Administration / Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

Test test test right we are live here. Okay. All right everybody. Uh hello and welcome to the September meeting of the admin and public works committee. Um we've got a pretty good agenda here this evening and some guests in the room. So we'll get started here pretty quickly. Amy, if you don't mind, if you would please call the role. Chair Farmer here. Council member Marshall present. Council member Alers here. Council member Mabry here.

Council member Preston. Council member Nyion. Council member Vanic here. Council member Baker present. All right. Uh, with everybody present accounted for, that brings us to the approval of minutes from our last meeting in August. Uh, Mr. Marshall. So moved. All right. Mr. Marshall makes a motion to approve the minutes. Anybody care to second? Second by Mr. Alers. Uh, any discussion or edits or anything like that? All right. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Uh, the minutes pass. That brings us to uh our public participation. We have a couple guests in the room that those of you on Zoom will be able to sort of see here shortly, I think. Um, for those of you that are uh wanting to speak this evening, we do have some speaker cards up there. Um, if you can just turn those in with Amy so we can kind of just keep track of who everybody is. Um, we keep our public participation. Everybody gets basically five minutes to speak. Um, it's a time for you to speak. Uh you can certainly ask some questions just as sort of a weird way that it works. We're not actually technically allowed to answer them at that time, but you're free to ask them. Um and we just ask you to um you know, please be uh you're certainly free to say whatever you'd like, but if you can try to be as concise as possible since there's a a lot going on and a lot of hope folks to talk, we would s surely appreciate it. Um so with that, uh Amy, you got some speaker cards.

First one is Ken Mazinus. Right. Can I sit or stand? Whatever makes you most comfortable. It's kind of a weird setup with the camera. Everybody will be kind of pointed at the back of your head there, but the microphone is up in the ceiling here, so it'll pick every everything you're saying.

Great. Well, first of all, um, uh, Mr. Farmer, your email to me was excellent, and it came in a unbelievably appropriate moment, which was this morning. So, what I did was I was making some notes and I thought, well, why don't I just go through this quickly. It's just a four little notes I put or four little areas I put on here. And I just wanted to answer uh my thoughts as to what you sent me, which I thought was good. Um, the first thing is, uh, the city has received, and by the way, I'm reading from Mr. Farmer's email. The city has received complaints about the outside of the subdivision deteriorating conditions. I couldn't agree more and I did agree the last time and I also said I was going to fix it and I did fix it. Uh I would like to say I did it myself. I did not. There were three other neighbors that helped and uh once we got that tree was unbelievably a mess. But uh once we got everything done, Midwest Lawn stepped in and and took care of the the soding and whatever and it it moved along very nicely. Uh the one the next part is that you had said that the closure has largely been symbolic and uh a semi-private access. I got to once again I kind of have to agree with you on the semi-private access. Um not not that we want it to be a semi-private access, but nonetheless it's not symbolic. It was for safety first. It certainly was. So one or two of our residents would drive across that. And unfortunately, it's true, but you know what can I say? Um, we've taken the steps to uh alert these people and to ask them not to do it. And I I don't know what comes after this. Maybe putting leans on their homes or something if they keep destroying property, but what happens happens there. Uh, the third part is uh which I think is the probably the most interesting. You said you had lengthy discussions with the fire police and uh

the board of public safety. I've got to tell you just from the city of Wildwood, listen, when you call here, which I did today, and you ask for the uh person in charge of public safety, the director, there is none. And uh so I I'm not sure I would use that terminology uh because there is no board of public safety. Uh I was switched over to Rick Brown, which I've spoken to, so I didn't need to go to him, but I did speak to Mr. Brown. I also spoke to the um uh the fire marshal Joe and that in person I was speaking to these people Joe Haver and also uh right out here uh officer Brian McCoy and I would have talked to Captain Mundelle but Brian kept telling me every time I'd call him he goes well he's he's off another day he's just not going to be here today but don't worry he'll be here on Monday. Well I called today and he said well apparently he took off then I called him the day and said no he's still not back yet. This man has banker's hours. But nonetheless, uh I did speak to these people and I want to point out four things they all said exactly almost to the letter. Number one, and I quote, I'm quoting Rich Brown, uh Rick Brown first, Hearnberry Place is not a cutthrough. End of quote. It has to be 38 feet wide to be a cutthrough. city ordinance or not city but county ordinance. Ours is 26.1. It has to be 38 to be a cutthrough. It isn't a cutthrough. They all said that. Number two, they all said this emergency access is not a problem with the current accessibility off of Struter onto Turnberry Place or Turnberry Place onto Struter over the delineators. In fact, uh Joe Hayer said, "I have no problem whatsoever taking my 40tonon fire truck

and driving over those." And the police said the same thing. Uh so this hasn't been an issue. It has not been an issue for 29 years. President is in force and so is the grandfather rule. Now, if there's no problem there, why are you trying to make it a problem? Three, they all said this. Also, the first responders at the fire department on Clayton and Hutchinson, which you know where that is, stated when training new recruits, quote, "Avoid Turnberry Place." End of quote. How much clearer can this get? Then they all agreed that Turnberry Place should not be used due to number one safety reasons. Number two, too hilly, too curvy, too tight, too many parked cars, too many work trucks, and too many children. I sent you pictures of that. Sent you pictures of that. This was right over the weekend. We had little kids going up and down the street on their bicycles, playing on the street, kicking balls and stuff. This is what it is on our street. I mean, what could possibly happen if you open that street up and we have more traffic through? What could possibly go wrong? Gentlemen, uh last thing, the discussion tonight is not about reopening uh uh to adopt the followed cor has everything been done correctly uh with regards to the committee. Well, I'm not going to get into that, but I think they will. Uh what I would like to touch on though is this. You would wrote, "The city will work to make sure any reopening is done safely and with care." I I I've got to tell you, I've heard no one ever ever be concerned with safely

reopening. What the hell does that mean? Safely reopening. What What is that? Was that the jackhammer is not going to throw concrete in somebody's window? Safely reopening. I'll tell you what I have heard is only safety from reopening, not safely, safety from reopening. And one more thing and then I'm done. I am living proof. My wife and I moved in uh in 99. We built a $2,000 brick mailbox in 2000. A group of young kids, I hate to say it, but young boys drove into it off of Striker. They came down off of Striker and they drove into it a year after we put it in. I They got away with doing it. I couldn't get their license number quick enough and they drove off. Uh I had to rebuild another one. I put another one in. That's a $4,000 mailbox I've got sitting there now. And by the way, it wasn't raining. It wasn't at night. It wasn't snowing. There was no ice. There was no sleep. It was a Labor Day weekend just like yesterday and they drove into it. Now if those kids had been on that street on that sidewalk, you know what would have happened. So now I understand where you're all coming from, but you have to understand where we're coming from after 29 years of being there or 20 26 in my my suggest uh the way we would. We when we bought in there, we knew that that street was not going to be opened because it had already been set into place and the people I got to tell you there's only I have only found one resident that can go back further than me and that's the next story neighbor. he bought in 1990 and he was one of the ones that complained about people driving too fast. So, uh, anyway, I

appreciate your time and and once again, thank you for for sending that. It really was a good email and, uh, I loved Park. So, thank you. Thank you. Who's next? Gary Shrader. All right, Mr. Shrader, you can come up or not. It's up to you. However you want to do it, but Michael will pick you up anywhere.

Okay, I'll come up. seems like the appropriate place. Um, anyway, I'm not here representing anybody but myself, but I am a resident of Turnberry. I live on Turnberry Place Drive. I bought it bought my house there eight years agoish. The road was closed, had been closed for 20 years, I'm guessing. A long time. I was a resident of Wildwood before that. Uh, live whatever over here. Uh, moved there knowing the road was closed. I mean, and opening the road is a problem, okay? It's going to be it's going to be a hazard for me. It's going to be dangerous for the kids. I don't have kids. I mean, that age. My kids are 35, you know, but I do have grandkids that come over. I don't want to be worried about them that they can't, you know, they can't step outside the house because there's kids, there's people that are be cutting through there. And it it is a bad cut through. Um, like I said, I had kids that are 35 years old. So, 20 years ago, they were 16. Yeah, I know what they did. They, you know, they they were speeding down Streker and turning in Turnberry because it was a nice shortcut. And it has been stopped mostly. I mean, we can try and police it better. We can put up game cams or other cameras. And I'm sure the subdivision, we've had the meetings, we're talking about doing whatever we can to try and keep it closed. We want to work with the city. Uh so we're just asking the city to work with us, not just decide that it needs to be open for I don't know whose benefit. I don't there doesn't seem to be a benefit to anybody, but it is a detriment to the residents of Turnberry. So anyway, please represent us as residents of Wildwood. keep our uh benefit or our our good uh

stature or our safety in mind, please. We'll surely do our best. Thank you. Lauren Jordan, is it okay if Bridget comes first?

Sure. Bridget Fischer, good evening. You've heard from a couple of the other residents of Turnberry Place that um there's a lot of passion behind keeping this road closed and we all have a lot of passion and Lauren will talk a little bit more about the amount of residents that live in our neighborhood and who has been there for for what period of time. Um, after review of the assessment though, we have put together some facts that show that the score that we received was not appropriate to put Turnberry Place back on for opening. Um, looking at the emergency services function category of the assessment, we, as Ken told you, we spoke with both the fire department and the police department. There have been no issues with their services and their access to not only our neighborhood but other neighborhoods. We believe that the score of 30 should actually be a score of zero. Not only based on the conversations that we have had with the fire department and the police department, but it states that if it's not a legal turnaround, the fire trucks, the police cars, they do not have to turn around at that entrance. They can drive over. That entrance was designed for emergency vehicles to gain access there. It's closed to all non-emergency vehicles. Therefore, it is not applicable to that intersection to receive that 30 point score. We believe that the zero scoring is what

that assessment should be based on. Based on that alone, that would put our score well below the 70 point threshold, making this a non-issue. Beyond the emergency services, there is the public connectivity function. If you look at our road, there is Turnberry Place Drive serves no other neighborhoods, no other areas besides the homes in Turnberry Place Drive. So, it is not even a public connectivity street. The sole act your sole purpose of getting onto Turnberry Place Drive is to access a home within Turnberry Place Drive. Therefore, the score that we received of 25 should be also a zero. A connector road is one that connects two parallel streets. Both Shucker Road and Clayton Road intersect just down the street from Turnberry Place Drive. Therefore, there is no reason to utilize Turnberry Place Drive. We are not to cut through. We are not trying to make it a private neighborhood. We are not trying to restrict anybody from coming into our neighborhood. We are trying to keep our streets safe for our residents, for our children, and make sure that there is no tragic accident that happens within the streets of Turnberry Place Drive because I don't think anybody wants to see that happen. And based on the information that was presented originally to close that road, that is a great potential. So, we ask that we keep this road closed for the safety of Wilderwood residents. in turn very place neighborhood. Thank you.

