City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, everybody. Uh, thank you for joining us this evening for the April um, city council work session and main meeting for the city of Wildwood. Um, I am council member Joe Farmer. I am uh, representative from Ward 4. Uh, as the mayor prom, I'm filling in for mayor Garano this evening. He may join us via Zoom uh, from what I understand, but um, I will be overseeing the meeting. And basically what that means is uh, I just sort of run the meeting. I vote like a regular council member. I don't have any special powers or anything like that. Um, if there happens to be a tie in one of the votes, uh, normally the mayor would break the tie. I don't have that ability. So, it is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Young, but if there is a tie, then I think it just loses, right?

Tie vote fails. Yes, sir. Tie vote fails this evening. Okay. Um, so with that, thank you for joining us, folks. We'll start with our roll call. Mayor Geritano, Council Member Farmer here, Council Member Dodwell, Council Member Nyan here, Council Member Attenburg here, Council Member Traier here, Council Member Mabberry here. Council member Robki here. Council member Preston here. Council member Marshall present. Council member McCutchen here. Council member Rambo here. Council member Bert present via Zoom. Council member Crayons here. Council member Vanic. Council member Alers here.

Council member Galani here. Okay. Um I don't really have any announcements or comments this evening. Uh and the mayor didn't send any any either. So uh that brings us to our four information section. We've got a number of items that have been working their way through the various C uh committees and boards and things like that. Um, if anybody has any specific questions or areas of concerns or anything on any of these items, now would be the time to bring it up. Miss McCutchen.

Yeah. Um, sorry guys, but I have a lot of questions. Um, Mr. Vonage, the Green Pines Connector Trail, um, the extension deadline that we had for what was it? nine nine months. Oh, okay. Sorry, wrong person. But we had an extension. My question is, how close are we to um that extension date? Is this going to be completed before we've run out of time?

Um we still have Miss McCutchen, um essentially we have to get the easement in hand by the end of June and we have to have the project bid essentially by October 1st. So we still have time, but time is of the essence. the plans are 100% completed and turned in. The main remaining piece of work is getting the easement from the HOA.

Well, you know, I have been told by the HOA there and a couple other residents who have been to um some meetings that the HOA gave their approval for the easement and that the city has been notified more than one time. So, enlighten me please. why we are still saying we don't have that easement.

Well, I I've not had any contact with the trustees until as of late. Um, and that was all in terms of of arranging meeting a meeting which we're hoping to have on Thursday by the way to go over the offer and the form the formal offer that we are putting on the table at the moment. So, I'm not aware of any prior conversations. Joe, if you have anything to add. I I don't So this is for there's a meeting on Thursday to obtain the easement.

Um so they the HOA has been extended the offer. The paperwork that we have to to provide them has been mailed and received as I understand it. The meeting on Thursday is to go over essentially the documents that have been submitted to the HOA and discuss the project and the easement and they need their concerns essentially to answer primarily any questions they have relative to the acquisition first and foremost. So on this meeting on Thursday then you can have um permission for the easement and can move forward. Um that is feasible if they were in in a position to sign the documents on Thursday. I certainly can't speak for the HOA on that.

And once you get the easement, how long is it going to take to complete the project? So then on our hands, we just have to uh essentially record the easement um and provide that documentation to MODOT and and more or less that that establishes the uh the uh remaining uh tasks for easement acquisition and then we have to move forward getting the uh approval to bid the project. Okay. So it wasn't correct. What I heard was that MODOT already had everything that they needed and all we needed was the HOA approval to move forward.

Black, yes, is the is the easement. The plans have been submitted and by and large they've been reviewed. I believe they're um close to being 100% but um the main uh piece of information is the easement. Y and then once you get the easement, when is the project going to physically start? I would expect um best case it would start this fall when this fall. Are we talking about August, September, October, November, December? What are we talking about? September, October, November. So by October

I wish I could more specific, but what hinges on MDOT and their approval process and which unfortunately we're at the mercy of their review and their approval. So yeah, I I'm I get a lot of questions about this and um I'm sure maybe either Joe or probably more so Joe from residents because this has been a long haul and we really haven't seemed to make any progress and and the I I understand you're saying you didn't get response back from the HOA but that's not what the HOA is saying so residents are upset so as soon as it's possible and I understand we got tons of projects for the city as soon as

respect they haven't had the offer in hand very long but we have made progress. The plans, like I said, are pretty much 100% done and have been submitted to MODOT for final review. So, I believe we've made some really good progress and we just have the one final step to make the easement with the HOA. And if they're willing to cooperate, um, I would expect that to move forward relatively quickly. Okay. Because as far as I know, they are they they believe they have cooperated and provided you with the approval to go ahead. Find that out on Thursday. Okay. What time? Thursday. Uh, I believe we're still trying to finalize the meeting, but I believe it was 11:00 a.m. Will you let me know, please? Sure.

And then, um, the lighted the neon lighted signs for businesses. Um, what specifically are they for? Miss Puchin, I believe you're talking about the public hearing we held last Monday night with the planning and zoning commission and we were talking about window signage in general, which includes the neon type that we're seeing more and more in many of our businesses. At the public hearing, the Department of Planning recommended that we move forward with new regulations relative to that type of signage because right now in our zoning ordinance, surprisingly, they're called exclusions and there's really only one regulation relating to it and it's about size. So, we struggle sometimes with managing them. Mr. Lee and others have been um working with the department to create a set of what I would consider fair regulations. So next steps, the matter will be back to the planning and zoning commission at its meeting in May, finalized in June, and to city council either in June or July.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Um

well, yes, but nothing that can't wait. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mayor Prom. Yes, sir. Um if I could comment on the Green Pines Trail just real briefly. Sure. Um in preparation of the meeting, I did talk to Mr. Cunningham and I believe they mentioned they have a counter offer to what we've provided. So I think that's the crux of the issue. I don't know what that is, if it's more funding, landscaping, whatever the circumstance, but I can assure you that Mr. Brown and I will bring our best foots forward and try to get this easement so we can get started. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody have any other questions or concerns or comments on any of the four information items before we get into the four action stuff? No. Staff folks, you got anything you want to add to any of those items? Nothing for now, but available for any questions. Thank you. Okay, great. Uh with that, that will bring us to our core action section. Uh, and we are starting off with the evaluation of city boards, commissions, committees, and advisory bodies. I assume that's you, Mr. Lee.

That is correct. Thank you, Mayor Promp. Uh, wanted to go over this. This was reviewed by the planning and parks committee and the administration public works committee. So, uh, we'll go over a brief update and then go over the committee recommendations in the report tonight. Uh, you'll see two different tier uh, two different recommendations. One from planning and parks, one from the administration public works committee. Um we'll go over those in a advisory sense tonight. But overall, this stemmed from an initial uh effort back in the late fall, early winter last year where it was discussed where we had possibly some overlap within some of our supporting advisory bodies. And the idea was to look at how much staff time was needed and anticipated um in order to run these meetings on a day-to-day basis. Uh considering we have about 18 that are currently active. That said, after digging in a little bit, we were able to identify it takes approximately 16 to 40 hours of staff time for preparation of any given meeting. Um, that includes taking the minutes, uh, putting down the agenda, publishing information, and also drafting reports. So after that there was a a request from the committees to put together a tiered system to be able to identify you know tier one being the legally required for um you know whether it be zoning or land use uses or serve some type of quasi judicial function. uh tier two being identified somewhat in the middle. Um serving in an advisory nature, but typically overseeing a pretty large budget portion of the budget and advisory sense or providing critical um advice on specific issues like something like the board of public safety, which we'll get into. And then tier three being more ad hoc groups and groups that were created um you know, either not by ordinance, but more so by motion as a special uh group to look into specific issues. to get into, you know, the meat and potatoes of this, the committees were aligned um on tier three items. So, when I go over tier three, those recommendations that included the development and zoning review committee, the master plan citizen oversight group, the ad hoc building committee, all-inclusive playground fundraising

group, um our landscape and planning subcommittee, which has uh by the way has concluded, but did want to include that. It's a recent one, and then the wershed erosion task force. Those were all created not necessarily by um a code provision but were created by ordinance I mean were created by motion from the city council or subcommittee. That said um all of those were agreed upon at least in the recommendations. So I won't go too much in depth on those tonight. Where I wanted to kind of hone in is that there was also agreement on all tier one meetings. Um where there was some disagreement that we wanted to discuss tonight and get feedback from the the full council was the tier twos. that's where we had a little bit of um difference of opinion. So that said, I'll go over these briefly and we'll jump right in. But first and foremost, we had the economic development committee included here. Um the administration public works committee thought that it could possibly move to an as needed basis u meeting when there was development proposals that could come in or if there was some type of incentive that possibly is being considered. Anything that might benefit uh the local business community that would be considered and they would still maintain a spot on the city calendar. just be determined at the beginning of each month whether or not they meet. The planning and parks committee had uh had recommended that no changes be made to the economic development committee at this time. So there was a difference there we wanted to discuss with the with the full council. Um next there was historic preservation. Uh there was similar a similar recommendation from administration and public works committee where this would also move to an as needed basis but have some very key trigger points. Meaning the historic preservation commission would still meet to review um demolitions of historical structures and anything that might have a historic structure nature to it. If there's a building that might being considered for being added to the historic registry, uh they would still meet for those items. and also any type of action that would be required to continue and maintain our CLG certification, our certified local

government um certification with the Missouri State Historical uh society. That said, um the planning and parks committee said that they we should retain um the commission in its current form and not make any alterations. That said, it was noted that we are working currently on the historic preservation master plan and a recommendation was made to revisit that following the implementation of said plan and adoption. So this is one that was difference of meeting as needed versus meeting um meeting as needed or meeting whenever we would not making any changes but revisiting after the historic preservation plan was adopted. Then we had the celebration commission. Uh the idea behind the administration and public works committee's recommendation uh was that there would be multiple meetings still that would occur throughout the year. One prior to the overall festival of the city uh celebrate Wildwood and then one following it kind of a uh premeating and then a post meeting to it really look at the effectiveness of the planning efforts but also the execution. And then throughout that the change that was recommended by the administration public works committee was to have possibly anywhere between two to three meetings sprinkled in throughout the rest of the year to oversee you know just overall execution of the the committees the commission's goals throughout that year. Um the planning and parks committee test oh planning and parks committee agreed with the general approach. So this there's alignment on this but that said um there was also discussion whether or not just to move this as an as needed basis considering there may be some months where it's needed some months there is not uh but there was general alignment amongst the committees then uh we also had the architecture review board this was most likely the there was agreement within the approach but also one of the bigger changes um the idea behind it is that the city would potentially move some of the responsibilities of the architecture review board under the scope of the planning and zoning commission Um and the idea would also be to potentially

have a consultant come in and work on behalf of the city on an annual basis subject to annual review uh to review each development proposal and its compliance with the town center architectural guidelines and then that information would be presented to the planning and zoning commission and then would be acted upon by that commission receipt and then received by the city council. That said, the idea was also uh posed at that same meeting whether or not u this consultant that would oversee the review of all architectural submissions would also be paid for paid for by the developer that may be um submitting it at the time. So that was um both agreed with that that approach u which would most likely be one of the larger changes being made. There was also the last one tonight to discuss uh the board of public safety apologies. Uh the board of public safety which overall the idea was to move it to an as needed uh basis. Right now it currently meets every other month um which has been working well for the committee uh for the board and has seen pretty positive results. So uh moving it to as needed would most likely retain that similar schedule. That said, um overall that ch it would give a little bit more flexibility. If there were multiple meeting items, it would still keep every other month a meeting on the schedule for each year, the calendar. That said, if there was nothing to meet necessarily about a traffic schedule change, a development review, etc., then the meeting wouldn't occur. That said, that covers the main differences. Other than that, there was pretty wide um acceptance amongst both committees about the recommendations were being made. Um did just want to thank the both committees for their work on this. I know it was uh going through it for quite a bit of time and do appreciate it. If there are changes that are ended up coming from the council tonight, just know that some may require uh actual code amendments. So we may have to come back with legislation depending on the outcome of tonight's meeting. But the department's available for any question. Did want to provide that high level overview. Uh but any direction from the

council tonight will be brought back at a subsequent meeting. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Miss Dodwell,

thank you very much for putting together a concise recommendation from both committees so that we are able to assess effectively what the thoughts of all the council are. I would like to make a motion to move ahead with the um changes as outlined in this document. I don't know if we need to put that back to staff to have them bring together a um an ordinance or what measures we need. That would be a legal and city administrator discussion. But um I'll make that motion. Okay.

Can I add a note there, Mayor? Sure. Thank you. Um just wanted to add too, so the majority of them where there was alignment both committees, I think that we can most definitely incorporate that. There were a couple that had um there were two different there were differing opinions from each committee. So that said, would we just speaking to your motion, would we exclude those ones or would we be adopting the planning and parks or administration public works committee uh recommendation?

I don't know. What do you think would be the best method to come to a consensus on anything that we don't agree upon? So overall uh when looking at the difference of opinion it really came down to just a few of the commission few of the advisory boards. So we had economic development um historic preservation uh wildwood celebration somewhat and then the um that was really it. So that said, um if anything, we could work in and this is just more of an advice uh for this is we could potentially adopt the changes that were recommended and agreed upon and possibly uh maybe conduct further study into the the commissions or committees that were there is disagreement. That said, um we'll have I mean we could have that discussion tonight too on those three that were mentioned because there we if we do push it back, do we push it back? The question would be do we push it back to the administration public works committee or the planning and parks committee or both? I would assume both.

Can Yeah. Can I offer a suggestion maybe? Um so at least from my recollection and understanding the from the admin PW side on the ones that are I guess those tier 2 ones so EDC and uh historic preservation and I think specifically the celebrate Wildwood one. I think it was those three. the the general idea was um when we looked at it, you know, these meetings are costing they cost the city roughly between, you know, $700 and $2,000 to have to get it all put together. And so the idea was would be and this might just be a conversation less less work than an ordinance and things like that is um you know maybe what it is is just an encouragement from us to say hey if if you don't if you don't think you need to have a meeting you don't need to have one. One of the reasons that we had the conversation was we were talking through um you know there are some there are some committees that have a difficult time getting a quorum. There are some committees that have a difficult time filling empty slots, things like that. and and now we're seeing the first kind of round of um term limits happening. So people that have been places for a very long time are going to start to not be able to be there. And so I think that the idea was to try to maximize people's time and attention as much as possible. When we talked through it, the best no matter what we decided to do, you know, in order to appoint people to these boards and commissions, you have to have a slot on the calendar so people can plan ahead and all those kinds of things. So I I kind of think the thought we had was, you know, you set them up to have their time the way they normally would and then it's sort of up to the chair, I guess, or you know, perhaps the staff person to go, hey, I don't know that we need to have a meeting this month unless there's something very pressing and then we can do it. I just think giving the staff enough time to understand they don't need to have one to do all that prep work is sort of the key thing. I mean, that would be that would be my suggestion just because I

don't know that we change a whole bunch of ordinances and that that seems like an awful lot of work. Um, but I do think we can make some things more efficient and we've eliminated a whole bunch. Some of them are self eliminating with the tier three stuff. So, that should help a lot as well. So, are you looking for a recommendation that we agree upon these changes as a council and yes, if done so, we don't need to change anything in our code or anything like that. We just need to move forward with these recommendations.

