we're close to seeing the survey results. That will help influence where we go and therefore my vote would be on the. The negative side regarding the matter. So, again, I just. bear with a little patience and just trying to get to what the survey says, what changes will happen. I'm also a little concerned too that it would feel a little open-ended going to White Buffalo without us dictating exactly what the scope is. And if that scope is still accurate from the last time that these documents were updated. So that's, I just would exercise caution and therefore vote no. Okay, so moving on, then we are going to move into the executive closed session and we do need to go in there for 610.021. Section 1, legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communications between public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys so can we get a motion to go into executive closed session made by council member Kranz is there a second made by council member Robleski we'll need a roll call yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Okay, we will move into the community room and we will come back after executive session is complete and we will conclude our main meeting. Turn back from close executive session. We don't have any other items, but the adjournment. So, can we get a motion to adjourn the meeting by council member? Dodd? Well, 2nd, by council member cover all those in favor please say, aye.