Great. Appreciate the committee taking time to listen to us and receive our emails. And I'm I'm not quite sure how effective this is without being able to have discourse uh some kind of conversation. So I'll just ask you all three questions, right, with a bonus for for final. Uh but I'll do that after I present this data uh in response to some of the comments that were at the previous council member meetings, council hall meetings. um 92% of the homes uh of the 142 homes. Council member Mabberry, are you able to gauge us?

Hi. Sorry.

Yeah. So, 92% of the homes, the 142 homes in our uh neighborhood are new residents. residents that were here after the closure of our road. Other point is that the the delineators were not uh removed purposely. Whatever rumor hearsay rose that idea um to the council, it's not true. We've replaced those on August 11th. There was some issue on how we purchased those uh since I'm I've never purchased them. We got the delineators in there. We had uh Midwest Lawn. We paid the money to get those in there. We want that emergency access to be upheld. Number of community members have worked in that area at the striker entrance uh slashemergency access slash intersection to beautify it even though beautifification is a minor point within the score review. Uh, I mean, I could go on and on, but I'm frankly a little exhausted at like just talking to you all without having feedback that I think we're entitled to as residents of the neighborhood and of all. Uh, we had one meeting early on with Mr. Mabberry, Mr. Lee, Mr. Brown, and then we had a series of the council meetings that didn't really add up to what we heard in those meetings. So, we're a little confused as a community. So, that brings me my three questions, right? I'd like all of you to just ask yourselves, and I may or may not present this to the full council, but what we'd like you to do is consider why did this become an issue, right? What is needed from the community to keep the road closed to ensure our safety, right? I think we've been very respectful and tried to lay out the points, but just please humor me. What is needed from the community to keep that road closed?

What will be the cost of opening the road aside from the money, which I feel could be put to better use, but that's your all you all's job to decide that, right? So respectfully, and then finally, have the residents of Turnberry Place been given a fair shot at keeping this road closed and offering whatever it is the council decides is necessary to keep it closed. We're willing to work with the council. Again, I think we've been really respectful. I think we will continue to be that way and trying to make our point for something that we've all become accustomed to. not only accustomed to, right? We were not there prior to the road closure. So, we'd like to simply go on about our lives and add the striker entrance to our maintenance queue, right? Move one. But again, it's all you all's decision here uh as a public works committee to see what kind of priority this is as I understand it. And then it's up to the council members to decide, do we really want to take taxpayer payer dollars and put it towards this issue, which we're willing to work with you on. So, uh, I again appreciate everyone's time. I hope that, you know, this becomes a non-issue and it just goes away, but if it doesn't, then you'll have a lot of community members that will continue to have to talk about this because it's very important issue to us. So, thank you, Crawford. Thank you for having me. Um, I was moved into the neighborhood in 2004. So, I was the perpetrator who created the document that was submitted in 2009.

So, I'm a engineer by trade. I I'm vice president of engineering for Clico Corporation here in town. Uh the analysis that was done in 2009 still exists today, still goes towards the St. Louis County Highways and Traffic Standards uh that that were in play in 2009. The rules are still the same. The curves are the tightest curve on the steepest slope twice in our neighborhood. And the radius and this and the distance of cars are parked on both sides of the road create an unsafe situation for cars coming down the road at 20 miles an hour and that was even reduced down from 25 because they they recognized that it was an unsafe condition. So just the history is there. uh at the time in 2009 Alli Makavoy an original turnary place uh was helped or went through all the blood, sweat and tears to get the road closed and so there was a lot of effort that went to do that and I think they've shown commitment to uh so far to our commitment to keep it closed. The other thing I believe that that needs to be discussed here is is we mentioned the $33,000 budget to open the road that Rick's budget was was created for that. You know, in the presentation we gave at the last council meeting, we've been committed to spending the money to upgrade the entrance on our own through a special assessment. Uh the way the timing of all that went in my mind was a little bit suspect because it was a future-looking thing in June. All of a sudden in July the report comes out. We don't get to see it and the meeting happens in in July and this vote happens and then we we come in August to try to try to figure out how that all happened. But that's neither

here nor there. I I think the idea is that we are committing to do a substantial uh investment into making that entrance look good. You know, we have 142 constituents just like you have rules to fund things and get things funded. So, we have to get a special assessment done and things that we have to do to create the funding to do the work that we're doing. But, we're committed to do that. We're committed to put up cameras to to catch the people from our neighborhood that are doing this. And we're committed to find those people as well. And we're committed to create a budget within our within our turnberry place to ensure that we maintain we can agree and we'd like to meet with Rick and his team to be sure everybody agrees on what that's going to look like. And we gave a rendering of it. We spent the time and money to have a rendering generated for that. It's our investment. You save the $33,000. We It's our money and we believe it's going to look just as good the way that is. So, just want to be sure you guys understand the commitment that we have to make this run.

Thanks. Thank you, Donald Horse Camp.

Yeah. It just came to my attention not long ago that they're planning to open it and I said, "Huh? Why that? what's the agenda working behind that decision? And I still don't know. Um if it's simply because of the aesthetics of it, I think we've certainly got engineers here that can take care of that probably for less than $33,000. Um those delineators that are there now, it's it's easy for somebody to run over one of them and get in that way. Um probably some attention needs to be paid to that. Maybe put up four times more delineators than we have now. a fire truck can still mow them down no problem. Um, as far as a cut through, you know, 38 feet or 39 ft or 27 ft, I don't think anybody's going to be getting out with a ruler in the morning when they're late for work cutting through. Um, right now sometimes traffic will back up from uh Striker on Turnberry Place Drive a block maybe in the morning. people trying to get out. If it becomes a cut through, which it will if it's open, it'll be a cut through. Um, unless we have a police force right there every morning, um, I would say traffic will back up down that hill if if you're familiar with the with the terrain there. Um, it's it' just be a mess. And, uh, as far as kids, we got a couple bus stops there. A lot of kids, especially in the morning when everybody's on a hurry to get to work. So, I mean, if it gets open, a kid's going to get hit, I think. And I wouldn't want that on my conscience. And if not a kid, maybe another mailbox, maybe a parked car. It's just a mess. So, I really see I I can't come up with a good reason to open it unless an agenda work that I'm not

familiar with. But if it's just the aesthetics and it's been closed for 29 years, I don't see why it's gonna get open now. My god. Anybody else? All right. Anybody else didn't fill out a card but would like to speak? Permission chair. If you are online and would like to speak, will you please use the raise hand feature to do public comment? Any raise hands? No. raise hands here. Sure.

Okay. Um Okay. With that, we're going to close close public comment. Uh and then unless there's an objection, which I doubt, um since we've got some guests here in the room, we're just going to reconfigure the uh agenda here a little bit. So, we're going to jump ahead to our um Turnberry Place uh drive at Striker Road access restriction uh assessment. We'll bring that up to the top and then once we get through that one then we'll just go back to the beginning unless anybody has an issue with that. Give a motion to do that. Uh sure. I'll make that motion. All right. Mr. Marshall will make it. Mr. Becker will second it. All those in favor of reconfiguring our agendas, please say I.

I. I.

Opposed. Any abstensions? Okay. So, we will move our Turnberry item up to the top. And just for those of you guys in the room cuz sometimes this is a little confusing and strange and boring like when we can't interact with public comment and things like that. So technically this is what is considered a for information item which means there is no action that we take in this at all. We're just hearing this information. Obviously you guys are free to hear the information as well. Um and we kind of I guess go from there. Uh the concept of this uh the reason that we're having this conversation right now is as we've gone through this process over the last couple months, there was a request uh from Mayor Garitano to just bring this back into admin PW to just make sure that we have followed this process correctly. Um this is kind of one of those things where you know the government just works very strangely and somewhat inconveniently where we have to go through these processes and do these things in different ways. We have to follow Robert's rules and things like that. It's sort of confusing. Um, but uh I'm not sure if it's going to be Rick or Tom that's going to take on the presentation here, but I I will say this. Um, as I've I think I've communicated in a bunch of different emails to a number of you guys. I know Mr. Mabri and Mr. Tardy have also had some conversations as have some staff people. So, um, to clear up any confusion, this situation is sort of stuck in the middle of two different things. The first part uh which is what was referenced earlier um back in June was the city council voted to prohibit any gates or blockages on any road. That would be that's what has been described and was intended to be a more forwardlooking thing. You guys, most of us all here live in kind of already developed parts of town. There are other parts of town where developers come in and we get a whole lot of different crazy ways that they want to put in houses and do this and move this thing around and it takes

months and months and endless conversations. So to kind of help make that a little bit more clear-cut for everybody, we are prohibiting the use of any blockages or gates or whatever on public streets. That's a city-wide thing. When you put something like that in place, you have to look both forwards and backwards and see what's going on. So the next part of that was an assessment of all gates and blockages within the city to understand what's going on. Rick might mention that here in a second, but I think off the top of my head there was 16 of those different places, Hidden Valley, Joe's Way, things like that. There is only one which happens to be Turnberry on a public road. That is what makes you guys sort of stand out a little bit in this space. And while I think I mentioned this at the last council meeting, and I am appreciative of those residents from Turnberry that went out to help make that intersection look nice a couple months ago, it looks much better than it did. And I appreciate the presentation that was put forth to say, "Hey, we will do a special assessment to care for this." I am not certain because I know HOA stuff is kind of in gets confusing and in flux as well. for the length of time that that road has been blocked. The care and maintenance of that intersection has been the responsibility of the Turnberry assoc homeowners association. So, I'm not sure why there is no money in the budget or if you need more money or whatever, that's not really what we deal with here. But for 29 years or whatever it has been, it has been the responsibility of the residents of Turnberry to care for that location. And well before I was a council member, I was a kid on those streets. The the intersection has looked a little rough for a long time. And I know cuz I live over in Westland Farms. We have a great big pond that we pay a bunch of money for. None of our houses look at it. None of our houses touch it. Everybody asks me why we have to take care of it. It's because it is our