Yeah, there would be. So to Mr. Farmer's point, the as needed basis if we were to make that change, there would be just one we would have to update the code just for EDC. The others um would not necessarily need any adjustment. That said, uh I was just looking back on the report too. The major two difference two differences of opinion were EDC and HPC. Um, if we wanted to, we could accept all the other recommendations as presented tonight and then we could go back and either study those, but try to look at this too. At the end of the day, we will still need some code amendments such as for architecture review. We are going to have to go in and change that considering we'd be moving to a consultant model and potentially having um the con the individual applicant paying for those services, you know, the city choosing it. That will be new. Other than that though, all the others could be reasonably changed as recommended tonight without any major changes to the ordinance. Let me see if I can change the way I worded this. Um what if we um move forward with the changes that can be made effective today? Have the city administrator take those changes that need adjustments in our code or in our processes. line those out and bring those back to a separate meeting so that we can do a final vote on those at another time.

That'd be acceptable. And if Colleen needs to know what those things are, we can provide that. We'll provide that through this document that you've created. That would be acceptable. Certainly. Okay. So, we have a motion basically to go with plan A except for those few things when we go with plan B. We're good. Okay, Mr. Utenberg. So, um, can you recap what is it that we would actually be voting on with this motion?

So, right now the at least my interpretation of it is any of the u changes that are recommended here where there was alignment, it would be accepting that recommendation. The two that would be a little bit more that would return back for consideration would be changes to the historic preservation commission, changes to the economic development committee, and then changes to the um architecture review board considering those will require code changes that go with them.

So, so what is the actual recommendation regarding the economic development committee? Because I've heard two different interpretations of that. One is to just meet on an as needed basis. The other is to leave it on the calendar, leave it unchanged, but allow the committee chair, whoever that may be, whether it's me or someone else, to make a decision at the beginning of each month, maybe in consultation with the city administrator, whether or not we need to have the meeting that month.

Yes. So, that said, with the EDC, it would require the code change because it requires a meeting every month. That said, if we were to move forward with what Miss Dod will had mentioned based off my department's re interpretation of it would be that we would come back with an option to really move it to as needed and what that would mean to the code which would just be changing the monthly meeting requirement. It would keep it on the calendar each year uh each month but then it would be something where the chair consults with staff to see if it's if it's necessary. So, excuse me. So, has there been a second to this motion yet?

No. Okay. Because once there's a second, if there is a second, I would like to propose an amendment to this motion that council member Dodwell has made. Okay. Yes, sir.

Coming back. Sorry. Second. Get turned out quite a quiet mark the last time. I don't know. So motion the motion motion at that point.

Now per Robert's rules, you have a motion and second, then the item is up for debate and amended. Once the motion, if the motion's voted on, then it's passed. An amendment would be too late at it's debated on whether it should be but but debate would include also any motions for amendments that time as well. So it's after a motion and second is when it's before the council uh and then is subject to amendment.

So it's kind of like adding stuff on to the motion basically. So like Katie Katie made her motion and then Scott will make whatever change she wants to make and then we'll decide on Scott's motion and if that's what passes then it takes over Katie's. If if it doesn't then it goes back to Katie's motion.

Nicole Well, once the once the motion is made and seconded, it belongs to the council. uh and it is subject then to the amendment of the council and amendments can only be approved by the council. So if the count including the maker of the motion gets an opportunity to vote on that. So that's that's how Robert's envisions

I think originator of motion resended the not agreed to have changed as to the degree it was that became no longer the motion wasn't the same motion take the board. So the motion maker through that

I and I apologize but I I don't I don't remember any motions in that context. I have had a maker of a motion withdraw their motion with the consent of the second before it begin the possession of the body. All right. Well, let's do it this way. We got a motion. Anybody care to second the motion? If we don't second the motion, then it doesn't matter anyways. All right. Mr. Marshall seconds the motion. Now, do we have any discussion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Do we have any discussion, Mr. Hotenberg?

Yes. Um, I'd like to propose an amendment to this motion to remove the economic development committee recommendations from the overall recommendations and have a separate discussion on that at a later time. And if I get a second to that motion, I'll provide some reasons why I would like to do that. Okay. Would anybody care to second that? Mr. CR will second that. Let's hear all about it.

All right. Okay. Very good. Well, thank you very much. Um, I don't think that, um, making a formal change to the monthly meeting process that we have right now is necessary or advisable. I'll give you a perfect example of that. You may recall back in February, we had the economic forum meeting over here in the community room. And after the meeting, we had a discussion in the back of the room regarding enforcement of the city sign code. and everybody was in agreement that we should proceed forward with enforcement of the city sign code. Well, I got a call later on that day from a staff member here at city hall saying, "Do you know what this means? This means as we go out and we enforce the city's sign code, we are going to be issuing violation notices to dozens of businesses for having open signs in their windows." Now, I didn't know this, but maybe other council members knew this. We do not have anything in our current sign code that permits businesses to have open signs in their windows. So, we would have ended up with a black eye when dozens of businesses get violation notices for having open signs in their windows. So, what we were able to do because we are having an EDC meeting just a couple of days later is make a motion asking code enforcement not to enforce the sign code to initiate a 60-day pause while they do a review of the sign code in as it pertains to having open signs in windows of businesses. Now, if we're meeting on an asneeded basis, that may have been difficult to pull a meeting together on short notice considering what the travel schedules are of people business-wise, personally, vacationwise, etc. So, I have an objection to it on that standpoint uh to to making those changes and I would like to discuss these separately. The other objection I have is a little bit more sensitive and it's

this. At no time while the administration and public works committee was considering these recommended changes to the economic development committee did we get contacted about these recommended changes. No one contacted me. No one sent us an email. No one uh asked us for our input. The changes were just recommended without us knowing it. I found out about it when I was watching the playing and parks meeting and city administrator Lee was giving his update on the recommended changes that would be coming forward and all of a sudden I realized that the recommended changes to the economic development committee were something that we weren't aware of. No one had given us a heads up and I just don't think that's the proper way to handle situations like this. You know, the unfortunate thing is we approached a particular council member and said,"Wh didn't someone on admin PW contact EDC and tell them what was going on or what they were recommending?" That council member said, "We don't have to. We have the right to make these changes." So, that's the reason I would like this taken out for now and discussed at a later date, possibly at the May meeting.

Okay. Miss time. Um, I just want to get understand it. So, after that forum that you had and then there was an issue with the signs, did you have a special meeting or you had your regularly scheduled meeting? We had our regularly scheduled meeting. Okay. But you still would have a

Well, we would still have a regularly scheduled meeting, but if people get the suspicion that they may be cancelled on a regular basis, it's going to be hard to pull people together and address an emergency situation like this. I mean, just sitting on MMPW I I can only speak for myself, but that I never interpreted it that way. I just thought you meet once a month. EDC meets once a month. If maybe there's a month that CF committee is out of town, pretty sick. I don't there's not a lot on the agenda that you had the flexibility. And it was kind of almost giving you for the city staff and out to not have to feel like they had to have a meeting. But as far as I'm concerned, you could have every single month all good. Life goes on, whatever. I don't ever expect EDC to not have a meeting. I guess I just looked at it as an kind of an escape bell if anyone felt like they really didn't need to have one and were trying to and that goes really for any committee. Yes. But um that that was my intent and in support.

Well, I appreciate that. I think probably everybody would agree that 90% of the communication problems we have these days occur when people don't communicate. and no one communicated to me what the intent of these recommended changes were to the EDC committee. So, how are we supposed to know what it is that people have in mind when nobody contacts us, nobody gives us a heads up, nobody asks for our input?

Okay, so we've got a motion in a second. I will just add this. There are at least three members of the economic development committee on admin PW. So, it's not that the committee wasn't represented. I'm on it. Chris is on it. Cliff is on it. It's this wasn't an exercise to strip away a committee or do something. This was an exercise to save time and make things more efficient. And if you want to pull it out, we've got a motion in the second and I'm happy unless there's other discussion, we can have a vote on it. Yes, ma'am.

So, one, please restate the motion. Two, if we have this before us tonight, why can we not just deal with it, resolve it, and move on? Well, I would say I don't I don't know. I would assume I I would think the motion, at least, correct me if I'm wrong, is to just pull out EDC to have that discussion another day and have then uh historic preservation and architecture review move forward to Tom and the staff figuring out what changes would it be necessary and if that's something we want to do down the road. Um, but I don't know why we couldn't do it tonight. But

well, don't we have to know what it is we would like the staff to do before we have the staff spin their wheels and come back with us was something that we don't even know if we want to do. Shouldn't we make our mind up first, Mr. Lee?

Yeah. So the department's interpretation of the initial motion and we get to the uh amendment um was that in the report there are recommendations that were in concurrence both the planning and parks committee administration and public works committee where there was concurrence where both committees approved of the changes those would be effectuated practically now those were no there's no real um consternation it's they're agreed upon those were from my understanding u to proceed then there were a that there were difference of opinions which included HPC, EDC and then U architecture review which is going to include some code changes as well. Those three committees were the ones that were going to have to return because there's going to be a code there would be required to be a code change um in order for them to pass considering H uh ARB would include um would include us pretty much changing the entire setup of that commission currently and then we'd have a consultant doing the work for us. So that's going to take some extra work. EDC. Um, we'll set that aside for a second. Then also HPC having that really meeting just for demos and meeting for when we're potentially considering a, you know, a historic preservation property that's going to be added to the registry. Those are the only things that would trigger it, which would significantly change the current setup in our code. That's it.

Can I interrupt you? I'm sorry. But if we but if you don't know what it is the council wants you to move forward with then you're not going to be able to go and say come back to us and say oh we need to change the code this way or we need to do this or that. If we don't give you direct uh correct direction or strategic direction and we just leave it hanging out there. You're not going to you're going to spin your wheels. Come back to us.

That is agreed. And in that case with specifically with HPC and EDC where there was disagreement that would be helpful to get direction on EDC whether planning and parks admin PW's recommendations is aligned more with the council or if it's something where it's a different recommendation either way. Um same with HPC if since there's a difference there if there's you know one or the other um or both or a portion of one or the other that would be very helpful for those two committees considering there were two different opinions. Thank you. And could I go back to the um motion that was made which was um to take forward for I'm sorry for your motion or for Mr. Utenberg's motion?

For Mr. Utenberg's motion. Okay. Which was to pull out EDC for further review and discussion to pull out HPC for further review and discussion. and to pull out um architecture review board. It was just right

review and discussion so that we can have at our next meeting the ability to through each of our subcommittees to review anything that has to be changed in our ordinance or city code through those committees and then be able to vote on that at either the next meeting or the June meeting. I just want to check. Scott, was that Well, I I was speaking You just want EDC, right? EDC. Yeah. But the other ones are

Well, so I can make an adjustment to the motion here based on something that um council member U McCutchen mentioned, which is taking care of this tonight. I would just like any recommendations regarding EDC removed period from consideration. Okay. So, so the motion is at the moment is just dealing with whether we're going to pull EDC specifically out and then we'll get to the next part in a minute. Mr. Marshall, did you have something else or No,

I was just um my comment was the fact that really thought it was giving you more clout as a chairman to determine whether you could get five numbers for a meeting or not to have a quorum to do that. So, I don't think anybody's trying to just reduce what you can meet. It's just if you don't need to meet that's your call and if you get five members for quorum that's good to go. So I I don't think there was anyone trying to say you can't do these things. It's trying to figure out how can we get and I think the other part of what we need to communicate with all this are the 110 citizens that serve on these panels or these boards. We need to let them know what we're trying to coordinate and do on on a lot of those because it shouldn't be we don't need the help. We need all the help we can get. And so part of that was how can we continue to keep active people. So, Mr. Marshall, I appreciate those comments. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Farmer, I appreciate your comments regarding there being a couple of members of EDC on admin and PW, but they are not the chairman of the committee who could have picked up the phone or sent me an email telling me about these recommended changes.

Sure. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions, concerns, comments on the motion about pulling EDC out? Yes, sir. Mr. try. So, are we pulling it out for further review or are we pulling it out end of story, not to be discussed in the future? I believe the motion is for further review down the road,

you know. So, I I will add to this um you know, to u address some of the concerns that some of the rest of the members of the council had. Back in January, I did start a process where at uh several days before each EDC meeting, we put out an email asking all the members to let us know if they can't attend. So, if we find out enough members can't attend, then yes, we'll cancel the meeting. Uh if there's a desire for us to look at the topics that we have at the beginning of each month, I mean, I can do that as well. I mean, that's not a problem. Um but it doesn't really require a change. All it really requires is somebody saying, "Hey, would you mind doing this going forward?" Yeah. I mean, my

saves a lot of administrative trouble. Yeah. I think the only I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. The only issue is at the moment, the way that it is written is it has to meet like it it it must meet. You don't get the option of whether it's going to meet or not. I think that that is correct. Current code states that the any standing committee meets monthly. So, in that case, if there's not a quorum, of course, you can't meet. But in theory, you have to put on the meeting the way it's currently written. Right. So, it was just a design to try to save that. But if So, do you want to do you want to amend your motion to pull it out entirely or do you want to keep it where we bring it back later? To um pull it out entirely.

Okay. Mr. CR, do you want to pull it out entirely or do you want to bring it back later? You are the second of the motion. Okay. Colin, you good with that? Okay. Any further discussion? Okay, why don't we call the role on the amendment? Correct. On the amended motion. Correct. Okay. Which is to pull EDC out and never speak of it again.

Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, sorry. Does it include the rest? Turn that mic on. Does it include the rest of the original motion? Are we just voting on So for this one, we're just voting on EDC and then we'll go back to the previous motion which was Miss Bodwell's motion which will be the rest of it. That's not an amendment to the motion. That's a replacement of the motion. That's also extremely illogical. Well, it's it's a replacement. It's not an amendment. It's not an add-on. It's a substitution. It's a It's

Well, I think it's an adjustment because it's the one piece. It's okay. We'll do it this way. We'll figure it out. We'll get through this first vote and then we'll get Unless you wanted to add something. I was just going to add that. Oh, but no, nothing. Okay. Okay. Let's go with our amended motion. And if the minutes are wrong, you know why. Cuz I'm confused. No, I'm not. So, can we repeat the motion, too, sir? Yeah. So the motion is to remove EDC from further conversation and I guess ostensibly return it to tier one A whatever. Yeah, it would tier uh return a tier one if that was the case. Okay, Scott I work. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Council member Farmer. Sure. Council member Dodwell. Fine. Yes. Yes. Council member Nyan.