responsibility. So I completely get it. I've been over that site a lot. I imagine there's like maybe five or six houses that have like a clear view of that intersection at any given time. So, it doesn't really uh fall into the space of needing to be cared for. But, I mean, that is the reality of the scenario. So, I can tell you there is no great agenda to make this a cut through. I don't think based on having driven through the neighborhood and looked at it, you know, when this was closed, Streker and Clayton were two very different roads. When I was a kid, I ran from Crest View to Lafayette down a two-lane road that a tractor could barely fit down. It's not what it looks like anymore. So, back in the day, for sure, Turnberry was the way to cut through there. My personal opinion, I don't know that people are going to be doing that as much as you guys think. I understand the concern and I empathize with it completely. Again, I live in a neighborhood that has a whole lot of through traffic. Westland Farms is the main drag through a lot of our city and it is very, very heavily traveled. So, I I understand and empathize with your concerns. I have little kids. I get it, too. Um, but this is kind of one of those items where one of the messages I've seen a lot in the emails is none of the residents of our neighborhood asked to have this opened. That is very true. Sometimes an unfortunate reality of being a city council member is we have to kind of look out for the greater good of the city, which sometimes makes people upset. There was another in uh issue a couple years ago up the road from you guys where we had to put an SOD on a on a on a handful of properties to try to make sure that that area was cared for in the in the larger scheme of things. So, um I hear the concerns. There is no agenda. This is a this is an idea to treat all public streets in the city in a specific way. And the fact that you guys have a you know unique very unique situation is sort of an unfortunate reality of how this works. I as I can I

can tell you as a trustee in my HOA and a council member even when we may disagree on the outcome I greatly appreciate the energy and effort that all of you are taking to have these conversations. Getting our citizens involved is an important part of this process. Um and I as I have said in a lot of emails I I hope that that process can continue to make sure that we do this in a way that makes sense. the logistics of the voting and how all those things work. We can explain here in a minute and I'll let Tom and Rick talk through this and if they don't get to it, I'm happy to do it. Um, but this conversation is a long way of me saying I appreciate you guys coming in. There's not anything that we can do in this room tonight to change this vote. The only way to change the vote would be to go back and resend an ordinance, which I just don't see that the likelihood of that occurring. Um, the next phase, as Mr. Mabry and I'm sure Mr. Troier have said, as we've stated, this isn't really a programmed, it's called programmed, it's not a programmed thing. There hasn't been a line item put in the budget. There hasn't been a schedule that has been assigned to it. There's still actually a couple steps of the process to technically finish it all the way off. Um, so the process is playing out. But, um, I will tell you and I know I I'm sorry that I'm the one that is kind of bearing this news. These are conversations that have been going on for the better part of 20 years. And the fact that it is the eventual opening of this that has, I think, necessitated a real influx of activity in here is just the way that it is. I don't I wish I had a better answer for you, but I mean it is a it this specific location has been the responsibility of the HOA since the day that it was closed. That is how it was written up and it is what it is. So with that, Mr. Brown or Mr. Lee, I will let you guys handle our our agenda item here and then

we can go from there. I'll take uh the first just to give a status update, but then I'll defer to our traffic engineer just based off the examination of the closed intersection really where this is at now and just to kind of give the the committee an update. Uh the inspection took place back in July and July 8th. 75 out of a 100 was scored. Uh anything over a 70 is recommended for removal. An action plan was then submitted to the city council on July 14th, 2025. And in that report, uh, pretty much had the the gate recommended for, not the gate, but the, uh, obstruction recommended for removal. The three things that kind of came up as the council made a motion to find the most equable and timely way to get this obstruction removed was um, how much would it actually cost to do something like this and how could we work that into uh, routine maintenance that's scheduled for the area. The department administration did go back and speak with our public works team and found that we do not have general concrete streets slab replacement planned for that area in 2026. Uh that said, uh it's the council wish to get this done quickly. It can be. It was around 30 thou $33,500. It was a quick estimate, but this would be something that would require a bid package to go out um and then go out and get estimates that are a little bit more official than just a written comment and estimate. But the other items that we wanted to look at too um that really kind of bring this back and why the we haven't necessarily sent out the report cards if you will to the to the residents within 150 ft is we'd also like to do a traffic study just to take a look at what who are cutting through at this time and what are the speeds that taking place on that road.

Could you speak up a bit? I'm I'm having really a tough time hearing these.

Yes, of course, sir. So two things here uh that from the department's perspective we're trying to do a speed study to understand what the speeds are going through that road currently prior to the removal. So then if it is removed then at that point then we can have an afteraction report to see what the difference really is. So it's one of those instances where if it is removed and when it's removed it would be able to be observed on both ends of it. The other item to consider is u the traffic schedule change. So there are two things we'll have to do. There are currently restrictions on turning in and turning out at that intersection. So, that will have to go up for an ordinance. So, that is just more of an administrative and logistical item that will need to go on as an ordinance and be approved. The other item is obviously working it into the budget tonight. Um, the Department of Administration, obviously, Department of Public Works is working on its 2026 fiscal year budget and if it is the council's wish right now, we do not have anything planned in the road and bridge fund to do routine maintenance in that area. Uh but if it is wished, we can have that added as a special line item within the capital improvement or the road and bridge fund. Uh if not, right now we do not anticipate any routine maintenance in that area for the next couple years. But if you want to go into it at all, Mr. Brown, about the the status of the actual report itself, but overall it's right now it's we're trying to plan out when this would actually happen. The only thing I would maybe add more clarity to is we still have one step to take in that policy that was approved by council and that is that post evaluation notice. So, we will be sending out letters to the property owners the within 150 ft of the barrier location and the HOA basically formally advising you of the evaluation and the number and the scoring. And that does provide an opportunity for you to provide additional information if you feel it was not available or missed during the evaluation of the of the location. So, it's not a it's not intended to be strictly an appeal, but it does provide

the opportunity for you all to provide more information if it was not considered during the evaluation by the department. So, that would be I will commit to getting that out by the end of the week. That does provide essentially 30 days for you to get back or to respond to that letter uh once it's in your hand. So, that next step needs to occur as well. All right. You guys got anything else? All right. Any questions? I'd like to explain the public safety. Sure.

Director and committee that like many of the other boards appointed by the city is um appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council, five people on the board of public safety and the city marshall chairs the public safety board. The public safety board has representatives on it from the fire department, from the police department and from residents who live throughout the city in different areas. So there is an official board of public safety and uh it meets every month or every two months with an agenda in that particular case. That's where you're looking at the fire districts for Metro West, Eureka, and Monarch. All are parts of the city. And so all of this regulation affects all of those um as we go forward. So there is an official and has been for 30 years, a board of public safety. uh they just there's just not people setting in offices here because these are they're all volunteers as well. So

is there a timing of that meeting? Yeah, the next one's October. Um the next one is October. Um it's every every other months basically even even months for

there is a public comment period as well there but they will it's not planned to be on the agenda for the October meeting at this time. Can I ask you just a a question about timing of how things happened? Uh so the report was dated July 11th and it came out the same day as the agenda for the city meeting which was on the 14th and we never got to see that report and now we're saying we have 30 days to respond to a report that the city's already voted on.

Uh no. So here's how this works. So um the way that the so there's two there's an ordinance and and then there's a resolution. The ordinance is what prohibits gates and blockages and then the resolution is what contains the scoring matrix and and how to go through the process of evaluating the existing um blockages and stuff. So the way that it is written is the department goes out and does their assessments of the blockages and then they bring in the report. There's no decision that is made by the council at that time necessarily. So what happens is if a if an item in this case your guys delineators and stuff falls below a threshold that triggers the department to ha to have to go out and seek a an amount of like how much would it cost to remove this blockage and then they bring that back to the city to say to the council to say hey we've done this assessment this is the score that's the city receiving it that's us kind of picking that up and then they notify by the in this case you guys and then once you get that notification or the HOA gets it then you have 30 days to come back and go well hey we think that you know these facts are different this measurement isn't correct or whatever the case may be um but as Mr. Marshall said like the board of public safety, there are three fire departments that cover the city of Wildwood. It's kind of one of those weird things that we have. And so, um, one of the reasons that this ordinance was put in place in this way is because it's not a good public policy to just grab, no offense, any police officer out in the hallway or firefighter you run in the grocery store and go, "Hey, do you have a problem with us doing this?" and them going like I don't have a problem with that and then that is what gets turned back in. So instead of doing that, um, we did review this. I I'm

trying to remember the exact month. Maybe it was April or May. No, no, public safety. I think it was April. April, April, something like that.

Um, at the time, the conversation was about uh looking at putting a a closing gate there. And that is where this conversation came from because um even though you guys don't really use that as an entrance, I'm sure you've all driven down Striker Road, that backside there. And with the island and the island and the curb and the way it's all set up, according to the fire department and other people, it is a difficult turn. If they needed to get in there, that's a tough thing. So, putting in a gate and having that gate have to wait and open and close and everything else creates a much larger scenario. So at that time the decision was reached by the board of public safety to recommend to the city council to just prohibit any gates or blockages because we were getting a number of these conversations. It wasn't just you guys. We had one in over in Bright Leaf. We had one in I think in Ashley Grove which is in W 8. Um so it's been kind of an ongoing process. And so that's kind of how that thing started. But I I want to say we have been discussing a gate or something. I this is my sixth year on the council and this is

the gate was not our idea. Yeah. I I I understand it wasn't your idea, but here's here's what I will say. Whether the gate was your guy's idea or not, it was still your responsibility to care for the intersection and that care was not being taken. So, we're being punished according to you because you didn't like the way it looked even though our our snow plower ran into the uh the fence. No, you're not being We didn't get it cleaned up quick enough. You're not being You're not being punished by me. We're being You're going to open that up is what you're going to do. Here's what I'm going to say. Okay. We have a certain way of speaking in this room in this meeting. If you'd like to engage in this way, that's not how we do it.

Okay? So, I understand that you guys are heated. I get it. Okay? There are things that happen in my ward, in my neighborhood that the city does that I don't like. It's frustrating. This is an item that isn't directed at you. It accounts for you. Yes, ma'am. I would just like a quick clarification. Sure. You stated that in order for this to not be reopened, an ordinance would have to be overturned. But doesn't an ordinance have to be overturned to open it? No, it's not closed by the ordinance was put in place to close it. Well, technically the traffic schedule

the traffic schedule isn't is the ordinance. There wasn't an ordinance for the the delineator post.