Yes. Council member Attenburg. Yes. Council member Trier. Yes. Council member Mabberry. Abstain. Council member Roblooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bockart, yes. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Alers, no. Council member Galani, no.

Okay, that now that motion passes. That brings us back to Miss Dodwell's motion, which is basically to accept everything we agreed upon and then bring back the uh ordinance change recommendations on historic preservation and architecture review. Architectural review. Any questions, comments, concerns? Yes, sir. Just want to add one small uh when we do this review, we're going to double check each one of the other recommendations just in case there is any other code requirements. So, we know for a fact that ARB and HPC would require it, but just to add that in in case it returns on a on the future agenda, I want to make sure that the council's aware that's why it would come back, but except EDC. Okay,

I just have a question about um architectural review. I'm all fine with the consultant. My concern is so how's this going to work? Is the consultant going to bring back a recommendation to whom? Yes. And then what what processes followed afterwards?

Yes. So right now and this is something that would need to be finalized and come back for formal review. That said, the idea would be to have the council each year during the budgeting process select a architectural consultant that would serve almost as a retainer basis. That said, we would have to structure this in a way where they're reimbursed or their costs are covered by the developer that's submitting the application. So, we would practically put together an RFP um that goes out and says, "Hey, this is your rate that you'd be established." And that would be what's charged to any developer that needs to go through that review process, most likely on a percentage of the overall cost of the development. Um that said, once that individual is selected and the payment is made, that individual would put together a report. Instead of having um a specific meeting of this board, this uh architecture review board, it would now become almost a standing item on the planning and zoning commission's agenda. That report would then be submitted to planning and zoning. They would either, you know, accept those findings or, you know, make changes concurrently. Um, and then that would go to the full city council for formal consideration. That said, um, that is the initial framework that we put together. We would need to iron everything out and put it on paper and that would be what would come back to the city council.

Okay. So, my concern is I think that let's are Yep. Come on up. Thank you. Um Tom added one thing that I don't remember being discussed and that's the report from the consultant and commission regarding ARB coming back to city council. I couldn't see a worst case scenario. That's going to add a lot of time and there's 16 of you. It's like having 16 architects. So we have a consultant. We have the commission. you'll receive in pilot, but other than that, I would hope there wouldn't be much debate. Thank you. Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

And add on to that, my concern, I I don't know if this is going to be understandable. I'll give it a shot. If if we have a consultant and they make a recommendation and it goes straight back to PNZ, there is no opportunity for input in the process for the residents or the council members whose council or whose ward this particular development is going to occur in. Do you know what I'm saying? As Mr. Lee mentioned, there'll be a standing component on each PNC agenda for ARB reports. There'll be an opportunity during public participation for um the public to speak to those recommendations, both the component from the consultant as well as the planning and zoning commission. And then as I just mentioned, all reports regardless of site plans, zonings, conditional use permits, whatever the circumstance may be, now including architectural review are receive and filed during work session and at any time you can pull those out. So, so during the architectural review board as it stands. Okay. So a developer comes and meets with the architectural review board you know by reading documents or whatever the council person know that's going to happen so they they can attend and if and during that time it is occurred that council member and the director of planning and parks realizes that the developer is not adhering to what was agreed upon. So if this new process goes forward, how can a situation like that be taken care of?

Well, first and foremost, the department of planning once it receives an application and packet for architectural review, we'll do a preliminary u consideration of it to make sure that the minimums are met. That set of comments along with the information would then go to the consulting architect to verify and to add. There are so many components to architecture that are refined and very specific. That's the need for the consultant. That consultant report along with the information from the department would then be formulated into a report to the commission and the commission would then review that ask any questions etc. So from the perspective of the department the key components are that even before it gets to the commission planning and zoning commission there's at least a minimum of two reviews and then at commission that's the third and ultimately if there's something that goes ary a fourth at commission at city council

and the department of planning will be reviewing always and if there is something to miss you would be able to identify that. We do our best. Every once in a while we miss a thing or two, but certainly that's the we're the first here and then the consultant, the commission, and you are the other three that kind of stack on top. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or concerns before we get the show on the road? Yes, sir. Mr. Hunberg.

Just a friendly reminder, it's about 6:23 and we do have a lot of items left on the work session, but of course everybody knows the council meeting is scheduled to start at 6:30. So based on that information, I'll let you make the next move. I appreciate that. Okay, let's vote on Miss Dodwell's motion. And for those of you that may have forgotten, it was to accept what we all agreed on before and pull out those two items to come back later. Everybody good with that? All right. Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes. Council member Utenberg, yes. Council member Troutier,

yes. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Robooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen. Yes. Council member Rambo. Council member Bocker. Yes. Council member Crayons. Yes. Council member Alers. Yes. Council member Galani. Yes.

Okay. That motion passes. Um, looking at our schedule, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the next conversation is going to encompass significantly longer than the 5 minutes we have left here. Uh, so I think it would probably make the most sense for us to take a little 5m minute break before we come back for the main meeting and then we will take the work session back up after the main meeting. Do we need a motion to do that, John? Yes, you do. All right. Anybody care to make that motion made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Alers. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. We'll be back here in about five minutes.

underway. Okay. Okay, thank you everybody for joining us for the uh the main meeting here for the uh April city council meeting for the city of Wildwood. Uh we will be returning at the end of this meeting to our work session, but we do have some things to get uh underway here this evening. So, we'll go ahead and start with our roll call. Mayor Garitano. Council member Farmer

here. Council member Dodwell here. Council member Nyan here. Council member Attenburg here. Council member Tradier here. Council member Mabberry here. Council member Roblooski here. Council member Preston here. Council member Marshall present. Council member McCutchen here. Council member Rambo here. Council member Bckert present via Zoom. Council member Cray here. Council member Vanic, Council Member Elers here, Council Member Galani here.

Okay. Uh and with that, if you are able, please stand and uh join me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay. Uh, for those of you that were not present at the beginning of our work session or have just joined us online, I am uh, council member Joe Farmer. I represent Ward 4 and I currently serve as the mayor prom. And this evening I am filling in for Mayor Garitano who is uh, away on business. Um, really all that means is I officiate the the meeting, but I don't have any special powers or anything like that. Uh, typically speaking, if there's a tie vote, the mayor is able to break the vote. In the case of the mayor prom filling in, sorry, I just have a regular vote, so I don't get to break the vote and that motion fails according to our friendly city attorney here. Um, we've got uh one appointment which is on the consent agenda. Uh then we've got uh the approval of minutes. If anybody has any questions or concerns on the minutes or would care to make a motion to approve them, that would be great. Made by Mr. Alers, seconded by Mr. Marshall. Yes, ma'am. What you need? Oh, my bad. Sorry. It is on the consent agenda. Sorry. That brings us to public participation. Okay. Uh public participation is a valuable part of what we do here as a city. Uh if you are interested in speaking this evening, please be sure to provide a speaker card to our city clerk, Miss Lobbec, and she will be sure to get you on the list. Uh this is a time for you to speak. This isn't the time for the counselor council members up here to respond. Um although they can

do that if they so choose uh in writing down the road or however they want to do it. Um please try to keep your remarks to five minutes or less. And I think we're ready to go. Who's up first? Lauren Jordan wants to speak on Turnberry Place and Strucker Road. All righty.

Thanks. Uh Lauren Jordan, W two. So, uh council members, thank you for your time. The residents of Turnberry uh place offer deep appreciation for the support shown by this council for our community during the March meeting. We also invite whenever helpful and appropriate uh goodfaith engagement with our trustees as options are evaluated to develop a permanent resolution that honors the safety of our residents. The trustees noted many comments in favor of your decision to remove budget support for removal of our current configuration of our uh emergency access point at Strucker. However, I'd like to share one poignant note from Monica Wilson who is unable to attend tonight's meeting. So she writes, "Council members, thank you for maintaining the restrictions at the intersection of Turnberry Place Drive and Strucker Road. There were three times in the last month when I reflected on my gratitude for your actions. It eases my mind that we do not have to anticipate an increase in traffic as travel in our neighborhood is often treacherous. For example, I was grateful to you last weekend as I drove down Turnberry Place drives steepest hill and around its most extreme curve and happened upon a row of at least five cars parked on the right side of the road immediately opposite at least five cars on the left side of the road. I had a panic moment as a Suburban came towards me and I wondered who might be flying down the hill behind me. I was grateful to you on Easter Sunday when two 12-year-olds on electric bikes flew down Turnberry Place Drive and one wiped out in front of my house, ripping my neighbors mailbox out of the ground and splitting its post. After gathering their personal information, I asked them why they had traveled over four miles just to ride in in our neighborhood.

Apparently, we have a bus and hill uh read awesome in Jen Alpha speak. So, uh, and finally, I was grateful to you on Saturday night in mid-March at 12:40 a.m. when two unfamiliar cars were racing were drag racing down Turnberry Place Drive from the main entrance. They did not return to exit there. Walking my dog this um or that uh next morning, I noted the numerous delineator caps littering the street at the striker entrance. Please consider making your restrictions uh or sorry, the restrictions permanent. and thanks again for your time. So, um I think that just highlights uh how our residents feel about um the benefit to safety that our emergency access offers. And again, we invite you to come to our community at any point. just uh you know, reach out to our HOA trustees and they'd love to uh help with any recommendations that you guys might um be willing to uh put in place for us. Anyway, um we are very very grateful and uh look forward to working with the city on some kind of resolution that works well for the safety of our community. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Um All right. Michael Sherman wants to speak on deer management.

Favorite top. Michael Sherman, ward one. I'll try to be quick. I do want to go on record though and just say you should have all received an email from me over the weekend. Um, and that email, the intent of that was just to highlight some things that my group specifically does to eliminate and mitigate risks and other issues and concerns that came out of the conversations that we were having during the admin and public works committee. So, appreciate your time if you you took it to read it. If not, please I encourage you to do so. There is a couple other things that I do want to talk specifically about the 1 to 3 acre minimum. One of the concerns from the city that will be in the recommendations is not to contract with hunters, but if you still were able to adjust the ordinance and allow access to that 1 to three acres, I shared some ways that the city can put in language um that we see in the other cities uh in their indemnity clause and waiverss that that takes responsibility off of the city and puts it on the hunters and the property owners. And I think that's important. Um, the other piece to that is you don't have to necessarily endorse, you know, going out and actively researching or finding properties for us to bow hunt. Just change the ordinance and let let us do that. I do it in all the other cities. I've talked to a couple council members who have spoken with those cities and, you know, their programs are well established, so people know about it. in this case, Wildwood. It may take me some time to get out there and build those relationships, but we'll get access to the properties and we'll kill deer and we'll help you with your problem. The last thing I would like you to like to say and for consideration um for the new members as they start to come in, the new voted in council members, um I would really much enjoy the opportunity to get some time with you either as a group or individual. Please feel free to contact me uh and I can answer any questions and also share you know the vast experience that I have in this urban deer management. So appreciate your time this evening. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Trent Bin wants to speak on deer management. Good evening. My name is Trent Oi and I'm a resident of Ward One. I uh I don't own nor am I an employee of nor am I a member of any deer management calling or hunting organization with business before the city. I am merely speaking as a resident. I came before this assembly during the last meeting and I expressed my concern about the sincerity and the quality of the report that was going to be released by public works and administration after having been tasked to work to find a solution or feasibility and to engage with the hunting community to address a way to mitigate white buffalo costs. Uh was not disappointed or I should say that uh concern was not a sage uh changed at all when it was released uh on when I first read it uh Wednesday before the uh PNW meeting on Thursday. The report calls for a target population of uh 15 to 20 deer per square mile. in uh deer management committee released a plan dated 07 July of 2022. So this is only four years ago.

That report stated the plan proposes goals and objectives to reduce the deer population within Wildwood. A goal of 40 deer per square mile would reduce the complaints and deer and vehicle incidents, but would still retain enough deer population for hunters and deer lovers. So, were you lying to us then or are you lying to us now? talked about the uh deer and vehicle incidents. It was mentioned in or it was included in the report that the uh numbers had been released and there was 177 deer incidents and that's a significant drop from historical trends. Don't quote me, but I believe it was somewhere in the uh 238 239 per year. That's a misleading number. You did not get a reduction of 62 deer as a result of the calling initiative last year. The calling initiative undoubtedly contributed something, but it cannot take credit for that full 62 count. If it could, then we would have seen a proportional drop the previous year when we took 300 versus the 360 last year. But we never saw that drop. And that begs the question about the correlation to that magnitude. It does in fact contribute. I'm not suggesting it doesn't. And I'm not disputing 177. There was also another number in there that was uh suspect. You take that number of 62, reduce it or uh multiply it by the stated average costs. Again, don't quote me the exact number.

something like $6,300 and some dollars per claim on average. And that yields a savings to the people of $400,000 based upon the calling the $225 approximate,000 spent last year. The problem with that conclusion is it completely ignores the fact that I have insurance and so do most every single person in this city when I file a claim and I believe I have a higher deductible than most people but let's take $1,000. So for the cost of $225,000, this council saved the city of Wildwood residents $62,000 and State Farm thanks you for increasing their profit margin $188,000.

30 seconds. I'll conclude with that. Thank you. Thank you. Teresa Clark, she wants to speak on deer management. All right.