So either way, you'd essentially have to do the same thing to keep it open or keep it closed. So it I'm I'm just looking for clarification here. You said an ordinance would have to be overturned and that would happen. Yet you can do the legality of getting it reopened. So, it's it's a two it's two it's a two kind of two there are both ordinances are sort of two different things. One is like um it used to be 25 miles an hour in your guys' neighborhood and now it is 20 or you can't park on the right hand side of the road or the lefthand side of the road or whatever it is. These are in our traffic schedule which are determined by ordinance but the ordinance this specific ordinance is about a not a specific site it's a citywide thing. So the blockage of a public street by ordinance is forbidden now based on this ordinance. Your guys street is currently blocked and it also has I assume like a no left hand and right turn.

You know turn thing but those are while they are both ordinances they are kind of so functionally difference. So either way an ordinance has to be overturned. No they're different ordinances. You mind if I but it's still an ordinance. So it think about it like this. If the if the obstruction was removed and that ordinance for the traffic schedule was not changed, anybody that turned in or out of that opened intersection would technically be breaking the law. So this would be more of an administrative function to remove the restriction that is currently within our traffic code. You've provided the clarification that either way an ordinance has to be overturned. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thinking about what you said versus what director Brown has said as far as like the appeal process, it seems that there is no appeal process from what you said and that it will be open. Could you clarify that?

Yeah. So the the process is um like as an example um Bridget, is that right? So in in your guys I'm just not it is the your opinion that this should be scored a 30 versus or you your opinion is it should be scored a zero whereas the department's opinion was it should be scored a 30 that is an that is an opinion question. You would need to have a verifiable fact as to why. So like for instance if if in this thing it says you know this is a 57 foot span and it's not it's 26 or whatever it is that's a verifiable fact mismeasurement things like that that is a reason to go and reevaluate these things. If you just don't like the score that's an opinion thing that's not really like a factbased idea. Does that make sense?

Do they have the facts though? I'm sorry. I mean do they have the facts? I listen to her, you know, read off and say it's two horizontal streets and it could be a cut through. And you know, the facts to me from what I hear aren't matching up. Do we have their facts? I mean, I'm I'm fairly certain. Could be wrong. Not certain. Are you have Here's what I'm going to tell you. Yes. This man is a certified public engineer, right? Yes. Rick, so are all professional. There we go. A licensed professional engineer. Okay.

Okay. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the professional engineer has done what is necessary to get the facts. I appreciate that there might be a difference in those facts, but I don't think that that is a I mean, you Here's what I would say. When these notifications go out, you guys are certainly welcome to put in whatever pieces of information you think are you have the facts to show us or he's got the report. He doesn't have the report. So, we'll we'll get that. Yeah, the report will come with the notification. Yeah, we'll be able to respond. Yes, sir.

Just one, you know, from our perspective, we're trying to actually go through the appeals process. One of the major things that I feel put us over the 70 is going to be was the aesthetic, right? If we address the aesthetic and we were able to uh effectively show the plant, I feel like that would be one of the u substantive differences uh post reassess or that would provoke a reassessment uh especially with funding and such. I I realize that we were not in a discussion at this point,

but I feel like I I would just I would just ask uh whether or not during that appeals process that would be taken into consideration.

I mean I I I would I'm happy to defer to the department but I would suggest this that um the the aesthetic portion of the assessment holds the lowest value of the assessment. So it's a part of it but it is a small part of it. There's a lot of other stuff that goes into it. And so, while in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many people, including some of your residents, that wasn't a greatlook place, what I would say is while that certainly didn't help your cause, it's not what created the prop,

but it was worth, and again, I'm not trying to take this effect. I feel like it was substantive because it was in the review and it's assigned a certain amount of points. So, we would like to address that along with some other things. Oh, we will. What? We'll we'll respond to him sends it out. I think that's a fair process. I guess I'm just curious what you voted on on the 14th. It just was weird for us because it was a forward-looking thing on the 14th of or in June, right?

In in July, this comes out right before the meeting. None of us were here for that July meeting. what was actually voted on on that July. So the only thing that was tech the thing that was technically voted on is basically you know we accept the report and then um you can look at like there are occasions when we will as a as the committee will or the council will like recommend something but we like it's not at that time we're not voting to open or close it. We're saying the vote that was taken and the motions that were made was to look into opening this in the I think it was the most expeditious and equitable manner

equitable manner. So that's not saying open it tomorrow or you know in 3 months or whatever it is. That's saying part of the department's job is to go out and look at it. So even in like the $30,000 or whatever that we're talking about that wasn't a bid that went out or anything. That's kind of a rough estimate of what it is. So it's the idea of saying we understand we understand and accept the score which is what we have to do in order to move this to the next phase which is to notify you guys and then it comes back. It's is just sort of the very laborous process of how this all goes. Um but that that's what that vote was. So in that case it was you know let's open this up as quickly as we can. Um but there's no definitive time put on any of that. Yes, ma'am.

Can you clarify the process? What happens once we submit our score review? Um, so I mean it has to be a factual item to really get what happens if we present

that that'll be provided into the record for council consideration. But if they if the council wishes to remove this that technically it can be done. It it doesn't matter. Yeah. So I I would say like this ordinance is created so that the depart so what happens is you guys would say we have you know these five arguments. Okay. And then the department would look at it and go okay well this one is valid and so it's going to be instead of a 30 it's going to be a 27 or whatever whatever it is. Um that's not a council issue. It's it just is a function of the process. So in the event that you guys uh were to score I guess lower than 70 then the conversation might be Rick might come back to us and say hey we've had you know the residents have appealed in this fashion here's what we found their score is now a 68 which means you know a different it kind of becomes a different conversation but in at this moment because of how like as this process goes It's sort of a moving train. So the ordinances were put into place, the assessment was taken, you will be notified of the assessment, then you have your opportunity to review it, then the department reviews it again. If it doesn't change, the I don't think the council will hear about it again because it's an im it doesn't that process is already taking place. If it does change, then the conversation could become a different conversation, but I don't know. I don't know what that would be because we haven't done that yet.

You were going to get them out by Friday. When? And the next council meeting is when? Uh, so we have we have one a month. So like you So we'll get them out by Friday and then I would say, you know, you guys have 30 days. So the September, it would more than likely be the October meeting if it were coming back around. Yeah. Yes, sir. Let me just one last thing. I guess I'm kind of confused in that with the board of safety. Uh, I spoke to some of these people and I don't know what they're telling you, but I'm not lying. I wrote it down. I spoke to Rich. I two times I did.

I'm not lying. This is what the man said. It was not a cutthrough. And in addition to that,

and this isn't this isn't me, okay? Council member Cliff, Cliff, I brought this up to you. You said, and I quote, I'd storm through this and get it done as quickly as we can. Now, this isn't Sherman going through Atlanta. You know, we're talking about opening it straight up. And and you said, you didn't say that. Well, don't tell me you didn't. You have to talk to to the lady that wrote it, not me. I'm just reiterating the facts. And so I'm getting confused because I'm getting, you know, I talk to the the fire marshal, he tells me one thing. Now you're telling me something else. I talk to Rick, you tell me one thing. Now he's apparently saying something else. And you what are we to what are we to think? I think that's what we're all saying here.

I will say this as a group. You know, I'm not sure. I wasn't there. I don't know who you talked to or what they told you, but I can tell you this. Mr. Marshall is correct. Myself and Mr. Vanic, I think at the time, although Jim, I'm not sure if you were technically at that meeting. We were on the board of public safety when we discussed these gates. Mr. Marshall is currently on the board of public safety. I think they met I think it was April. You can go back. It's on YouTube. Yeah. Our YouTube page. When I talked to uh the the fire marshall, the only thing he said was negative was he said, "We would never approve a gate." And I said, "What are you talking about? We're not even we never even brought it up." and he goes, "Oh, okay. Well, then everything's okay." So, and I'm like,

here's here's what this ordinance is designed to do. And in this case, it affects you guys, but I would say as residents of the city, these ordinances are designed to not have a oneoff conversation with some person that makes these decisions happen. This is applied across the city. Now, this is a global uh event, so to speak, in the city of Wildwood. So whether it's a new development over here or uh you know a connector over that way or whatever it might be, this isn't the idea of going and talking to one one person or another person and getting a different answer or a person being able to put some level of um I don't know what you want to call it, political muscle behind something because they feel really important about it. This is about treating all of the public streets in our city in the same fashion. Yes, ma'am. So, just to clarify, it's been stressed over and over to us that Wildwood wants safe streets.

So, we're willing to put this ordinance above safe streets. What I would say is, while I can empathize with all of you, how many of you lived in this neighborhood before the road was closed? Anybody? 1999. So, the road was closed, right? How many of you lived in this neighborhood before Stucker Road and Clayton Road were redone? Actually, I was. There was a going across Cox Creek. There was an actual onelane bridge down there. Correct. Oh, yes. I remember it.

Okay. That was super dangerous. That's why people were cutting through Turnberry. I am not a traffic expert. We have studies that need to get done. This is a process that needs to play out. I I get it and I empathize with what you guys are sorry just to just to clarify then can somebody explain then the reasoning behind spending $33,000 of taxpayer money to open the road if it's not to be used if nobody's going to use it as a cutth through

my guess would be as it is currently being used the residents of Turnberry will use it that's why yes they are that's why the delineator posts weren't there for years. We presented at the June meeting that and I don't recall the numbers off the top of my head, but Joe, maybe you do or Lauren, maybe you do, the percentage of Turnberry residents that wanted the road to remain closed.

I I would assume a 100% of them want it to remain closed, right? But they still want to use it as they've been using it. That's part of the problem. And I will say this, I appreciate you guys all coming out. I'm looking at our clock. We've got a lot of other issues we got to discuss this evening. So, if we have anybody on the committee here that wants to say anything, I'm happy to take one more question. Mr. Mabry.

Yes, Chair Farmer. numerous times during the emails and conversations that have literally poured in redundancy issues to both and I and then I'm hearing repeat references made to it tonight again that u there's discrepancy and contradiction between what I know I've heard remarks made by uh authorities with all three fire districts and what we hear repeatedly the residents um uh recollect they've heard from u the fire districts. Um there are authorities having jurisdiction. There are people that can say one thing and recollect something and then it's the kids game of going around the circle and finding out how different it is. So, with all that to end, I'd like to request that the staff would um confirm or reconfirm uh what the authorities having jurisdiction for these three fire districts um have developed most recently and then have that available for residents uh as well as our deliberations.

Sure. That help. Yeah. I mean I think that the board of public safety meeting from whenever that was May March or May or April whatever it was that that scoring component is very critical for safety for the entire city and having multiple directions of potential travel to get to turnberry subdivision. That's very important as well. Whether a a unit an engine comes from Metro West or it comes from Monarch and uh that's a large scoring component and that needs to be confirmed in order to be valid to everybody's purposes. Sure.

Thank you. Absolutely. All right. Yeah. I've been putting my hand up here. It's kind of getting sure worn out. Um just I I don't know of all the process works with ordinances. It seems like cancelelling an ordinance or overturning an ardent is kind of a big deal. Um is there such thing as grandfather clause 29 years would seem to me there'd be some room for that.

No, there's no grandfather clauses. um you know that kind of the concept of grandfathering things in while in some cases it makes sense in most cases it just creates like again endless kind of looping conversations of like are we grandfathered in are we not this guy said we were this guy said we weren't so as far as I know I don't even I don't know that we have do we have any grandfather clauses no yeah so I don't I mean while technically it is a concept that exists it's not something that I know of that the city does.

With Bob's request, is it possible that that topic could be brought up at a safety meeting where they're here and we can hear and we can have a conversation about that when we all hear together what they say. Well, if it becomes an issue, a topic for that meeting. What I've what I've proposed is that we get a report from the authorities of these three fire districts and then make those as available to the residents as they will be to the city and it's still parties will get them. You don't need to meet about us basically.

Um I mean I would say this, we can certainly look into it. The way that the board of public safety works is not all not all three of the fire departments are on it. It's usually just one of them. They're an adviser and they're Yeah. technically on the board. Yeah. their advisory member of the board, so they don't have a vote. Well, if they do that though, we could speak about it at that meeting at least and have Yeah. I mean, I would say I would go look at the Well, can I email you? I would go look at the I mean, they talked about it at the April one. I mean, I understand you guys weren't in the room, but I mean, I don't know that they have any their their motivation is safety. I don't I mean, should be.

So, I don't know that that changes much. Um, so, okay. So, if we have nothing else, um you guys are certainly welcome to stick around and hang out for the rest of the event. It's going to be really exciting. Absolutely. Um but uh we're going to come back to the beginning and so we're going to have our conversation on a uh on the unrestricted fund balance comparisons. Yes. Uh with your permission, Chair. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chair Farmer. Um wanted to get back to the committee. This was something that was noted as an item for future topic consideration and also was brought up during the auditor's report and just the annual report of the annual comprehensive financial report to the full city council. Um specifically uh questions were raised about the fact that the city has quite a large level of reserves. It was reported and is confirmed at the end of year end of 2024. The city had u a reserve fund ratio of 155%. That just that sounded high to some council members which then prompted the question and this has been raised before a little bit more informally of what is an appropriate fund balance ratio to have u based off a percentage of expenditures for the general fund. So that did get the u not only the department but the auditing firm Ruben Brown and our uh finance team in general looking at the question and trying to find some comparisons and also just look at some factors that make Wildwood a little bit more unique. Um, right now we have a contingency fund that is pretty much mandated by the state. It's 25% of annual operating expenditures and currently we have 19,819,394 [Music] and our annual operating for 2024 was 12,78. That's what gets to that 155%. Um, that 25% contingency is already held. So, we have that kind of as an emergency, you know, emergency fund, if you will. Um, but when you get to the national standards, I'm going to go through it kind of one at a time here. When you go to the national standards with the GFOA, which typically governs best of practices when it comes to, you know, municipal finance in general, uh, they're usually recommending that you have about two months of regular operating expenditures uh, set aside. Typically, that does include in in their analysis that can include cities that have a property tax more so. So that's something that I'll get into, but it's just something to keep in mind. Um, but

it equals out to about 16.7% of your annual spend. So that almost serves as best practices from from a national perspective would be most likely that that has to be a floor for any city to operate as. uh when you get into a little bit and this isn't this is one that was found but there are others that could be you know if we were looking as a city to go get a general obligation bond or something along those lines for financing uh that's when your your how much money you have in your reserve really does kind of come in handy um having a reserve fund balance equal to about 25 to 35% you're typically going to get that double A rating it's from Moody's U but if you have a trip to get a AAA rating which the city does have currently at least if we were to go out to um get debt uh we would be a AAA rated uh institution and that is set 35%. So really from a national standard those are typically what you know they're going to want to see if it's a city that has to go retrieve debt but also just in general best practices you do not want to go really below that 16% threshold. um where I wanted to kind of dive in a little bit more for Wildwood and kind of makes us a little bit more a little bit more uh subject to weird cycles in the economy is that how we how we're structured just in general. I mean, when you look at this, there's a couple principles that you want to go if you're going to use an unrestricted fund balance for certain topics. I mean, you could have it as pay as you go capital, which we do typically do it on. um debt reduction. Uh you can have like a lot of cities that are different than the city of Wildwood would have some type of pension or some kind of obligation they're stuck with that is you know guaranteed money instead of just an investment on a percentage basis like the city of Wildwood does for its employees. Um but also you know economic contingency funds which that 25% would represent but actually identifying as an economic contingency fund and then also just protecting the your operating baseline for you know imbalances year-over-year.

Where this kind of gets a little bit more uh specific to Wildwood is the pay as you go capital would probably be the most specific to Wildwood just because we do have some pretty large facing it projects that are looking us down at this point if we were to create a policy that would chip away at that larger river fund pallets. Um that would probably be one of the considerations we want to look at because right now you know when it comes to debt uh paying down debt the city had a n um it doesn't really have too much to do with the city in the first place. We had that being paid off by assessments that was also redeemed in 2023. So that debt has been cleared. The only other debt that technically the city does not carry but is at least I guess administers is the community the crossings community improvement district which actually serves as its own taxing body. And as of right now, uh this is something that would be spoken at another SID board meeting, but the debt service uh fund balance ratio right now for them uh is looking good enough to pay off the remaining portion of the bonds. So, it's going to have the debt service payment this month and then actually be redeemed in March. So, after both the uh the CCID is done, the city really won't have any uh ties to any type of general obligation. And these two actually are not directly tied to the city. The NID was a little bit more so, but it was paid from by assessments from those individuals included. Uh so, wanted to talk about that just because we don't necessarily have a big uh loan that we're trying to pay off and we're going to use that money to get down. Um, so then you're pretty much making money from not paying that interest. It's just not the case here. Uh, the pension and just your u your general operating for folks that would be retiring and having to pay them after the retirement. That is not as much of a consideration here in Wildwood as well. We don't have anything like loggers where it's a guaranteed benefit plan. Uh, we actually do each year we have a small staff obviously as the council's aware. Um, and we actually have a 401A program that pays into a pretty much a retirement program. It's funded each year through the budgeting cycle. So, it's not

something where we'd have, you know, an un an anticipated long-term liability that might pop out on the other end if um really it would be something that would be able to be addressed at the time each year. Uh, if we were having a, you know, a serious downturn in the economy. um the economic contingency fund that is something I did want to the department looked into and did want to mention since we have 25% to set aside. It's it is important. Um but that said, it's almost asking and we'll get into it of what is the appropriate the appropriate level um and how you want to actually spend that. But really where this gets become more important is how Wildwood is somewhat dependent on not only contractors to do the majority of the work, which means that is subject to market conditions. Uh but also the city of Wildwood is very conting I mean its entire revenue structure is contingent on people spending money within St. Louis County without that stable uh property tax that you know is the most stable source of revenue that a city or any type of governing entity can rely on. Um that does create a situation where if we have a large depression which obviously we don't want to see here in the city or in general uh we have a system where folks are no longer buying as many goods or going out to eat and paying any money on sales tax or if they're you know potentially going to be conserving maybe they're not going to have their air conditioning set to 68. they're going to set it to 75 when times are tough. Right now, it does seem as if, you know, revenues have stayed stable. Um, over the past couple years, we've seen a slight uptick. This year, we're actually seeing it kind of curve off and just be stable since last year. It's not really changing too too much. Um, that said, if we were to have a turning of a page, if you will, and something the market were to crash or something along those lines, uh, the question would be how quickly the city would be able to operate right now for a year and a half, which is great. uh that would be able to get us to a point where if we needed to go get debt, uh we would be able to do it in a time which isn't chaotic and would be able to be get a

pretty real pretty nice interest rate based off the rating that we'd be probably locked in at. Um and not only that, but it wouldn't need the city wouldn't necessarily need to immediately put a ballot initiative together where they would be going out to request additional funding. And if it's something that's like a like something we'll talk about later tonight, the stormwater park sales tax, if we're already seeing a a very large drop in the sales tax revenue from our capital improvement sales tax fund or just general tax distribution, those are important considerations because that means most likely people are not going to approve another tax. But also that the other topic to be in consideration is that that percent they that's not going to make as as much money anyways. Eventually it will, but in general it just we will have a lot less support. Uh so those are two things to take into account. Right now we do have another countywide just to kind of go through this. I think this is good to go through. Uh 47% comes from or this is general fund only. 47% of our general fund is coming from uh our school tax program and how we're getting a per capita uh distribution from St. Louis County. It's that 1% t sales tax. 22% is derived from our utility tax revenue u which is actually a large leg that I think goes a little bit under um under appreciated if you will it is something that helps stabilize our our general fund uh that's coming from really from electricity water and gas because right now we actually 2022 we voted as a city to reduce the percentage we used to have a 5% gross receipts on this gas sale uh gross if you 5% of your service fee that you have with your uh Aspire. Um, we actually decided to when they raised their rates, we would typically just have 5% of that new rate, uh, we decided to lower that to match the equal amount. So, we actually decided to stay stay flat back in 2023. So, that does kind of contribute. Right now, we're getting about 4.8286% on gas services. Um, so those are some