Good evening. And I'm Teresa Clark, Ward One. And I want to first thank you all for all that you're doing and all the time that you spend considering each one of these issues that come across your your desks because I know how much it takes. I know how many hours a week that you spend to make sure that you're ready to make a vote. So, I want to thank you for that. I want to thank the staff for all of the time that they spend putting these things together, too. And um and thank uh Attorney Young as well for all of the time he spends. It's I'm really want to thank Mr. for the comprehensive report that he put out in the um work session agenda. And I'm sorry that we didn't get to go through that before that the um the public speaking could happen. And forgive me, my um Parkinson trimmers are affecting me tonight, so my speech might be a little broken. But um in the previous years when we first went when we first decided to do this with um White Buffalo, we we did years of research and put together a good report. That report um covered all of these different methodologies that were possible to go, including hunting, including um so many different things that we went through. And we can go back and look at that report if you, you know, if anyone wants to know exactly what we looked at. We didn't want a solution that was just a band-aid. We wanted something that we

could um bank on. And we um we came down to that decision. We we didn't do that without planning. We did a lot of planning and we didn't really realize it. Um we didn't acknowledge it that we were using this um Jack Welsh from General Electrics his method of problem solving and which was a great thing. um we first determined the need that we had and we set goals and objectives. We set up a baseline of measurements and um measured vector quantities of magnitude and direction. Um we analyze the delta between cause and effects. We um we we used a discipline approach to to look at the solution that we could come to for this was a complex problem. It wasn't just something we could say we have this many deer, we want to um remove this many and then we get our result. That's not the calculation that has to be done. Um, we considered the needed improvements and what was the most robust solution that we could do in the shortest amount of time. Uh, we calculate the probability of success and we made sure that we had a control process. We implemented the logical and probable solution, most probable solution considering a long list of weighted criteria. We were committed to um providing the residents a continuous pro uh continued

improvement of um the so many things that this deer management was going to affect. And this would have been our third year of our five-year plan. It was a plan that was all started out to be a five-year plan and we um only collected one year data point and we're not finished with that five-year plan as of yet. So, we can't even look back and see what our absolute success was. and 30 seconds. Mr. Clerk,

thank you. Uh just some we had a whole long list of criteria that we had and we waited each one and we looked at all of these different things. The um the current versus uh proper deer population, deer population growth rate, the effects of how it how it would affect the woodlands, the understories, the plant diversity, plants, trees, so many different things. um the damage to crops and ornamentals, effects of the birds and the wildlife when those trees are gone. I know that in Ward One, we have so many last sentence, so many um deer in Ward One because when the helicopters came down in my backyard through the power lines, they were cut trimming those trees and I sat there and watched 50 deer run out of my brush from those power lines up the hill.

Thank you very much. No more speakers. Okay. Uh, thank you to everybody um who spoke this evening. Oh, do we have somebody online? I'm sorry. Travis, is there anybody online? No. Okay. Um, Mr. Lee, I know that we're going to talk about this again back in the work session, but is there any uh clarifying points you want to make?

Yes. I just wanted to point out that with the 40 deer per square mile target, that was initially estimated at the what we wanted to see within 5 years. And then the idea was to study the population from there and the impact our resident concerns decreasing at that point. That said, the standard recommendation from departments of conservation across the entire United States is 15 to 20 deer per square mile in a suburban city such as Wildwood. Thank you. Okay. Uh okay, that brings us to unfinished business. And this evening we have one bill on the agenda that is up for second reading and that is bill 3051. Uh it is uh it concerns ward one. Mr. Buuna, do you got anything additional for us?

No, sir, but I'm available for any questions after the bill's read for a second time. Okay. Uh is there a motion for the second reading of the bill for Ward one? Made by Mr. Marshall. Anybody care to second it? Second by Mr. Preston. Uh um All right. Uh, all in favor? Let's see. Is there a second? M second. Mr. President, all in favor, please say I. I.

Anybody opposed? Any abstensions? Any questions, concerns, thoughts, anything? All right, Colleen, I'm sorry. Let's read the bill. 30. What do we got here? 3051. Bill 3051, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a boundary adjustment plat for the re-ubdivision of lot 3 of Flat Rock subdivision, book 299, page three, and lot 8 of the Timbers at Fox Mountain, book 354, pages 878 and 879. being part of the northeast quarter of section 31, township 44 no north, range three east of the fifth principal meridian and more specifically located between Chateau Lane and Old Wild Turkey Lane west of Fox Creek Road and to be hereafter known as reubdivision of lot three of Flat Rock subdivision and lot 8 of Timbers at F Fox Mountain.

All righty. Um, does anybody have any questions before we do our roll call? Thank you. Yep. All right, Colleen, let's do our roll call vote, please. Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes. Council member Utenberg, yes. Council member Troier, yes. Council member Mabbury, yes. Council member Robooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bocker, yes. Council member Crayons, Council Member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, yes.

Okay, sounds like that bill passes. Uh, that brings us to new business. We've got five bills before the council this evening. I know um we've got a couple that I think the departments are going to ask for a second on, but looking at this and also what we have still in front of us um on the work session agenda, I'm wondering unless there's an objection if it would make sense to read uh bills 3053, 54, 55, 56, and 57 in mass. Anybody have any concerns or issues with any of those? Mr. commercial. My only question is there's no budgetary dollar amounts on any of these. So how do you want to deal with that?

That was an error and I could provide those now. I was just taking a look at that. That was a grimmer there. Do apologize. Um for the unlimited play bathroom, do we with your permission mayor can I give those real quick please? Um, Mayor Proemp and city council for bills 3053 uh the direct budgetary impact $210,093 funding sources the capital improvement plan strategic plan goal would be enhanced green space going to bill 3054 for the resurfacing of anniversary park that'd be $29,446 it'd be coming from the capital improvement plan and it would be a strategic plan goal of enhanced green space. Again, no direct budgetary impact funding source strategic plan goal for the uh bill 3055. Um and same goes for bill 3056 which which is regarding a traffic schedule change and then 30577 which is a intergovernmental agreement.

Okay. Knowing those budget totals and I think we're going to get some requests to do some second readings on some of these. Does anybody want to uh pull anything out to be done individually or do we still want to try to do it in mass? Doing it in mass. Okay, Mr. Galani, is that a do we need a motion to do that? Right? Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Glan will make the motion to read in mass, seconded by Mr. Alers. We need a roll call vote or can we just do a voice vote on that? Voice voters. Okay. All those in favor of reading bills 3053, 54, 55, 56, and 57 in mass, please say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, Colleen, I hope you got your reading glasses down there.

Me, too. Bill 3053, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor of the city of Wildwood, Missouri to execute the necess necessary agreement purchase order to procure from unlimited play the selected restroom facility for the all-inclusive playground facility that will constitute phase two of V of the city's village green. Bill 3054, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor of the city of Wildwood, Missouri to execute the attached city contractor agreement with Emeyer Contracting for the resurfacing of anniversary parks access drives and parking lot area, all in accordance with the bid specifications set for the same. Bill 3055, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood that hereby reauthorizes the adjustment of certain common boundary lines between two legal lots of record with such being under the same ownership and will address the current placement of an existing structure within a building setback area with both of these properties so described as in the boundary adjustment plat of lot three of Eagle's Rest subdivision and a new parcel of parcel A of boundary adjustment plat of three parcels in the north se half of section 21 township 44 north range 3 east of the fifth principal meridian city of Wildwood St. County, Missouri, to be hereafter known as Eagle's Rest Subdivision Plat 2. Bill 3056, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, amending chapter 390, traffic schedule 4, turning and directional movement restrictions of the code of ordinances of the city of Wildwood by establishing turning and directional movement restrictions for

State Route 100 at Pond Road and at State Route T, St. in Alburn's Road within the city of Wildwood. Bill 3057, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a maintenance agreement with St. Louis County, Missouri for the new shared use path to be constructed along Old State Road and within St. Louis County right ofway within the city of Wildwood.

Okay, excellent job. Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Mr. Vunage and Mr. Brown, I know we've got a couple requests on here for some second readings. Is there any uh specific items you would like to have read a second time or any specific information you would like to share with us before we might consider that? In regards to the second readings, the department respectfully requests bill 3054, which relates to a resurfacing project in anniversary park and bill 3055, which is a reauthorization of a plat previously approved by city council as items for consideration.

Um, you good on 3053? You want to wait on that one or do you want to have that one a second time as well? 3053 relates to the restroom facility for the all-inclusive playground. The department promised the planning and parks committee we'd be back in April with some color selections and decide on those before we take final action. So that's a May item. Thank you. Okay. Um Mr. Brown, you have uh 3057 and I'm just curious if we also want to do 3056. which I think is the JTurn thing.

Yeah. 3056 is the turn restrictions that are basically enacting the signage in place for the JTurn project. Um that isn't as critical from the department's perspective um as is 3057 as the construction of the old state project is conditioned on a permit that requires the passage of this agreement. So um the priority from the department's perspective is 3057 tonight. I'm not opposed to 3056 if that's your desire.

Okay. So, uh we have a couple requests from the department uh to do a second reading on bills 3054, 3055, 3056, and 3057. Would anybody care to make a motion made by Miss Dodwell, seconded by Miss Nan. Any other questions or concerns before we uh do a second reading? Miss McCutchen. justformational question. So, um how is um the shared use path with along Old State Road, how is that being paid for? Your permission for Yes, sir.

Uh it's coming out of the capital improvement sales tax fund. And are we sharing that cost with any other entity? No, we are not. That is well, it's fally funded. So, a large percentage of the cost is being funded by the federal government up to 80%. But overall, it's not being shared with St. Louis County. It's within an easement um secured by the city. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. Anybody have any other questions or concerns? Okay. Seeing none, Miss Lobette, please read bills 3054, 55, 56, and 57 for final passage. Bill 3054, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor of the city of Wildwood, Missouri to execute the attached city contractor agreement with Emy Meyer Contracting for the resurfacing of anniversary parks, access drives, and parking lot area, all in accordance with the bid specifications set for the same. Bill 3055, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood that hereby reauthorizes the adjustment of certain common boundary lines between two legal lots of record with such being under the same ownership and will address the current placement of an existing structure within a building setback area with both of these properties so described as in the boundary adjustment plat of lot three of Eagle's Rest subdivision and new parcel A of boundary readjustment plat of three parcels in the north half half of section 21 township 44 north range 3 east of the fifth principal meridian city of Wildwood St. County, Missouri to be hereafter known as Eagles Rush Subdivision Plat 2. Bill 3056, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, amending chapter 390, traffic study for turning and directional movement restrictions of the code of ordinances of the city of Wildwood by establishing turning and directional movement restrictions for State Route 100 at Pond Road and at State Route T, St. Alburn's Road within the city of Wildwood. Bill 30577, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a maintenance

agreement with St. Louis County, Missouri for a shared new shared use path to be constructed along Old State Road and within St. Louis County right of way within the city of Wildwood. All right. Thank you. Uh, how about a roll call vote? Council member Farmer. Oh, wait one second, Colleen. I just wanted to add in the uh that since these have been read two times tonight, uh that this will require um a twothird I mean a super majority for passage. Thank you. Okay. Roll call, please. Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes.

Council member Attenburg, yes. Council member Tradier, yes. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Rablooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bockart, yes. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani.

Okay, those bills uh all pass. So, gentlemen, I hope you got what you needed and we'll see um 3053 in May, I would assume, I guess, or perhaps June. Excellent. Okay. Um that brings us to our consent agenda. Um on the consent agenda this evening, we've got several items. Um we have the meeting minutes from our March meeting. Um we have our monthly expenditures. We have the appointment of Lorie Collier to the Wildwood Celebration Commission. And there are six resolutions as well. Um, are there any resolutions that anybody would like to pull out and read separately? If not, uh, I would say a motion to approve the consent agenda would be in order. Made by Mr. Galani, seconded by Mr. Attenburg. All those in favor, please say I.

I. I. Any. Anyone say no? Any abstensions? Okay, that that passes. I guess we need to read the um I'm sorry. I guess we need to read the resolutions. Is that right? No. Okay. Excellent. Minutes were good, too, cuz they're on the consent agenda, right? Yeah. Okay. Nope. Those are all by All right. We good? Okay. Uh there are there are two items on our miscellaneous uh section. These are receipt and file items, I believe. Mr. Vunage, is that your department?

Well, certainly with the assistance of Mr. Lee and Mr. Young, the department will explain what is before you tonight under receive and file relative to the uh the two letters. The planning and zoning commission at its Monday meeting passed recommended denial of two proposals relating to latitude north 38. Those proposals and the letter of recommendation relating to them are for receipt and filed tonight under the work session agenda. The zoning ordinance allows the petitioner to appeal a decision relative to the planning and zoning commission with regards to a denial. Those letters relate to the denial and an appeal process. Tonight, the department is respectfully requesting that the city council provide direction. That direction being to ensure that the appeal letters are compliant and comprehensive relative to the codes as well as to authorize the city staff to set the public hearing date for city council to hear the appeals.

Okay. Mr. Lee or Mr. Young, is there anything to add to that? Um, Mr. Vunish, could you just clarify? So I my understanding is that we the idea would be to come back at the next city council meeting with the confirmation that it meets all the appeal criteria and then we would schedule the public hearing from them. But this is more so just a um a public FY public FYI for the city council to let them know that this is upcoming. Okay. M you got anything additional to add? Okay. Uh so I guess from a receipt and file perspective, we have received and will file them and I guess we will talk about it down the road.

Yes. Uh the plan will be to have this return at the May meeting with the the mayor's blessing for it on the agenda, but it'll be at the May meeting with um a determination whether or not it is compliance compliant um with the appeal process established by city code. Thank you. Okay. Uh that brings us to our adjournment section. And as just as a reminder, we will be adjourning the main uh meeting here and then returning back to our work session. So unless there's anything uh anybody wants to add, Mr. Rottenberg? Okay, Mr. Roenberg is going to make a motion to adjurnn. You got something you want to add, Mike? I think we did, didn't we? Yeah. Yep. Uh okay, so we have a motion for adjournment, Miss McCussen. Did

that vote include the minutes? Yes. Okay, we have a motion seconded by Mr. Traier. All those in favor of adjourning and going to back into the work session, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, let's take a couple minutes here. Let's say five minutes and then come on back and we'll get back to work on the work session. Thanks everybody.

It's here. And we will hopefully get some of this agenda knocked out. Okay, everybody calling calling back to order the uh the work session here for the uh April meeting. Um, we were looking at our remaining agenda and we did find a small clerical error. So, I just want to double check with everybody. There's a couple different ways we can do this. We can certainly make a motion to change it. Uh, according to our attorney, we can basically, as long as nobody objects, we can just fix the error, which is the strategic review and modernization of advisory bodies appeared twice. Once under admin PW and once under parks and planning and we obviously already had that conversation. So, if no one objects, we can just pretend like that's not there for the rest of the evening. Sound good?

I don't think No, because I think we're just going to say it's a clerical error rather than have a motion to postpone it for for good. Okay. Um, Mr. May.

Yeah. So, John, how do how do you want us to handle the minutes? If we just are going to say that this is a clerical error, do we have to denote that in the minutes? Okay, Colleen, you good with that? Okay. So, uh that would be um under uh uh item D number one. So, we're just that's just a clerical error. So, we've already had that conversation, which is great. Um okay. Uh jumping in here before we get started. Uh, is there any questions or concerns or anything else before we jump back into our meeting? Mr. Mayor. So, you want to make a motion to have a close session? Okay, we have a motion made for a close session. Does anybody care to second?

Uh, okay. That would be specific to RSM610.021 subsection one. Everybody pull out their books and figure out what that one means. It's for that would be uh legal questions or a conversation with the attorney. Uh okay. So Mr. Mabry makes that motion. Anybody care to second it? Mr. Marshall, did I see your hand up? Okay, Mr. Marshall is going to second it. Uh we need um just a roll call vote to go into close session. For those of you guys still in attendance, should the um motion pass, the those of us on the council will move into the community room and then we'll be in there for a bit and then we'll come back out and finish the rest of our agenda. So you guys are certainly more than welcome to hang out. It will be very exciting in here, I can assure you. But we'll be back uh hopefully relatively quickly. All right. Anybody have any questions or concerns before we do our roll call? Seeing none, Miss Lobbec, please call the role.

Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes. Council member Ottenberg, yes. Council member Trier, no. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Roblooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bockart, yes. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, yes.

Okay, that motion passes. So, we will uh be in the community room here for a few moments and then we shall return. Uh perhaps the Cardinals or something on you guys can check that out. We'll be back shortly.

We are going to pick up here where we left off on our work session which is item number B under four action uh formal assessment incorporating local billers into future deer calling efforts. Mr. Lee. Thank you chair and we're going to share a presentation real quick just to share the screen with the residents. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,

all right. So, to go over the archery hunting feasibility analysis, I wanted to first cover the purpose of the report, where we how we got here in the first place. This was first uh was just recently reviewed by the city council and the administration of public works committee on April 9th, 2026. That said, back in December, the council considered a contract with White Buffalo, Inc. U for year three of the professional calling program with using sharpshooting. Uh that said, the vote in itself did not pass that night, meaning the contract was not approved. In essence, it failed um and paused the program moving forward. That said, uh there was direction given to the administration public works committee to assess the feasibility of incorporating local bow hunters and to come back to the city council with an updated report. So the policy question that was asked was just incorporating local bow hunters. That said, answering that question, yes, um local bow hunters are already contributing to deer management today was the conclusion found. That said, where this is coming from is archery hunting is currently permitted in Wildwood and there's three almost 4,000 properties that exceed 3 acres in size. Uh just want to confirm that currently archery hunting is legal in Wildwood on parcels 3 acres or more as long as you have the landowner's permission. Um and also as long as uh you meet LMDC guidelines. That said, the reason for bringing this up is that uh every time a archery hunter is out and hunting, that is helping contribute to the city's efforts to reduce the overall deer population, which in turn helps our deer management program. Lastly, um just wanted to point out to you that participation in general should be remain involuntary. That was found um by the report, but also the committee. Uh when I say voluntary, the department's more so referencing whether or not individuals should um be contracted to go out and bow hunt or should the city go out and get property on their behalf.

So that was um moving on here. So wanted to provide a little bit of a background. I'll try to go quick. I know it's late at night. Uh overall the shared on the screen right now is the six different map areas that make up um the hunting areas and the studied areas in within Wildwood. That said uh back in 2020 uh we had our first population analysis but using data from the 2020 2024 2025 and a later 2025 survey analysis. Um the best estimate we have in this area is about 1756 deer within about a 30.48 square mile area. Uh that said, it's about 57.6 uh deer per square mile at this time and it is exceeding and speaking to a point raised earlier um well above the 15 to 20 deer per square mile that is recommended by most department of conservations. That said, um also still well above the amount 40 that the council had targeted within the first 5 years um during its planning efforts for 2022. Uh that said, last but not least, that that amount, the 57.6 six um is actually has decreased from 71.5 across all six map areas. Um point out there real quick that when looking at operations for 2026 um that was planned for the SE1 region and areas east I mean west of 109 south of Old State Road. But overall anyone and any two is where the majority of operations took place back in 2024 and 23. All right. So getting to the reason why I'm bringing this past history up. um using an annual population growth estimate recruitment rate of about 20%. Um which is very conservative if you look across the literature um just that alone if you account for the any one map area that's 52 additional deer each year um we're using the best data that we have available for all six map areas that's roughly 351 deer across um less than half of the city. So just wanted to

point this out because the growth rate that we have within the city um we have to at least call 351 deer at least each year uh just to keep pace but in all likelihood it's much higher than that. Thank you. Um just want to point out two difference between professional calling and hunting. U calling in itself professional calling it's outcome driven. You set metrics up front and truthfully you're controlling outcome. So what happens after the shots made? Hunting by contrast it's decentralized. It's voluntary. Um it can 100% contribute to reduction every time a deer is harvested. That said, uh it is not set up upfront to meet certain population reduction numbers. That said, this is how it makes sense when we're applying it evenly um with our plan and what we're current where we're currently at. So, back in 2023, we had worked with a nonprofit, White Buffalo, um to start off and reduce the deer population density from 71 deer 71.5 deer per square mile down to 40. Uh that said, when we were implementing the plan, we were able to actually uh conduct two years of operations and call 661 deer over the course of a 2-year period. And from there, uh, 300 were cold within 2024 and 361 were cold in 2025. So, slowly kind of increasing that number. Um, I do want to point out just in general the, you know, kind of the where that meat went to because it it's a part of the cost. Um, in 2024 there were 219 deer donated share the harvest. 81 deer donated to the zoo. Um, in 20 2025, 310 uh were donated to share the harvest and 51 were donated to the red wolves program. That said, um the city council could have saved approximately $200 per deer uh if they did not donate this. But to meet MDC permit guidelines and also to meet uh well also just to do the right thing with this meet and give

back, the city council decided to donate it properly. That said, um what the outcome is of this, and I know this was mentioned earlier too, but uh this is data from the crash analysis we do each year. The city did actually see a pretty significant reduction and we just got the last report over the last two weeks. Uh from 2018 to 2024 and the individual numbers are provided within the bigger report. Uh 239 deer vehicle accidents were being recorded per year and that's a conservative estimate based off what the police can confirm u being out with a crash itself or putting down a deer euthanizing it. That number dropped to 177 in um 2025. So that's just last year alone. So that is the first year of taking into account the full impact of the work done over the first two years. And based off this is more this is a source from AAA. Um if you were to take that number it's an average cost after hitting a deer about $6,466. If you take that and uh calculate it across the board it's roughly $400,000 that is saved in damages across the city whether it be motorist or residents. So there has been a meaningful reduction in the number of deer vehicle collisions. To get a little bit more specific with the NE1 area specifically, uh collisions declined from 71 in 2023 to 54 and 24 and then down to 43 in 2025. So just that area alone. So you'll see as you introduce the program and reduce population u with a controlled cooling method, you see a direct impact uh in that area specifically. So just wanted to point that out uh because it did take some time. Um we did have a little bit over 200 deer in 2024 recorded. So it did take some time to start seeing the effectiveness, but overall we're starting to see it in anecdotal evidence too. This was firstly established to measure the impact in a public sa with a public safety number. That said, the other side of this is that you know residents reporting that there's less um environmental degradation that they're able to grow u different plants and

hostas etc out in their front yard. That has also been reported to the city. All right. So now where are we at today? Uh right now the proposed deer calling program has been paused uh effectively now. Uh final vote on bill 3019 took place in December. There was not enough votes to pass. You need nine affirmative votes to pass an ordinance. I do apologize. Um so as a result, the council did not approve a sharpshooting contract. Talked about this briefly, but um so local hunters did continue to hunt on private land, but the city doesn't require reporting. So we were not able to kind of test and see the the the numbers that were being put up. So where the programs out today is that there is no program. It's been effectively paused for the time being. Um and there's been a temporary halt until something could be put in his place. So next steps were that the committee were assessed to begin looking at the feasibility of incorporating local bow hunters into uh calling efforts. Report back to the council. That review has taken place and now the the report is being submitted to the council for consideration. All right. So when the ca when then the department began looking at this, we tried comparing our regulatory framework to others within the west county area and also seeing what legal authority MDC had and what legal authority the city of Wildwood had. Overall um MDC governs lawful seasons methods, bag limits, tags, etc. But when it comes to um minimal parcel size, permitting, acreage, uh setbacks, those are all done by the city and can be changed by the city council. That said, uh when you look at some other cities, what you typically find is that about one and if you look at the report, there is a chart that's provided that outlines the differences. Um but most neighboring municipalities will allow archery hunting on parcels as small as one acre. um also sometimes providing uh partial aggregation where you can

include and combine you know halfacre lots into a full acre. That said u what transitions here the city has a 3acre limit but the trade-off here is that the city of Wildwood doesn't necessarily require anyone to submit letters of intent to hunt. They don't require the u property owner permission slips to be filled. Um they do not require insurance being added. That said, um there are other uh items that could be added to the regulatory framework, but the big piece that we were able to find and confirm is that no municipality contracts with hunters or coordinates access to private property on their behalf specifically. Um so doing so could increase liability and administrative burden. Thank you. All right. And I want to bring this up for context too is just the city uh comparing the cities, you know, with the other cities that were compared and studied. One second. And I do apologize. All right. Uh so looking at the other communities that were included in the analysis, you have the city of Wildwood's roughly 68 square miles. Then you go down the list, you have Chesterfield, the close second, but other than that, uh the majority of cities that were included um were vastly smaller than the city and they don't necessarily have all too many 3acre lots included within their their surface area. Um, so we do like to make that point just because it Wildwood is a different city nonetheless. All right. U, and then looking at what lands are available in Wildwood and also others. Um, we do have multiple parks that currently there are manage hunts taking place on, not today, but they take place during the normal archery season. Um, those include Babler Park, Rockwoods Reservation, Rockwoods Range, and Greensfelder. Um, these parks make up approximately 16% of the city's total area, total land mass. U, the 3acre lots make up roughly about 70% of the rest of the land. Um, but overall, the city doesn't control these hunts. So, we are notified of them. Uh, we don't necessarily participate. So, last year

there were multiple hunts that took place in within these parks. U, in total, 288 hunters were drawn. Uh, 65 hunters were successful and then 84 deer were harvested. So, those are meaningful contributions. um to what the city's been trying to do and we appreciate MDC posting that information. Nonetheless, uh when we look at city owned land, can we control the population with just city park alone? Park land alone becomes a little bit more tricky considering we only have a few park pro properties that make sense. Um community park, partner park making the most sense, but truthfully you're going to have to hinder park operations and potentially close them during those those times. And truthfully, when you look across the entire six uh 30.38 square mile area, there's not many you don't have equal distribution throughout the entire hunting region for each map area, which makes it very difficult to actually penetrate the deer population in each area and make a big difference over a long period of time. You'll impact the local ecology, the local population around that park, but not overall. Also want to point out too uh that truthfully we just it's a point here that there's plenty of land that's currently available for hunting um in Wildwood. That said, it we just have to get back to the point that private property plays the biggest role because without it um we can't really do much. So looking at permitting, so this is more of the liability discussion. Um when you permit a hunter to hunt, um the hunter and the landowner, this is a key consideration. they take and assume the responsibility for compliance, safety and liability. Um the city provides the administrative framework uh but does not direct the hunter's activity itself. The city in this case is a regulator. Um when we contract the city is operationally involved in that process and is perceived as assuming the responsibility of any of the actions taking place by the hunter who's acting on their behalf um and practically as an agent of the city. That said, um that

shifts that responsibility and liability to the city. So once again, just want to point out there is no city in Missouri that contracts with private hunters. Um doesn't necessarily mean the regulations are different, but they don't contract or procure private property other than possibly access to parklands when they're managed hunts with MVC. All right. Um and this is a map. Uh I wanted to share this. So, in dark blue, this is a map of all the areas that are currently available for hunting in Wildwood. Uh, approximately 3,881 properties. Uh, properties that are within 1 to 3 acres, about 1,656 properties, and less than one acre, you're at 8,700 around that around that number. That said, uh the vast majority over if you include the park properties, over 80% of the land um is eligible for hunting as long as you have permission from MDC and all uh regulations have been met with the state. Um the main consideration for bringing this up is that there are properties available. There are a couple spots near Town Center that are a little bit denser and more difficult to um to be able to get access to and get the even distribution needed with the given current parcel sizes. That said, um right now, uh we're going to need we need the help of all the property owners in blue that are on this map. And then also, um when you look at the red and green areas, those are typically going to be subdivisions. And there are on file with within indentures, multiple subdivisions that actually don't and limit currently hunting within their subdivision. We don't enforce indentures as a city, but it is something that we could potentially be putting a resident at odds with their HOA. All right. So what the committee had come to and then we'll conclude for tonight. Um what the committee had come to is that they agreed not to contract hunt with hunters or facilitate property access. U they decided not to maintain the current regulatory framework allow allowing lawful archery hunting on qualifying properties. That's the 3acre minimum um with our setback requirements

200 ft. And then also to encourage and or require which requiring would require a code change, harvest reporting to track deer population management progress through um normal archery hunting activities that are taking place. Uh two other things that were mentioned but were not included in the recommendation. We're looking at our regulatory framework more generally. That said, um the department's available for any questions tonight, but I know I gave quite a bit here. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, any questions, Mr. CR?

Yeah, I'll try to shorten this up tonight. It's been long, but Tom, I uh your conclusion here, I do not see uh that the committee supports bow hunting on acre lots. Is that true? That is correct. That was taken up.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion for an ordinance to allow bow hunting on an acre parcel of land. uh and and through this template other cities do where it's been successful and um I've talked to Eureka Ballin, Chesterfield, Sunset Hills, Clarkson Valley. They like bow hunting on acre lots and they actually like the the bow hunters. Uh and uh what they do is uh they get an agreement with the landowner and the bow hunter and in that language uh the bow hunter is allowed to hunt. uh there's a hold harmless clause which uh says the they will take responsibility for any negligence arising out of bow hunting. In addition to that, the cities require uh insurance coverage one to$2 million city can call that uh they can we can get the uh the city named on the policy and um so the good news uh none of them report any lawsuits, no lawsuits. Some have done this for 20 years. No lawsuits, no personal injury claims, no property um damage claims. And what this does, I look at it as as a service. We're allowing land owners who have three, you know,

less than three acres. They got a deer problem. uh they got somewhere to go and get rid of their problem. And uh uh it's just a service. Uh it uh opens up more property to hunt deer on. If we want if we want to be serious about getting rid of our deer, uh uh open it up. These other cities have no problem with it. And you get rid of your deer. uh and you also reduce your your accident history and those 62 uh uh uh vehicle deer collisions would have been less than 62 if we had hunting on one acre lots at that time. If we're serious about it, this is something we need to really look at and and just not blow it off. So, I'm going to make that motion and uh we can open up for discussion.