couple things to keep in mind. The other item that I want to bring up is that there is uh the 18% of our revenue which comes from our the public safety sales tax. That is great. It helps pay down the you can't spend it on anything other than public safety initiatives. And quite frankly, a lot of it goes to drive down the costs of our services agreement with the police. So that said, um all of those items except the utility tax are dependent on people spending money in St. Louis County. So if there were to be something massively go wrong, let's just say in our economy, um we could be put in a situation where we're not ever going to have a spot where we're not getting any revenue from these sources. But so that's something to also keep in mind. It's never going to go to zero unless that would be catastrophic. Um but we could have some slides where you know in CO we thought that we were we were preparing for a little bit of a storm if you will uh with spending just because folks were not able to go and they were closed down for at least four weeks when we looked at it that we saw like a hot spot but then we actually saw this just good news on how these market conditions work after the four-we closure of all the businesses around town. If you look at that um distribution of re revenue, you saw it pause and it that if that was consistent, that would have been something very scary uh for the city, but also just its reserves and generally it's it the continuity of service. Uh but after the the businesses were allowed to reopen again, you actually saw an uptick in almost overcompensating that folks were not able to purchase anything in that during that time. Um so just wanted to bring those items up before jumping into how the cities does the city of Wildwood does tend to have a pretty large ratio comparatively. Um it's something that you know necessary we not don't necessarily need to have 155% but I don't think we want to be going in a direction where we're just cutting it at the knee and let's go to the bare minimum of 16.66% not have a very stable process for uh utilizing those funds. Uh so more than happy to answer any questions on that component

but wanted to jump in. of how we stack up uh with some of the regional um partners. We have St. in this review we had St. Peters, Bowwin, Chesterfield, Kirkwood, Hazelwood, Wville, Webster Groves, University City, and Creve Core. The only other city that had even a remotely similar reserve fund balance ratio was Creve Core and that was at 113.4%. Uh just looking at some other cities across Missouri, I mean usually you're sitting at policies around 50 35 around pretty much 30 to 50%. But that's the policy. It's different than what's actually in the account based off their annual comprehensive financial report. And when you look at this um you'll see that, you know, Wildwood has a pretty large unrestricted fund balance, but also with some of these other cities just them being larger in population um they tend to have a little bit more money in the bank. But someone like Chesterfield, we actually have more money in the bank than Chesterfield does. Uh, but Chesterfield is also spending at a higher rate and they're about 57.3. Um, so just a heads up on these cities that we looked at, uh, 64% mean. So that's the average and then, uh, it the median was about 57 to 61%. So it's typically around 60% is what we've been finding. U, that is just based off the facts. that's not necessarily what's included in their policy, but that's where we wanted to kind of start from. If we were going to look at how do you spend these funds or how do you create a new threshold, it would almost be you don't want to be below 60 because that's an average of our partners and quite frankly it just would not look too good to go below 60 if everyone else is at 60. Um so the other component right now the department is saying I think there's a lot more work to be done but wanted to give this initial report after looking at some of the um other cities that are out there. you know, we're usually seeing 155 is a lot higher than pretty much anything I've I've been able to see, the department's been able to find. Um, but we're looking at it, if we were to do something like this, you would

definitely want to be above the median and average across the region. Uh, we're looking at having almost a policy that would say, let's set a target at 75 and potentially having a floor at 50, which is, you know, well above well within the median um, a little bit below the median, but then having a cap at 100. Maybe that is something we need to do. So, it's almost like a Goldilock zone where we target to have the certain percentage of reserves. But that means we can guarantee to the residents that we're putting more money into issues and risks right now that are going to potentially cost more money in the future um versus not having money. It's a tough balance because we need to have money in the instance because we are a sales tax based city. We need to have money available if the economy were to take a very rough turn. Uh but at the same time it can cost you more money in opportunity costs if you don't spend money now whereas you know it does help the city in a sense we do get around 4% on yield when we were investing these funds. So it does help to have that padding, but if you don't fix a bridge, let's just use an example. You don't fix a bridge, you don't pave the street, that time, that opportunity cost of not doing that project now will actually eventually come to catch you because the the cost that we're seeing with contractor based spending now. It is exponentially going up and the the estimates that we have seen, you know, we've seen this in some of our most recent projects. you know, we go out and get an estimate, we pay professionals to do it, and then quite frankly, the market's just not matching up. So that goes to show if you have projects that are out there sitting, then you would need to maybe potentially think about it's big enough and it it has the full backing of the city council that maybe we'd want to take a quicker step and put in a process that keeps it at 75 at target, 100% cap, 50% minimum, and then having a policy in place that if you were to go below that 75, what do you do to fill that coffer back up? What are you going to hold out on that next year? That's something the department's more

than happy to engage with, but wanted to have the discussion. Obviously, going from spending 55% would be a monumental task. We would take that lightly. Um, and I don't think this is something where you wanted to start naming projects, but it's something as if we were going to put together a strip criteria for what could potentially meet the city's requirements for where we would spend these, then that's where we'd almost put a gold star on that project and say that would get be eligible for this type of funding. Uh, like I said, a lot of discussion still left on this, but wanted to at least get the, you know, general highlights to everyone. Just going to explain some background. Thank you, G. Albert,

I'm contradicting what you just said about, uh, priorities, but in line with what's coming. Uh, everybody, I everybody knows latitude's coming around again. So, um I think finishing Main Street should be at the top of this list whenever something comes around with priorities spending some of this money because we all don't know how latitude is going to develop or not develop and the consequences that may come from that. Good news. Uh if you don't mind, we do have uh money set aside and obviously we'll be discussing this with the capital project too, but uh capital improvement sales tax fund. Um we do have money set aside for the construction of Main Street, not burying the utility lines in 2027. I do believe we'd have a lot of work in front of us just for rightway acquisition. So right now, this year we actually had 200,000 set aside for rightway acquisition on Main Street and then next year we were scheduled to kind of hit payer, if you will. Uh that said, we'll be discussing that later tonight, too. But we didn't have the easement necessary to the rightway dedication necessary to really go in there and get started and get the momentum needed. So, we'll be talking about it. We do actually have um strip map included in tonight's discussion and I think that I'm excited. Well, the department's excited to have that that conversation.

All right. Anybody get anything else on the unrestricted fund balance? Mr. May?

Yes. Um Mr. Do you know when the last time was that we breached 100% reserves and went from 100% to anything um above that figure to get to 155? Has it been a decade that we went from 100% reserves to uh half again that much or has it just been a windfall in the last three or four years? And and even if you don't have an answer that my point is we have zero practice at operating at less than 155% reserve right now. We've got no experience curve how to behave that way where all of these cities um have had practice and they found where the weak spots are and the holes to avoid and how they almost got in trouble. We got zero of that brain trust underbuilt. So in contemplating whether it should be a 16 and a half or a 35% or a 70% or a 90% or 100%. Um, I would heir to severe caution that we don't get caught um and take the city down the tubes because we didn't catch something that a a a Crestwood experienced in the 70s or something that they learned their mighty expensive lesson from. So, um I'd just cut to the quick and say anybody who discusses anything less than 100% ought to just leave the room. I I go discreet there, Mr. Mabry. And just a quick note, too, u the city of Wildwood, we really, you know, kind of added the bulk of that balance throughout the early 2000s, late 1990s. As we have taken on more assets, we have practically gotten to a point where we're with operating, we're breaking

even. It's not necessarily making a ton of money. We've actually lost money with the telephone franchise tax, which actually used to be a pretty decent revenue driver, but everyone's cutting the cord on telephone. Um, we do not have a wfare any Wayfair legislation. We do not charge on anything that might be purchased out of state here, but through online sales. Um, typically when there's a new type of revenue source that we could tap into, we have the city has rejected it and postponed definitely. So, that said, um, I don't think we should just jump down to 100% like spend 55% of that either. Mr. Rab, I completely agree with you. Um, the department is more so looking at it from a perspective of we if we need to maintain something, we could potentially have a system set up where a project could maybe meet the requirements to receive some of that reserve funding. Does that make sense? Like if it's a

It does. As long as it's never ever in life going to be below 100%. Yep. Until we have a decade's worth experience operating at 100%. Then we can get well we can get say something but we can get bolder and I I I agree. I think if you immediately would just spend all that's a lot of money to spend so I don't I wouldn't want to go out and just do that all all at once. Mr. Quick question. You threw out one figure that was a year and a half uh operating. Was that with no no literally nothing coming? nothing coming.

That's Yeah. If if you turned off all revenue sources for operating and you would you would be able to fund the city's current activities with no service discontinuity for a year and a half and that actually does not include capital improvement sales tax fund does not include our well we have money in the TGA as well but really the road and bridge fund and capital improvement sales tax fund. You almost need to set those aside too because those are handled independently and must be handled independently per state statute. That's it. Thank you. Just just for scale order magnitude, uh what's the most on any one single project the city's allowed to spend without vote? Is it 3 million2?

It's 35 technically, but if you'd use the the escalator, it's about 42. Yeah.

Um I will just say this. I mean, I we've been talking about this for a long time. Um so I I am of the opinion that we need to come up with an answer on this sooner rather than later. Um but I also think I know that we have a lot of like a lot of our um unrestricted fund balance has been there from almost the beginning of the founding of the city and a big chunk of that has been sort of held on the back of deferred maintenance. So there's a number of things, the building that we were sitting in, some other ideas where it was just kind of like previous versions of us sort of like, well, somebody else will figure that out down the road. We don't need to worry about it. So when we talked about the Wayfair tax a couple years ago, you know, I don't I don't like paying taxes as much as the everybody else. But you know when you are looking at how society changes and the fact that most shopping now for a lot of people is done online we've kind of handicapped the city's ability to grow any revenue stream. So, when we're looking at, which we'll talk about here in a little bit, like a parks and storm water tax or the frustration that many of us felt about the governor vetoing, you know, a pretty insignificant amount of money when we're talking about $20 million um because we have $20 million sitting in the bank. Like I think from a financial standpoint um the city has made choices over time that hinder our ability as you said to even understand how we should be operating. Like there was everyone I think I'm the only one in the room that was on here when when COVID was happening. There was a legitimate panic that like we're not going to have another penny come in the door and that is not what happened. And so while I hope that we don't have another economic crisis of some kind, I doubt very much in any of our lifetimes in this room we're going to have another

COVID level situation. Um, so I think what we need to do is set a policy that makes sense. I like this idea of kind of a Goldilocks zone, but I do think we need to look very carefully at like items that we haven't spent money on that we need to. I mean, I am on We haven't had one in a while, but the the building committee, like I'm going to guess that it's a million to $2 million easily to get this building back to where it needs to be. Um, and that doesn't include what I think is an important thing as we go through this, you know, outfitting the council chambers with appropriate cameras and microphones so the residents can see what's going on. We did that in here. It works pretty well over there. It's a little bit suspect. We have a garage that is going to come online in a certain way to the city that is also like a million dollars in repair are needed. We have a $300,000 fountain. We've got $2 million worth of retention detention basins that we can and should be taken care of. So maybe what might be a good thing is to take a real serious eye on um what have been the legitimate like deferred expenditures that we have have had happen. Uh and also figuring out you know a lot of our operating budget like I'm trying to think back to the I feel like it was like the heater or the boiler or something like we weren't doing appropriate maintenance on some large device. I don't remember what it was, which meant we then got to buy a new one because we weren't paying $500 a year to take care of the old one.

Um, that has happened a lot in our city. And so, um, you know, my my personal opinion, I'm all for having a great savings account, but I think 155% of operating expenses is financial mismanagement. just as just as bad as if we had no money. Uh especially when it comes to the fact that like for years and years we just ignored very expensive problems. So that would be my suggestion is like figure out what you know the real stuff is because you know $2 million out of the fund to fix this building. Well, I don't love the idea. The fact that that $2 million should have been spent while this building has existed. sort of like you don't really have the money in your bank account if you just haven't spent it yet. That's my thoughts. All right. Anybody else have anything else? Okay. Uh moving on. What do we got next? Our um municipal management software. Do we you want to do the whole thing or do we want

Yeah, I'll I'll do a quick review of it uh through permission share. U just wanted to give a quick update and costs that came in were a little bit higher than anticipated. the department's still working on going through each one of these uh vendors proposals because it's a little bit different than a typical bid on you know construction project thing along those lines. We're really looking at can this company kind of partner with the city to transform our day-to-day operations and streamline like you create a custom solution that is applicable to city and also improve upon what we've seen be successful with my gov uh which is our current vendor but kind of take it to the next level and make a very easy to use and very userfriendly dashboard for residents for um obviously management here and then also for the council to be able to see what's going on um you know with code enforcement or complaints, but also talking about, you know, potholes being filled and everything under the sun that we do. We work within GIS right now doing a lot of that. Uh we've been working to convert a lot of our tasks through that system. But the idea was, can we find a system that ties directly in to um GIS and can utilize a system that really has an interface that's super simple for residents to go in and report whatever is going on and then track it very very quickly and then share overview an overview of that uh that data to the council on a on a monthly basis. Right now we can do that. It takes a few steps in between and does add some staff time. Um and just pulling the uh the reports that's going to come out this Friday. the updated um code enforcement reports. It takes it we get the data pretty well just through my gov then transferring over to GIS but to put it in a digestible format like a dashboard if you will for those reports it takes a lot of creating tables within um Excel. So that trying to take those types of processes out so we just have a simple easy dashboard to share with the council, share with the residents so they can know exactly what's going on at any given time and get notifications

along the way. Um that said the proposals that came in we provided a copy of each of them so you can review them at your leisure. Uh the department does not have a recommendation just yet because there were quite a few that came in and they are you know upwards of 200 pages in some instances. Uh not 200 but 130 I think was the tops. Um and then also when looking at the initial cost which is included here uh the implementation costs right now we're paying a little bit over $30,000 a year for our uh services with my gov. If you're looking at the full package that's being provided in some of these uh other vendors, I mean it's implementation costs ranging from 25,000 all the way up to, you know,und 301,000 just from the startup and then after that seeing potentially anywhere between like 30 to $100,000 in annual expenses. So it it is a massive fee that is a lot larger than was anticipated. So the department's going to go through it, see if there's any fat that's included in some of these proposals that maybe they we shouldn't be looking at or considering. But the other component too that is just important to bring up is that we do have uh the introduction of AI and something that has not been included in some of these proposals from a quick review is that they don't necessarily tackle the AI problem. They definitely say that it's coming. It's it's a a new feature they're going to be working it in. Uh but none of them actually really take the full model and build something custom. So the only fear the department has is that if we were to onboard for something like this expensive that we go through the time to actually onboard it and then all of a sudden there's an AI solution that can do twice as much for the same price or less uh available for any questions but we'll be coming back with some type of recommendation for either some or all of the proposal or proceeding with my gov our current vendor at the next meeting and we're potentially looking at some other solutions if uh AI can move faster. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Yes. Mr. Lee, have you done any short listing in terms of proposals that are non-responsive? Uh those that are just deficient of meeting the deliverables. Are any of these non-response? You said Yeah. Like are any of just bad proposals? Well, the only one that I mean, Gov Pilot, we actually went through a couple different u experiments, if you will, the demos that they had and it seemed like a pretty they provided a proposal, but it just it seemed a little short and we'll be going through that one a little bit more. Is that the one that was 100 quarter? It's the one that's zero dollars implementation and 20,000 across the board and after five years, it's about 100K, which is act that's that would be us saving money with with uh with our

But I almost think with this, it's an RFP for a reason. There needs to be a review of not only the cost but also the what services we truly need and also what's the true history. That was a big question of what is there I go through these really quick. The main things that we were looking for is do you have experience with similar size cities like Wildwood? Um you know obviously are you being used locally as well? That that's a big uh key thing to look at too. But then the other one is really reporting. you know, what are your what's the interface that the resident but also the manager or whomever is looking at to be able to track some of this stuff because right now that's our biggest issue with my gov is that resident reporting side is okay to actually input it. Uh the same goes for polling data. It's a little tedious, but it could be done. It's just adding staff time to really go in there and work out the kinks to be able to make it pretty and present it in a way that's functional. So yeah, right now I don't have anybody that's necessarily ruled out, but it one was a little bit skeptical just based off the the lack of the the not a very large problem.

All right, anybody else? Okay, that brings us to our four action. Oops. That starts us off with the stormwater and parks tax analysis.

Thank you, chair. So tonight, uh this kind of ties in well with the reserve fund balance, but uh tonight the department wanted to follow up with a request. Um after the governor had announced the decision to line veto the $250,000 appropriation for watershed erosion mitigation in Wildwood, there was discussion about, you know, whether or not the city is in need of a storm water parks tax and also what it would take to actually do one um put it on the ballot. So, we have some information here tonight for that specifically and also how much we can anticipate in revenue from that source uh just based off current numbers. One item to keep in mind though, the department wanted to add this in that we did recently meet with the governor's staff and though there was some grace given to the city and it was already provided to them that we have been putting a large sum of money into MDOT's roadways. Um the they they did take interest when that was brought up, but through and through it almost seems that the governor's office is not looking at one-off projects or just these independent projects funded by a city um or matched by a city even at 100%. They they don't they almost said we're going to precoid levels of project funding throughout the state which I've found some examples department found some examples of that not being too consistent based off some other cities that have gotten their funding for different projects. That said, it does seem like going it will be an uphill climb to get direct funding from the state. Um, I wanted to provide that overview, but right now the department is re sending information about how much money we're spending on our state roadways with Route 100 and Route 109, the roundabout project, and the hope is that they will potentially consider um assisting the city with the project that we've been sitting on for a couple years because they have kind of put us through this intangible loop. Um, couple things here for storm water parks tax in general. You can tax as a municipality

such as Wildwood, you can tax up to 5% of all gross receipt sales uh throughout your state city and that would if the city were to elect to do something like that and then be passed by the voters. That would be an amount equal to our capital improvement sales tax fund. A separate fund would need to be created just like our capital improve capital improvement sales tax fund is today. Um, one important measure that you have to include if the council were to want to consider this, um, is that in the actual language you need to include, it's not actually asking for something too specific. It's just saying, are you going to propose a tax? What's your percentage of it? So, is it 025, 33, it could be whatever the council agrees to, but also it needs to indicate whether it's for just parks, just storm water, or both. Um, those are a couple things. We actually have draft language here. It is a yes or no question. After the council would approve something like this being put on the ballot, uh it's a very there's some very strict case case law making sure the city or its representatives do not um actively promote the initiative. So just wanted to bring that up as well does have to have a created separate fund. U overall though when it comes to actually putting this on you know you don't want to have advocacy the cost for adding it. We the best case we have we don't have an answer from the board of elections but we do have the receipt from the last time we did a ballot initiative and that was back in 2023 when we had a proposition about um some authorizations within the charter and that was $24,570 for the April election. So, it is dependent on what election you put it on because you're paying a pr-rated amount based off who else is currently putting a ballot question on there. U and also just the generalized cost that you you got to pay the salaries of the election poll workers. You have to pay for the machine rentals, etc. Um that said, depending on the election, we could see those costs double. I mean, you do have the the salaries have increased over the last couple years and if there's not many other uh municipalities that are putting a question on there, it could

even $50,000 if it's a general election in 2026 where you're expecting full voter turnout and they are anticipating those costs accordingly. Uh that said, when it comes to the actual uh revenue that could be perceived from this tax, right now we're currently bringing in about $2.8 million annually from the city's.5 capital improvement sales tax. So if that was levied, you would see overall a 1% sales tax throughout the city charged on any good or service purchased here. And that would equal roughly about 2.8 million for the city if it's at 0.5 and at 0.25, which other cities have also done, would be about 1.4 that could be spent on both parks and storm water if that's included in the ballot language. Uh so really, you know, the department is able, as long as the council approves it, able to put ballot language up whenever feasible. It's actually a pretty easy process. It just costs some money to do so. Um that said, it's more so about educating prior to making that final decision because it's something that the residents are going to consider very closely. Uh department's available for any questions, but tonight the department's really just looking at any feedback um if we want to keep in keep looking into this and really if we are um putting together some type of communications plans or getting it on the ballot.

Right. Mr. Uh, how how do you feel this um relates to what we just previously talked about with the uh um with our balance being uh 155%.

I think it's tough. That's the toughest part about it is having a 155% uh 150 fund balance for the general fund. I think it's a little different because you can make the argument that for a stormwater parks tax that is going to be a separate account used to address the maintenance of park facilities or creation of park facilities and then also tackling an issue if you can couch it and how it should be is tackling an issue that we've seen $30 million worth of expenditures being proposed just for one wershed alone and a $ 1.5 million proposal for a storm water uh storm water master plan which I mean it just seems like the storm water issue is is really the thing that's going to kind of suck the air out of the room. Um, that said, you almost have to include the parks component because a lot of residents, if you don't live, and this is just thinking out loud on a communication side, if you if you don't live along a uh a watershed within the city,

okay, um then you may not be too aware of some of the critical issues that we have. you might not be paying attention to some of the, you know, not everyone has the time to watch the water erosion task force meetings or checking in on some of the reports that are submitted to the council. You that that would be the main thing to be communicating to the residents is how many projects that are already stacked up just from taking a peek at this thing when we haven't even completed our u analysis of every wershed, which we have nine. It's it's a tough one. Uh that said, I think it would play in, you know, I mean, if residents do want to take a look at it, I mean, it's kind of hard to say, hey, you need more of my money while you're saving so much while you have so much money saved

and and and just as needing are the parks, right? There's no fund for them anywhere, right?