Mr. Albert,

a second, of course. So, so I will second Mr. Cran's motion and I would like to make some comments on it for everybody to consider. I agree with everything Mr. Cran has said. You know, we had the admin public works meeting last Thursday and we had over a two-hour discussion on this deer management process or choices was kind of one of the best things I've ever been involved with the uh council here in my two years. It was really good. Um, I think just some things to consider is for one thing, I'm sorry, Michael Sherman spoke at our meeting. He was the only bow hunter that was there and he was the basically the one of one of the uh one of two people that spoke tonight. If if you haven't picked it up on um Mr. Sherman has kind of assumed more of a leadership role now than our previous uh spokesperson here. Mr. Sherman's group has a great reputation through the cities. Um he comes highly recommended. He's doing almost everything in Eureka with with bow hunting right now. Um, you know, I don't know. Chesterfield, you know, has been doing bow hunting for 20 years. I was shocked to find that out. And, uh, they only had to, uh, call 50 to 75 deer last year. So, I think they've kind of got their problems solved by this. the the bow hunters really want to use that one to three acre and it's 1656 uh parcels I think we got here is what I wrote down. Um when we talked at our

last meeting part of the process would be maybe to look at doing a survey to these people to see if they would allow bow hunting on their property. And uh and my feeling is if if we got positive responses from 25, 50, whatever the number is, those would be opportunities for those bow hunting groups to go out and call deer on those properties. If we have if we have just a horrible response no from all these residents, then maybe we have to look at a different way. But I think that would be a way to approach this also. So, you know, I I've come around on this because of new leadership and I really see the opportunity for the city to look at the smaller one to three acres. So, that's my Thank you.

Okay. Uh, one sec everybody. So, Mr. CR and Mr. Alers just to clarify the motion you are making I'm looking at these recommendations. So do not contract hunters or facilitate property access risks outweigh potential benefits. Is that included in your motion or no? We're not contracting with bow hunters or land owners. Is that what you're asking? No contracting. Correct. Absolutely. No. Okay. No contracting. or not contract. No contracts. So then I'm going to skip number two and jump to number three

and encourage or require harvest reporting to track deer population management progress.

Uh something that uh uh we're not going to take an active role in it. Uh somehow we'll let the public know that the we have an ordinance and the land owners that uh have a urgency to get rid of their deer problem. Uh somehow they can connect with with the bow hunters. That's got to be worked out. And and we're going to check with uh Chesterfield, the surrounding cities, and see how they do it. And we're keeping an arms length. We're not involving the city in litigation. I'm not about that, you know. And uh it works. And

so the the question though is this is asking encouraging or requiring a harvesting report. That would be after a bow hunter or any hunter or a car hits a deer. They're going to report that into the city. Is that included in the motion? They they will they will uh Yes. I'm sorry. I thought you were asking different question. If I can expand on this, I should have said this in my group. What Mr. Lee's spreadsheet of all the city all those cities do not contract bow hunters and we're not proposing any contract. Uh

the the city would uh have a file which I would call like a packet of all the necessary insuranceances and whatever else is necessary in there to be on file with the city. And the only thing the only other thing the bow hunters would notify the city and the Missouri conservation department anytime they uh call a deer. Those those are really the only two things the city would So you would require that they have to notify the city that they have Yes. Yes. got a deer. Correct. Okay.

Right. Then the last piece which would be the the recommendations that came out were to maintain current regulatory framework allowing lawful archery hunting on qualifying properties. You want to change those qualifying properties from a 3acre minimum to a 1 acre minimum. Right now they can hunt on three acres. You know we're just adding the one acre for bow hunting only. Right. We would be shifting it from 3 acres plus to 1 acre plus. You'll have three acres plus a 1acre. Okay. And that ex that adds in roughly what is it Tom? 1,600 properties approximately a little bit over 1,600. 1656.

And and so you want to change from 1 to 3 acres. And then what about are we doing anything else in terms of our current regulatory framework that you don't like? Permits? Well, property notification, any of that? They have the agreement completed. the bow hunters and the land owners uh and the insurance it's taken to the city to look at and a permit is issued at that time to allow the bow hunting. So you want the city will be issuing permits to bow hunt. Absolutely. Okay, everybody clear on that?

Yes, ma'am. Miss Dadwell. Well, it's something to look at. I I what I'm representing here is the bow hunters. Uh I'm making an all I'm doing is making a motion to allow bow hunting on 1acre lots. And I'm doing that because I don't want I really don't want to spend a million dollars uh on white buffalo. That needs to still be worked out. But my concern tonight is with the bow hunters on one acre lots and it it can be worked out. It is is successful and it's something we should do. Everybody else does it except here.

Sure. That does happen. Uh not often I'm told by these cities it in uh

it's on You're good, Jim. So, it does happen and bow hunter has a right to get his deer according some of these ordinances. It's not a big deal. I guess I should turn this on. Is there any information provided to the residents in the general area of the hunting that's going on, letting them know that there will be bow hunters in that area? Absolutely. And who's making that? The bow hunters. The bow hunters are making that. Okay. And if if and the and the hunting is done in the morning, it's done in in the evening. Yeah. They don't shoot the arrows when the people are around. Yeah.

It's providing a service. So, no. No. I I don't disagree with that. And then lastly, um if we put this into place, does that negate having white buffalo come to those densely populated areas uh where we do have considerable amounts of deer um that are going onto heavy subdivided properties? Are you with

It's not negating it. It's adding one acre for bow hunting. White Buffalo. I still have a problem with the uh the cost. I think he can incorporate the bow hunters in those threeacre lots as well. Uh we can extend the uh bow season hunting if we have to. If we didn't don't get our quotas, we can bait the deer like they do with white buffalo. Okay.

Excuse me just a minute. Part of my question has to do with the fact that we are looking at where there are more densely populated deer in highly populated areas. And so I'm trying to figure out um as I've said before, my husband's a bow hunter. he could sit in our backyard. And in the two years that we had deer, the first year, the deer of 20 in our backyard, and I've said this multiple times, went down to five. The next year it went up to 10. Now we've got 15 deer within a time span of two years going through our backyard. Are you saying with this ordinance that if he talks to three neighbors in our subdivision that he can sit in the backyard and bow hunt those deer as long as we have a million dollars in insurance? Is that what you're

as long as that the combination of the And what happens when that deer properties are one one acre. Yeah. You got to get your neighbors. Let me just add on to this too. I I'm just trying to understand guys how we manage this as a city.

I don't think we're saying we're eliminating White Buffalo. I think that's to be determined. Um I I've said in all my presentations that this may take a combination of both groups to get this problem under control. Especially since we did not do anything this past season. Our problem may be much worse. correct? You know, so the but but the these I think we're just really trying to focus on these one to three acre lots make a difference. I'm just gonna just cuz it's getting late. I'm going to try to keep us on track here. So I would suggest that okay

the White Buffalo conversation is a separate and standalone conversation, but I am a little confused because I think the motion is for oneacre parcels, not combining parcels to reach one acre. Is that correct? We would combine if you had half an acre and three neighbors have half acre. Just so everybody understands if we're combining properties that now goes from 1,600 properties to 10,000 at least 10,000 11,000 properties. So we're now going to change the regulations for 11,000 properties just so everyone is understanding that. Can I can I ask? They can combine. the more you have hunting, the the you want to get rid of the deer.

So, here's my I'm only asking this. You could Here's what I'm saying, Mr. Cray. You can make whatever motion you want. That's totally cool. Cliff, if you are down with what he's saying, you should second that. But, we got to we got to know what we're talking about. And so, we're either talking about one acre lots or smaller acre smaller lots that are combined to one acre. Which is it that you are wanting to make the motion for? So you want to open this up to all p parcels in the city if they were to add up to one acre. Correct. Okay. Cliff, is that what your second is? No. Okay. Would anybody care to second that? Second, combining all parcels into one acre. So any subdivision sorry means we also have to um reduce the the distances like distance from a building, distance from a lot line and so on and so forth. And um uh the like one of our council members lives in a neighborhood of 5,000 square foot lots um which means there's probably only 5 or 10 ft between the houses and the alleys and so on and so forth. So there's no possibility of hunting there anyway. And so I'm not sure it makes any sense to talk about combining a whole bunch of lots.

Right. So I'm just I'm just trying to keep it so we all know where we're going. I'm just telling you other cities do it whether you agree with it or not. No, I'm not agree. I'm not the Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure we have your motion down. It's just as a factual matter, we have to if we if you make the motion, you have to include something that says uh we are also providing relief from the current 80oot.

What what let's let's try to focus real quickly just cuz here's how this here's where we at right now. So, Mr. CR, if you want to have um you're talking about combining properties to equal one acre and Mr. Alers, who was the previous second, that is not something that you want to do? So you would then resend your second. Okay. So now we're going to go back look around. Does anybody care to second that motion? Mr. TR, I have a question. Sure.

And this may be for the city administrator. Which one of these can we do without restructuring ordinances? I have a feeling that combining lots is going to require restructuring all of the current ordinances as it relates to bow hunting within Wildwood. That'd be correct. But I think even if you change if you change the one acre you change to one acre too, you'd still have to draft a new you'd have to revise our current ordinance. Correct. But but all of the parameters Yes.

that backs you I would say if you add in I think the case could be made too that you probably need some type of stronger enforcement and oversight even at one acre just because you're allowing it on smaller parcels. Um at least getting feedback from those residents to see if they would buy into the program. Okay. And and Jim, just to be clear, I'm not trying to circumvent what you're saying. I'm trying to figure out what we can fit into the ordinance that we have as it relates to deer hunting today without having to go up and downstream and change everything else associated with it.

I'm just saying if you have more property out there, uh you get rid of more deer, uh less accidents. the all these cities I talked in allow properties to be combined. Uh it's not like everybody's gonna want their deer k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k killed. Uh so that's what I like about it that neighbors that that have a deer problem, they can get together and they can uh get rid of their deer problem. So

all right. Um, Miss Nan, I guess my Yeah, Mr. Albert,

I suggested in our meeting maybe a subcommittee would be appropriate thing to put this together and answer a lot of these things. And a lot of these questions we're answering now, there's a guy out there that can answer them a lot a lot more off the top of his head than we can to be honest with you. And I'll just add that I'm okay with an acre lot. So I I it would just keep it okay with an acre. Okay. Okay. So, now we're back to forget a single continuous contiguous acre

because I feel that that narrows us down to a manageable number of 1656 lot that we could possibly have the bow hunters hunt on. Okay. So,

Mr. Rambo. Yeah. Um uh this 1625 properties will add 2.5 miles roughly um to the huntable area in Wildwood. Um currently we're worried about 30 of our 68 square miles. Um it's it's not insignificant, but it's not um it's not something that is going to really help our problem. I will say that um we started this process in 2018 with board of public safety and I have openly from the very beginning uh expressed my support for the idea of asking our local archers to help with the problem. We just you know it needed to be figured out and it was never figured out. It never even came up as a topic until uh well until recently for whatever reason. But um I've also equally been uh been equally open about topics that are commonly discussed among all competent archers with integrity and that is um poor shot discipline, shooting too far, poor back stops, abandoned and lost deer and those kinds of things. They it's it's it's you know talked about among archers all the time. Um but somehow uh folks got the impression that I was opposed to hunting and nothing could be further from the truth. I am from that community. I wholeheartedly support it. It's just the fact that a hunt is not a cult. Um we um we uh uh uh I if we the question is what problem are we solving? And um if we approve this, it doesn't just mean um Colonel Sherman's group. I have complete confidence in those folks. And I've spoken to the man. He is um uh

reasonable. He just wants to hunt and grow his group. And that's all well and good. But the quality, he would admit that the quality falls off at some point. And um we can't discriminate. If we approve this, it means all archers. It means the guys that um collectively 372 were approved for managed archery hunts in Wildwood um and 32 deer were taken. That is not that's a success rate of like 8%. And um the um the uh uh idea that we're it's only bows. We can't regulate that because archery tackle now since you know the last couple years has included crossbows, flatter trajectory. you can have fancier sights and so on and so forth. They're a little more problematic because thousands of them have been recalled for misfires and you instead of knocking your arrow and drawing your bow when you see the deer, it's just kind of it's cocked and ready ready to go. And um uh it it causes a little bit more of a safety concern, but I am not as concerned with safety as I am with the footprint. Um, per the MDC um, uh, uh, bow hunter education course that all these archers have touted, um, the minimum distance for a a double heart long shot, which is the gold standard, is 600 ft in any direction. If you look at that from the center of a 3 acre 360x 360 parcel, it includes that parcel plus the eight surrounding which U. Colonel Sherman has suggested they would notify. It's also it's 20. It's actually 21s because it's the 20 in the next tier of these hypothetical square parcels. So, the idea of notifying 21 uh folks in advance of your hunt is sounds cumbersome to me, especially when

some of them are not going to be interested in having a deer die in their child's garden party. And that coordination that that Colonel Sherman offered um is is would be incredibly difficult. If you have to call 21 people and say, "Are you having a garden party tomorrow?" uh etc., etc. And that that footprint of that I just mentioned of 21 parcels, it becomes 49 parcels if they're 1 acre. And that doesn't even talk about the um the distances uh you know, from lot line to lot line, uh minimum distances required away from buildings and so forth. um it just it does not seem workable to me and um the um so the 80 eight eight adjacent parcels of notification is not significant but are not sufficient but the um the the the total population of archers in Wildwood is maybe 3% of the population I I I got it at 6 or 700. Many of those are casual ones. Katie's husband is a been a an archery hunter for 50 years probably or 60 years and but he goes out a few weekends a month or probably and that's the that's the more typical pattern and he I'm sure he's competent but he falls back from from the standard set by community bow hunters and that's what we have to live with. So, if we open this up, it it is not to these great guys that can do the job, but a lot of folks that can't do the job. And um we're going to be attracting people from Bowwin, Eureka, and Ellisville, which collectively, by the way, they are three to seven times as much human density and only 24 square miles in total, which is less than our targeted areas. And um we're going to draw archers in from there because guess what? It's shooting fish in a barrel in Wildwood because they got 80 deer per square mile. And so um it uh it's kind

of robbing Peter to pay Paul and it just doesn't this doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the get-go. And what I would suggest is we have um 80 plus% we have 55 square miles of areas of 3 acre minimums. Why don't we figure out some way to have some sort of pilot program? Hey, show us in this in this five square mile area what you can do next season on your own um you know coordinating it yourselves and so on and so forth because the proposal that was put forward it was not Mr. Sherman's uh Colonel Sherman's proposal. It was by uh it was it was another proposal that was hey this is free you know forgetting about the reality that um what we were paying white buffalo for was a single group of three scientists going out 28 nights in February and killing you know 250 deer or whatever they contracted to do. Um we are and and invisibly 661 total shots 661 deer and every one dropped like a puppet with cut springs. They never not a single deer in their thousands of thousands of thousands of deer has ever left their location. And so um so we contemplate they the the proposal was to replace that with 40 to 60 hunters with the management required for a group of 40 to 60 people.

That we're not doing that. All we're talking about I'm saying I'm saying though um uh the uh efficiency of of the archery community is not sufficient to the task because it's not about killing deer. It's about reducing density and um uh community bow hunters, suburban bow hunters, those guys can kill deer. I mean they're they're they're the elite uh elite um uh among our local archers. they um they cannot meaningfully reduce the density. And the reason I was leading up to all that stuff, Joe, was because um uh the fact of the matter is they wanted to kill 360 deer in 20 square miles, not five square miles. It didn't reduce the density at all. And a matter of fact, if you use Tom's incredibly conservative 1.2 recruitment rate, you wind up with the same amount of deer after the summer uh fawning season, the spring fawning season the next year. And so you never reduce the population at all and it has to be targeted and um so we're just talking about oh let's open it up to hunters but hunters have 4,000 parcels worth of access in Wildwood and I don't understand how um 2.5 additional square miles is going to make a meaningful difference.

All right, Mr. Alers, last bite at the apple here. Last thing for me, this isn't sarcastic, but you said garden party many times. I don't think the bow hunters would be hunting during garden part. But if they're if they're if they're if they're um um four parcels over, it's still in the footprint. I'm talking about the footprint. Okay? I'm not talking about the single one. They've the hunt in the mornings and the evenings, but that's all I'm trying to say.

And Mr. Sherman's group took out 125 deer last season. and his plans would be to educate more and more bow hunters to their standards. And 125 deer is about a third of what we were looking to call in some of these white buffalo or half in some of these white buffalo scenarios. So I just I just want to So let's get take a vote. You have a question, Mr. Marshall? Oh, thank God.

Okay. Excellent. So, just so I am clear, everybody is clear because we've beaten this thing to death and I I'm trying to get it underneath under the 2-hour mark that we had the other night. So, here is the motion. Gentlemen, please tell me if this is correct or not. Okay. Do not contract hunters or facilitate property access. Risks outweigh potential benefits. So, do not the city will not contract hunters or facilitate property access. Yes. Yes. Okay. Number three, we are going to require harvest reporting to track deer population management. Yes. Okay. Uh then we're going to jump to the number two, which is to reduce the parcel size to one acre or more from the three acres or more that it is currently effectively opening up 1,600 new properties to bow hunters and other hunters. I would assume hunters in general. Is that correct?

I don't know if it was analyzed for firearm. Well, I'm asking if we change the reg. Can we have a regulation for bow and we can absolutely make a distinction. Yeah. Okay. So, this is for

just bows. Okay. Then the last piece of this that I'm going to ask just because I heard you guys talk about it a couple times, Mr. Alers, you said that you thought surveying the residents was a good idea or not a good idea. So, are we surveying the residents before we do this or are we doing this and then surveying the residents? certainly would have the opportunity to do that. I think Mr. Lee said he could have a sample survey have the next meeting to look at.

Uh well, I I mean I would suggest we look at how we've done some of these surveys in the past. I would I think specifically the solar panel surveys, I think the last big one that we did. I don't remember how we I don't remember the ins and outs of getting to that. I guess my question is, are we doing this survey to decide if we want to change this space or do we want to change this space and then do the survey?

You want to change the space first and then ask the residents. Okay. Wow. Last piece. We are going to be requiring permits for all bow hunters, insurance for all bow hunters, and any other regulations in alignment with the surrounding municipalities. And that will be effective to all properties including the current 3acre parcels that exist now only for one acre or more. Can we do that? Can we make have permits only for one acre to three acres and then three acres or more they don't need permit? I'd have to look at that.

I I can't answer that at this time. from here's what I'm going to say. I think what we should do is I'm just trying to clarify the thing. I think we should we should have a vote unless somebody wants to change their mind on this thing. But I I I would suggest just I don't know that this affects a huge number of my residents because I don't know that there's a large number of 1acre parcels in W 4. But I would certainly tell the people that this is going to happen that it's ask them what they think before we do it. That's just me. But you guys do you. So, we have I do have a comment. I mean, I know we've called the question, but but um

we it's mandatory that we adjust our distance restrictions um or archery hunting, 200 feet from the property line, 80 ft from a building, those kinds of things. That can't that has to happen. And what if we find out that oh, this is stupid. Um hey man, how I you've called the question. So, here's we're going to I agree wholeheartedly. I know as a council member how my vote is going to go, but we're going to call the question. Colleen, are you clear on what we're calling a question on? All right, let's do it. Council member Farmer, no. Council member Dodwell, no. Council member Nyan. Council member Atenberg,

yes. Council member Traier, yes. Council member Mabberry, no. Council member Robooski, yes. Council member Preston, no. Council member Marshall. Council member McCutchen. No, because I think the residenc

no. Council member Crayons. Council member Alers. Yes. Council member Galani. No. All right. What does the count everybody? Nine. No. And five. Yes. So, no. No. Okay. Now, I guess that brings us back to our original idea, right? Or just a new motion at this point. Anyone who has another motion?

Okay. So, do we have another motion? Yes, ma'am. Miss N jump in before whether it be the survey or there's a then come back with a more when it's not almost 9:30 and follow. Okay. So we have a motion to refer back to admin PW. That's what you want to do. Okay. Seconded by Mr. Atenberg. Any discussion on that? Yes, sir. from Mr. Marshall. What's admin supposed to do with this

one minimum? But it failed. It failed at at one acre consideration. So, what would admin put something together for that didn't pass this council? I I mean, not opposed to doing it. I just want to know what you want to do with it. Uh, yes, I can. do that if you know.

Well, I mean, I think the question is this is kind of one of those procedural things like we the question would be this was voted on and it failed to change it to 1acre. So, I'm not sure why we would then look at how we would change it to 1 acre if it had already failed. If the question is, do we want to consider making these changes and what does that look like in terms of right now we're at 3 acres and do we want to add in permits or whatever it is? That makes sense to me, but I don't I don't know.

Few people voted and asked for more details. So, I guess that's what Tracy's trying to say a little bit here. And u as much research as I've done and maybe Mr. Cran has done, we're certainly not experts on all the answers to come off top of our head with some of these questions. So, so there there is much there's more that we can come up with just a matter of Mr. Try.

So, we voted on changing the ordinance to one acre. What we asked admin and PW to do is provide a report. Um, I don't have the three bullets up that were up

right here. They're in green. So I think if we can do this, make a motion uh requesting that admin and PW evaluate the current regulatory framework and if it it how we could change the framework to accommodate um lesser acreage requirements. I mean, somebody else can massage the language, but I think the reason it failed, and I could be wrong, is because there's numerous requirements within the ordinance that would be impacted if it were changed to one acre. So, I don't know if that's a feasibility assessment on could it even be changed to 1 acre, but I think that's what somebody may have a better idea. though I I would suggest and and I am I I think that you have a direction you can go there. I think that there's also some question and concern from several people that you know we we maybe need to get some input from the residents that would be affected by some of these changes. And so I might suggest that's one data point that we can get while we do these other things because if people come back and say, "Hey, we think this is great. We should do it everywhere." Then if we were to examine making these changes to one acre and then we get feedback that's like no we want this everywhere now we have to start all the way back over and do it again rather than just trying to figure out where the citizenry resides on this. Yes, ma'am.

For a hunt. So, okay. So, we have a I just for clarity, um Mr. Young is reminding us we have a a motion in a second, but Tracy, I think you're I don't know that we know what the motion is. So, do you want to with Do you want to withdraw the mo Can we withdraw the motion? How do we do that? Do you guys want to withdraw it and we figure something else out or or or massage it? Okay. So, so Tracy would like to withdraw it. Scott, you seconded it. Do you also want to withdraw it or do you want to try to massage it? Yes. I had a procedural question.

Sure. We voted and the um motion failed, but could we not call for a revote on that issue? You want to reconsider the failure? Yeah. I don't think you can because you don't have Yeah, it was nine votes, right? Well, it was nine votes and you voted no. Correct. Yeah. So, you were in the majority. So, can council member Nyan not call for a revote? Do you want to call for a revote? No, because the vote would be the same. like we don't have any of the additional information that I Okay.

So, from a technicality standpoint, John, how would that if somebody wanted to make a motion to reconsider, which I guess is what that would be, what would be not I'm not saying we are doing that or not, but what would be required to do that? Motion to reconsider would have to be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. So, that would have been a no vote and then you'd have a majority to approve that reconsideration. Okay. So, does anybody who voted no care to make a motion to reconsider? I'm just asking you don't. Okay. So, no. So, okay.

Everybody now knows how that works. Um, so now, Miss Dodwell, if you would like, we can make the motion that you were suggesting in terms of surveying the residents or we can continue this conversation in other directions, I suppose. And do you want just one acre lots or one acres plus not one? Okay. So we have a motion to survey the residents on their feelings on one to Yes sir.

Can I get clarity on that too? So um are you saying to survey the residents with 1 to three acres? of those individuals is 1600 or do you want to survey the entire city? U that's the department. Yeah. So I we does anybody well it could be but I would say that there there could be given the the regulatory context and what the outcome could lead to. There would be some at least some interpretation that some folks may not if it was just online we need to have some type of control measure like we did with the solar survey. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So, we have a So, we have a motion for to determine citywide the I'll call it the appetite for reducing the parcel size to one continuous acre. Okay. Does anybody care to second that? Okay. Mr. CR is going to second that. Um, any thoughts, questions, concerns? Yes, sir. Mr. Rambo. Well, if we're going to do a survey, we should look for more data because that's quite limited. Um, we um I'm not sure how we can address the efficacy question or um bow hunting uh in terms of reducing density and those kinds of things, but we can ask we can ensure that people get the appropriate information about the footprint and and those kinds of things. And um um we have to there should be probably the admin and public works committee should discuss this survey um uh you know in detail before you um before it just gets

so I would suggest and I don't know maybe Mr. Vuna, you will recall this. I or somebody that was up here when we did it when we did the solar thing. Didn't we had a consultant?

We had a consultant that came up with all the questions and who it was going to to get the proper math and all that. Is that Do I remember that correctly? I would maybe just duplicate that. But that's my suggestion. Yeah. No, no, no. He was a survey expert, not a solar panel expert. So he he was an expert in figuring out if you're surveying the population of a city, how many responses you need and all that kind of stuff. I we will have if nobody else says anything, we'll have this vote here in a second. I would just maybe echo a little bit with what Mr. Rambo said. If we're going to survey people, we should ask them whether they want to have continuous property or parcel aggregation because eventually that will wind up being a question and it's better to have that answer. Yeah. I I just think this guy, if I remember right, this this guy was like the real deal when it came to surveying for anything. And he he ca and we got I believe we got to approve the questions, I think, before we did it. The

council did Yes, that was my point. Sure. I'm with you. Okay. So, we have a first any other who's Mr. Marshall to ask them what they think about one acre property. Are we only going to go to the one acre which is

well but I think if you then include the people if we were to aggregate smaller properties it's something like 11,000 parcels I that was that's the number I would suggest but I don't question. I'm asking the clerk. So, we have a motion to do this survey, Mr. Rottenberg.

So, how many people are we how many property owners are we proposing to send this survey out to? I'm not clear on that. I would suggest that we we can put out a a request for services, but we can I would think at the very least re-engage the gentleman, if he's still around, that did it a couple years ago. And if I remember right, he basically said this is the this is the appropriate number of respondents that are required to get a an answer that isn't like it's not like we sent it out and two people responded and that's how we

I guess I just asked the question that the ordinance that um was proposed and failed was to allow hunting on acreages of one to up to three acres and that would make well one and up Right. Why not? So if it had passed, that would have made an additional what is it, 1650 properties available for bow hunting. Why wouldn't we just send the survey to those 1650 properties?

Why does it impact the entire city? Sure. Um,

yeah, but I I don't but so just to No, he said he didn't hadn't done the studying yet and he doesn't know. Well, so that's what I'm saying. I think the question I think the question is if we're talking about do you want to change the parcel size that hunting is allowed on? Do you want to change these regulations in terms of neighbor notification and permitting and all those things? Those are valuable questions to get. And I I am of the belief that if we ask our citizenry where they're at on this, I think that's a really valuable piece of information to come back that goes along with everything else, our legal obligations and and the, you know, various issues that we might have with insurance or whatever it is. Those are all data points that come in. Um, but I think that, you know, it's a city-wide issue. You should ask the people in the city because what happens if we say yes, we're going to do one acre, but now everybody is required to have a permit that that dramatically impacts the people that have been doing this forever. Yeah. So, so that would be my suggestion, but Miss Dwell, you were making the motion. I cannot remember if we had a second and if we did don't, we probably need Mr. Mr. CR second. Yes, ma'am. as as recommended by me. I don't really remember what you said. No, I'm So, you want to do we're going to do a we are going to look at re-engaging whether it I can't remember his name, the gentleman,

the survey guy or Professor N. Matthew N. There we go. So, we can re-engage him or we can look at different people that are of similar capabilities and get their feedback. I think I I would suggest while I I think that we're all really good and dialed into our residents, this is probably not something we're best suited to come up with these questions. This is probably something that we should allow an expert that does this for a living to figure out because surveys are difficult.

Yes, ma'am. that we engage a knowledgeable individual to help us design that goes out to you want 1600 residents. I mean it's up to you. It's up to you. I I if it was me I would suggest the do everybody but that's your thing. Barney are here. Regulations.

Okay, Mr. CR, you cool with that second or no?

That'll be one of the questions, right? The question asks I'll start there. Okay. Anybody care to to have any more discussion on that item? Okay, seeing no questions, Miss Loachc, you clear on where we're going with this? Excellent. If you wouldn't mind, please call the role. Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes. Council member Utenberg, yes. Council member Troutier, yes. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Rablooski, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo,

yes. Council member Bocker, isn't that he's absent? Okay. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, I might ask the bow hunters to take a practice shot at me, but yes. Okay. And just just so everybody's clear, um that is going to be a staff function that will come back to to the work session of the council, not to any one specific committee. So everybody's good on that. Okay. Do we need anything else, Tom, when it comes to these recommendations or are we moving forward with this? We'll come back doing that. Yeah. Okay. Excellent. All right.

Hey, how about that? An hour and nine minutes on deer. That's not too shabby. That's a little faster than I thought it was going to be tonight. Okay. Um up next. Yes sir. This is Yes ma'am. Is there a possibility that we can um postpone some of the items on this work session until till May? Um is there anything that we don't absolutely have to do tonight or June? We certainly I mean I would say yes, but you know May is always a little bit of a weird meeting because it's a split meeting and that creates problems. Yeah. Right. I mean I to be honest. Okay. These look to be pretty fast. A suggestion.

Okay. Uh moving on. Consideration of municipal management software. Mr. Lee, thank you. You got 45 seconds. Go.

We'll be very uh we'll be very quick on this. And overall, this was presented to the administration public works committee. The main um idea here and what was included in the report is that we had an extremely uh you know nice turnout with the proposals that came in for an MMS uh software that would control all functions including my gov. It would replace MIGO. It replace GIS. It replace all of our um current software that we currently use to run the city. That said, um the cost that was was submitted was extremely expensive and was quite frankly could be outdated within a couple years due to advancements in AI and other software. So, nonetheless, we did receive quite a few proposals. Um, we had we put it on ice for a second to see if we could improve our uh relationship with our current vendor, MYGV, and utilize GIS um to fulfill some of those needs. We were able to achieve that. And currently, the idea would be to reject any and all bids uh that were submitted here tonight. U excellent. Okay. Anybody care to make a motion to reject these bids made by Miss Dodwell? Anybody care to second that rejection made by Mr. Preston? Any questions, concerns, or discussion on the item? Seeing none, Miss Lobo, do we do need did you do a roll call or can we do a voice vote? Okay. All in favor of rejecting the bids, please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, that one passes. We're doing great, Tom. Here we go. Next one up is the development of a consolidated reference guide for council voting thresholds and procedural requirements.

Thank you, chair. Um, in this case, this is just a quick reference guide that was put together uh at the last meeting. We did not get to the item, but nonetheless, bringing it back. Um, tonight, the idea is showing a this is an example. If you look at the attachment, it shows different voting thresholds we have for certain scenarios that occur in the city. Uh, key word here is that these are baseline approvals. So just know that you know you can always have seconded uh you can have reconsiderations, you could have people that do motions on top of motions which get a little bit more dicey but at least the initial question itself um the idea was to put together a simple voting threshold document because there was at committee u concerns raised regarding different voting thresholds and not having that as well known. So the idea would be to take something like this, try to identify even more peculiar voting instances, but these cover I think the basics and then have a copy of it laminated at the back table here at city hall. Um have it up here at the um dis for everyone to see so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to voting on certain things at least at the baseline level, not necessarily anything else. Great. Anybody care to make a motion to accept the cheat sheet? Miss Dadwell

book or whatever. Okay. Motion by Miss Dodwell, second by Mr. Attenburg. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all those in favor of our new vote total cheat sheet so everybody knows what's going on. Please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Guys, this is great. We're doing great now. Okay, up next we've got a review of city assisted ward meeting policy. Tom, go.

All right, this one, uh, we'll see. Um, okay. Nonetheless, um, we don't have a current, we don't have a current policy on in place for city assisted board meetings. That said, we have had them and we had a deacto policy in place from an administrative standpoint that was implemented back in 2010. Um the idea behind it is potentially getting legislation on the books to help establish a formal process and also uh with that being said having some caveats carved out for the fact that we do have um election season that does come up for a certain period of time that uh would be accounted for and what the proposed policy is tonight. Nonetheless, uh what we're providing tonight is a little bit different than what was the informal policy. The only changes though if uh included in the report was that there would be almost a city ward blackout period during the filing period and then when the council member uh when the election actually takes place. Um but other than that all other services and responsibilities remain the same. There would still be up to two uh up up to sorry one versus two ward meetings per year um versus the two that are currently allotted. So we'd be formalizing and then we'd also be putting a blackout period in. And then lastly, we would be changing the, you know, up to two meetings per year um to now one. That's what was recommended by the committee. Okay. Miss Dwell with these changes. Okay. So, accept the recommendations from the department as presented. Okay. Anybody have any? Seconded there by Mr. Preston. Any questions? Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, I personally for residents sakes and the way issues come up, I would suggest that we stay at the possibility of two board meetings per year. Not saying you have to have two, but saying you're allowed up to two. Great. Uh, do you want to make a motion to amend that, or is that just like a point of view? I will make the motion to a to amend the regulations for um to keep it at two city board meetings to keep it at two meetings per year.

Anybody care to second that? Mr. Rodenberg will second that. Okay. First time around the horn. Any further discussion on that issue? Let's try it. Uh let's try a voice vote. Do we want to keep it at two possible ward meetings a year or one? All those in favor of making it two, please say I. All those opposed. No. No. Okay, let's do a voice vote. Here we go. Voice vote if you wouldn't mind, please. Colleen. Was it? Council member Farmer? No. Council member Dodwell? No. Council member Nyan, no. Council member Ottenberg, yes. Council member Tier, yes. Council member Mabberry,

no. Council member Roblooski, yes. Council member Preston, no. Council member Marsha. Uh, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, no. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, is this just clarification? Is this we have you have to have two per year? You can have two. This is allowing you to have two instead of just allowing you to have one. Sure, I won't have to do it. Okay. I I had eight six. Is that correct? Seven. Seven. Yes. And one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Doesn't pass, right?

What? I had eight. Eight. What? Eight to six, right? Eight to six. It didn't pass to keep to have two two meetings. No, that's what I got. Is that what you got? Yeah. Pass. Well, two against one, you're fine. I don't know. I got seven and seven. So, I missed someone who said, um, okay, let's try it this way real real quickly, the old school way. If you all those in favor of keeping it at two meetings, please raise their hands.

Eight. Good. Okay. So, we're going to keep the two meetings and then now we'll go back to the other motion which is uh to prepare all the other changes with the exception of the two meeting threshold. Everybody cool with that. Who would like to make that motion? Don't everybody jump out at once? Made by Miss Dodwell, seconded by Mr. Preston. Do we need to do that? Oh, okay. The vote again. Use a vote on final

Let's vote on the final thing. Uh do can we do a voice vote? All right. All those in favor of amending as discussed here our ward meetings which includes leaving it at two meetings possibility instead of just one. All those in favor please say I. I. Anyone opposed? No. Who said? I heard somebody say no. All right. Mr. Mabry is opposed. Any abstensions? Okay, that motion passes. Next up, we are at uh planning and zoning in response to communication from Jonathan Hill. Mr. Vunage, I assume this is you. Yes, sir. Take it away.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Prom. Mr. Mayor Prom and members of city council, the planning and zoning commission modified a waiver action that was taken in 2025. That waiver action in 2025 was forwarded to city council which passed a resolution. The department of planning is respectfully requesting authorization to prepare a revised resolution reflecting the action that occurred last Monday night. Okay. And so you need from us authorization to prepare a resolution for the next available meeting.

Anybody? All right. Mr. Marshall will make that. Anybody care? Second. Second by Mr. Galani. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, that one is off the list. Terrific. That brings us to E. Uh, a request to reprint pages to celebrate the history of Wildwood, Missouri book into a family history book by Miss Graham Olri. Mr. Vunich.

Again, thank you, Mayor Prom, Mayor Prom, and members of city council. A request was forwarded to the Department of Planning seeking authorization to reprint three pages of the Wildwood History Book. As you know, the Wildwood History Book was prepared by the city of Wildwood, paid entirely by the city of Wildwood, and before authorizing the reprint, the Department of Planning wanted to make sure it was acceptable to the city council to allow that to occur. The department offers no objection to the reprint and is seeking authorization tonight. Mr. Atenberg, uh, Dr. Vish, what are the three pages?

Uh, it relates to the history of the West family, which is Westland Acres. Aren't we just allowing them to use it? They'll reprint it in another book, but not We're not printing the book, right? Oh, no. Yeah, we're just allowing them to print our pages as described in the letter. It's just a reprint of the three pages. Make that motion. All right, Mr. President, we make that motion. Anybody care to second it? Seconded by Mr. Alberts. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none. All those in favor? Uh please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. A request from the director uh the department of planning for direction on the amendment to accept bid specifications for the reassembly of the SN log cabin which would change the roofing material from the use of synthetic cedar shake sh singles to natural types. Mr. Munich.

Thank you. Mayor Prom. Mayor Prom and members of city council, as you may recall, a bid process was orchestrated for the SNL log cabin reassembly. As part of the base bid, synthetic cedar shake shingles were required and as an ad alternate, cedar was included. The cedar shake shingles, the natural type, were more expensive, and as you know, cost was a major concern to city council. The general contractor on the reassembly has found natural cedar shake shingles and is offering them at no increase in cost. However, it does lead to increased maintenance which has a cost associated with it. Before proceeding forward, since the bid and the contract was approved by city council, the department of planning is seeking direction.

Mr. Try it. Do you have any idea why they want to give us a more expensive product when we didn't ask for it? Well, certainly it appears to be that Mr. McDonald Sherek Creek Excavating has taken on this project as a personal challenge and he has provided many um additional amenities to the cabins reconstruction, reassembly at no charge to the city. It just seems like this is something he enjoys doing and is willing to absorb the cost. So, is he willing to absorb the maintenance cost? That probably is not something he would agree to.

All right. Um, Miss Dodwell, did you have your hand up? and that the maintenance cost on that this means it's going to come back to us in 10 years versus in 30 years to replace that roof. Actually, the the the analysis that was done by the Department of Planning, this is synthetic cedar shakes last anywhere from 40 to 50 years. There's about a either a 10 to 20 year reduction in natural. So, we would be replacing it sooner than later. And as is described in the report, it also requires more um maintenance on a yearly basis, a 5-year basis, 10-year basis.

Can I make a motion, please? That we do not um go to Cedar Shakes. We stick with what originally was in there. Yeah, we stayed with the original. Second. Second by Mr. Mabry. Any discussion, questions, concerns? Mr. commercial. I had a unique opportunity to live in Texas and had two beautiful homes with real cedar shake roofs and every year it was 150 bucks. A guy pulled up in his truck, got up on the roof and would go through replacing them. Really cool, but that maintenance is just going to always be there. So, I think going with the nonseater would be a great option. Okay, any other discussion? Yes, ma'am.

Quick question. Um, I originally was against the log cabin based on cost and felt like we had other things, but um, part of this is actually trying to make sure we use the original logs and trying to make it authentic. Um, and using synthetic just doesn't seem like it's with the character of trying to keep an authentic log cabin. So, that's my comment. I think it'd be even though there's more maintenance, seems like it would go to the authenticity of the log cabin. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Rambo.

Yeah. Um, the synthetics do fade um and they look increasingly artificial over time. The maintenance burden is um as long as it's on schedule, it's mostly cleaning off any moss that gets up there and retreating them. And um they should last 30 years, especially out there in the open, sort of where they are. So, I uh agree with Vicki on the authenticity of the cabin. They're more expensive because they're cooler in many respects. And and if we're restoring a cabin, it always felt kind of odd to do an artificial product. Um I I could sort of go either way because I do understand the the expense, but I don't know that $150 a year is going to break our budget if we get, you know, if we get Well, okay. You're right. But it was a probably a little bit bigger than a 16 by 20. Yeah. Every year.

Okay. So, we have a motion to go with synthetic and a second to go with synthetic. So, let's try this voice vote on whether we're going to stick with the synthetic. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? No. No. Okay. Uh, those opposed, how about we raise our hands? Five. Five. Okay. You got it, Colleen? Keep them up for a little bit longer. I can't write that fast. Okay. Okay. So, looks like we're sticking with the synthetic. Thank you, sir.

All right. That brings us to our miscellaneous, I believe, our miscellaneous section here, which looks to be quite a number of receipt and files. Uh, Mr. Vunage, is this you or Tom or

Mr. Mayor Prom and members of city council, the first item from the planning and zoning commission for receipt and filing relates to the Monarch Fire Protection District and an authorized and granted conditional use permit for the city's first electronic message center. The planning and zoning commission utilizing the new regulations granted the permit and it is for receipt and filing. As with any conditional use permit, the city council has 15 days to exercise its power review and reconsider the granting of the permit. That exercise of power review has to occur tonight because again the city council does not meet again for 30 plus days. The Monarch Fire Protection District has also respectfully requested that the 15-day period be waved if a power review is not exercised since the sign has been in place since the completion of the fire station.

All right, Miss Dodwell, you got a question. Is that sign going to be running 7 by 24 or is it going to go off at night so that the homes around it don't see it? Yes, the underlying regulations require that the signs be off at night. I believe it's 10:30 p.m. as stated in the permit. Okay. Anything else? So, you need if any of us want to trigger something, we do it now. If not, that's it. And again, the fire district has respectfully requested that the 15-day period be waved if the council chooses not to exercise its power of review.

Okay. Number one, would anybody like to exercise their power of review? Seeing none, Mr. Marshall, you care to make a motion? Make a motion that we uh forgo the 15 days and let him light it up tomorrow. Okay, we have a motion to forego the 15 days. Seconded by Miss Dodwell. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, I know we're at 10:01. We're almost done. I promise we're going to go really fast. Mr. Vunich.

Well, just as a footnote, it won't be ready for operation tomorrow. So, um the next item relates to a letter of recommendation regarding luxury villas at latitude north 38. Planning and zoning commission recommended denial. As you know from an earlier discussion tonight, there has been a appeal filed by the petitioners. The next item relates to ecoin assisted therapy. Equin assisted therapy requested the planning and zoning commission consider amendments to the conditional use permit that governs this facility on state route 109. The planning and zoning commission granted amendments to allow a new building within the context of approval by the floodplane administrator of the city, Rick Brown, and also other items relating to the outdoor riding arena. All told, there are a number of changes, all of which were supported and incorporated into the existing permit. Again, as with the issue relating to the fire district, as with any conditional use permit, the city council has 15 days exercise its power review. As with the fire district, ecoin assisted therapy is respectfully requesting that power review is not exercised, the 15-day period be waved. There any questions? We'll do our best to answer Anybody have any questions?

Nope. Okay, pressing on.

So, the 15-day period will stand Pat. Thank you. Um, the next item relates to Lombardo Homes. Lombardo Homes is proposing a 14 lot development at the southwest corner of Route 100 and St. Albins's Road. All lots will be over three acres in size. The planning and zoning commission considered a request from the barter homes to wave the centralized wastewater treatment plant. The planning and zoning commission granted the waiver and each of the lots will be served by individual household treatment systems uh in collectively a total of 14. For the waiver to proceed forward, the department needs authorization from city council to prepare the resolution. All right. Anything else?

I need authorization to prepare the resolution. Anybody care to make that motion made by Mr. Mabry. Anybody care to second it? Seconded by Mr. Galani. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, we didn't do what? Mlan. Oh, yeah. A recommendation report. Uh, regarding MLAN properties commercial district in northwest corner,

Mr. Mayor Pro Tim and members of the city council, the Wildwood Pub and Grill has over time organically grown the outdoor dining area along with additional performance space. to kind of catch things up. The planning department along with the city administrator have been working with Wildwood Pub and Grill's leadership and a revised amended site development plan was approved by city council. It does include sound mitigation to address concerns about the playing of music during nighttime hours. The planning and zoning commission supported this and it is a receipt file and if there's any questions, Mr. Newberry and I'd be glad to try to answer. Motion approval.

Need do you need a motion approval? No. Nope. Only we're good on that one. Anybody have any questions on Wildwood Pub? Okay. Big news. That brings us here to adjournment. If anybody cares to make that motion, there is a certificate of appropriateness. If you have any questions, the department be glad to answer them. Relates to the Ben Bomber House. Yeah. Anybody have any questions on that? There's a motion for approval. Okay. Mr. Mayberry is going to make the motion to approve that one. Sure. All right. We have a motion to approve. Seconded by Mr. Attenburg. Any questions or concerns? Okay. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? And now we will have a motion to adjurnn. Made by Mr. Galani. Anybody care to second that one? Second by Mr. Troier. Uh, all those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Thanks for stick.