That all that uh and that's really what kind of that and our roadways just we've taken on more roads in town center. Um that's part of our policy is that when roads are built, we want to take them on, especially in the town center. Uh and then for parks, we've built a few in the last couple years. Community park is not cheap to maintain, right? U the Village Green is going to be adding expense which we'll be able to couch into our current operating model, but it will will come a time where our contractor base is just going to, you know, we're going to have to make cuts elsewhere if we want to make make sure that we're cutting grass. It's not tomorrow, but it is in the future. would be helpful to have a dedicated fund specifically for parks and that could be inclusive of park staff or just parks individuals that would be supporting that feature as well.

Maybe the uh the taxes after we spend some of the uh the uh you know the discretionary money, you know. So that's the that's the tough thing. I will just stole my thumb. You're happy with yourself. I'm just trying to keep this meeting going. evil minds and the like. Until until the city puts skin in the game,

we've got no legitimate right going and asking for handouts from the residents with a tax. We've got to show that we're committing discretionary funds uh first and foremost to the highest critical priorities and communicate that to the city. And hey folks, this is the most important thing in town. We've spent all the money we can on it. Now we got to come back and we weren't before, not for the year and a half before or whatever it's going to be to put the ballot on. Right. But I I just thought as that as the strongest conviction and residents say, well, you want this money, go spend all that money you got laying around doing nothing. Right. Anybody else?

We need to vote on anything today. Well, if it would be nice to get the department had presented kind of a next step would be to and honestly the department after putting together that u that questionnaire is EDC. It was almost like that would be a good place to maybe tie this in, but ask a specific like would you be willing I know it already kind of addressed it, but maybe add in one or two very specific questions um to that own that survey because it it's already getting a pretty in-depth understanding of hey we have these assets we have to maintain them. Uh I think it helps at least start getting the the information out there and should give us an understanding a rough understanding.

I think that's a good idea. I mean, I as having spent a long time with this watershed thing, I am and have been for a long time. I I think I think what we're doing right now, even just tonight, is a great start. We need to get like to this point while our city has functioned in a really conservative way financially, I just don't know that it's been a particularly uh appropriate usage of our funds. So getting our reserve fund balance figured out and taking care of some of these long justestating projects I think is a good thing. Getting our budget our capital improvement budget figured out and either you know eliminating or whatever we want to call it these projects that have been around for a long time but really clearly are not that important is another thing where we can then say to the residents, hey we've gone through our whole process here. We've looked at our budget. We've taken care of these backdated items and now let's talk about what we need to do from the storm water situation and the park situation. I think they need to be together because, you know, our city has nine gigantic wheds, which is good, and we've got more parks than we know what to do with, and people would like more of them. So, um, we have to figure out a way to pay for all that stuff. But I think what we can do, maybe I personally don't think that this next election cycle, like that doesn't make any sense to do that now. But I think if we can, you know, if we can go to the residents and use time to figure out like, look, we've moved all these pieces in the right direction and now we're asking for the right thing, I think that's an appropriate move. And whether that's in 2027 or I would say even in 2028, depending on how we got to get that figured out, uh, we should probably do that. Um, but, you know, I think asking the I think in asking questions of residents, you know, to gauge their understanding of the problem. Like I don't know that. I'm pretty certain because I saw what happened with Watershed. Like when I when that started, nobody knew what the wershed was. Now people stop me and ask. I think people understand we have a lot of parks. I don't think they have any concept that we don't have any real way

of paying for them. Um so that that level of education takes time, but I think uh Mr. Mabry and Mr. Alers are correct. like we we as a elective body and as a city need to do a better job of managing the money that we have in our hands right now and getting that so that people can we can say hey our reserve fund is 75% because we took care of all these things and that's what we're doing and then our budget is set at this range because this is what this means if anything scores above a or below a 670 or whatever number we're picking like forget it that that kind of a thing I think we're doing the right stuff I just think it needs to come here incrementally but Um, I don't know how it works if we can future date putting something on a ballot that far out, but um,

that would be something we'd bring back. But if if the committee thinks that, hey, this this issue has been adequately explored and we should table it for now, then 50 grand sounds about the right number to me. I think I think what we have learned is that all looks great. We've got some other things we got to take care of and so now we have it and we understand it. Yeah, that would be my suggestion. So, I don't know what kind of action. You just want a motion to say we accept and understand the policy. Yeah, that would be put a little pause on it. That'd be great.

Mr. Backer will make that. Anybody care to second it? Mr. Alers will second the motion to uh appreciate and table the storm water and park sales tax conversation for the time being. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Any abstensions? Okay. Chris Mai. Oh, Chris Mai. Perfect. Um that brings us to our priority uh ranking of capital improvements.

Yes, thank you chair. And this is and I do apologize. This was supposed to be attached earlier in the uh it hasn't changed at all too much from last month, but what we did do is incorporate some uh recommended changes from the committee. If you go to the uh the website now, you'll see that there are the tier ones highlighted in green with the anticipated expenditures for fiscal year 2026 outlined with expected grant funding next to it. Um the mid tier tier 2 listed in somewhat of a didn't print as well, but like a minor yellow and then the tier three projects listed in red. Um this is just based off going through the criteria that's included as well uh one by one. I know it kind of looks confusing when you look at all the numbers stacked up against each other, but really it's we flipped as recommended the first criterion that has the 18 which is weighted um at 18 times. So when you see the nine in the box there and you see an 18 in that first row, uh what that actually means is that nine is multiplied by that 18. So that helps by not only taking the criterion ranking itself and weighting it u as master plan's most important or if we want to change it around that's fine too. if risk mitigation is what be number one for public safety that can be added or changed to fit the council's uh fit the council's needs but the other side of it is the actual weight of the criteria itself. So it's either it's somewhat weighted in the sense it's a zero, it's a three, it's a five or a nine. And how that does it is go through these one at a time but really answering the questions each one is it included in the master plan you know and it's it's listed as a major priority. it is furthering the the goals objectives of multip multiple goals within the elements within the city's master plan. Obviously, that's going to be one that's clearly a nine. But if it's one that is, you know, not mentioned at all, it's something that's been brought up by a resident or two, that's going to be something that's not going to score too highly since it hasn't had that type of consideration. The same can be said for the cost of the project. The department did establish

this. We changed it up a little bit for how we weighted these. Um, we took the 2.875 875 million that the city anticipates from revenue from the capital improvement sales tax fund in of itself. And we took a cost of the project and we put that at pretty high. I mean, we had it ranked at a 16, which is the third highest ranked priority. Um, but then we actually linked it out that you would get 9%, you know, you would get uh nine points on that and then multiply it out if we could effectively accomplish this project for less than 5% of the annual operating revenue. So that almost says, hey, if it's a quick one and done project, obviously there's going to be six 17 other criteria that have to be weighted. But it almost kind of takes those bigger projects and makes them have to score higher in other departments versus if they're over that 25% threshold because if you're spending 25% of your capital improvement revenue on one project and it should be like one of the ma major priorities listed by not only the city council but pretty much the should be on the banner of the city for that that year which we have a couple that met that which include the watershed erosion task force projects which include the basins. We did increase that a little bit to 500K. Um that that could be altered a little bit further, but just trying to keep in mind that even with tier one, we were stacking up pretty high. Um I did put some uh asterisks on a few of these with the route 109 BA roundabout project. We actually approved that this year. So that will most likely be carried over for the 2025 budget and that has been budgeted for this year as well. Um, there may be some that is paid out on 2026, but I wanted to call it out just because it's a project that was just recently discussed and since it's a major priority for the city and obviously was approved by the council, wanted to not leave it out of the discussion. Something else that was brought up was just so the money was understood that it was still existed was the internet project phase two um 1.348 million that was after you take into account a full expenditure for the rebate program. Um, that is what would be left within the capital improvement sales tax fund. That said, we actually

are waiting. We should be getting an update from the speed program soon. Uh we were actually told by the end of August, so they haven't updated it, but they're actually supposed to be announcing award recipients for the first round. Uh so there could be some good news coming our way there. So that could free up some additional dollars. So just wanted to put some asterisks next to those two projects just based off the fact that those may have some changes coming up depending on external news, uh but also through what we've already budgeted in 2021. All right. Anybody have any questions? Um, I just have one and I don't know if you know the answer off the top of your head. If let's say hypothetically something had a perfect score, what would that be?

What would be the Oh, it would be No one none did have a perfect score. Yeah, but I'm just saying like because I mean we have two that are at 119. Um, but I'm just trying to

Well, I I can get that bug in there. I I I mean I I will say um having done this now for a couple years like this I think is the best way we've done this for sure. Um I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it should really clarify things for a lot of people. I think maybe the next conversation and I don't know that it's I mean I'm happy to have it in here if you think that that's the best thing but like I think I think once we understand like a pretty clear threshold. So, I mean, I don't know if it's just happens to be this way, but like it looks like something north of 750 falls into a a green level. I don't know if there's like a a breakdown for that. Bring that bridge up a little bit, but there is.

But the idea being like I I think I know it would help me to be like this is our set of green projects and this is how much money we have. And so, if we have more money than that, then we can very easily go into the next set of them. And then some of these other ones, you know, like we were just talking about like this. I just keep picking on the pickle ball thing, but like half a million dollars for something that scored a 292 should never even be part of a conversation we're having. Yep. And that's where at I think when the red I think we're at least from the department's perspective and uh more than happy to discuss, but the department's recommending the projects in red to be to be removed.

Yeah. I I would remove them. I would I would I mean I'm not again I'm not trying to pick on anything. I I would almost have a threshold and and this would break down in terms of like you know what is a what's a perfect store versus not. So I mean whatever the number is

if it's you know anything if something falls below 650 or whatever like probably that's not a thing that's going to be happening and we can move that down or off or however that works. But I think if you don't thin this out, you know, this stuff just sits there and it's confusing. And when we're talking to residents about whether it's a storm water tax or these other things like, you know, like I'm looking at this watershed erosion project, I think half a million dollars for some level of maintenance makes sense. But if we're talking about the retention detention bases, if we don't spend $2 million and do it right, there's no point in doing it. So it's a waste of half a million dollars. Um, that's how I would maybe approach this. So, I think just giving us like these thresholds of like, hey, if it's if it like we did with the the Turnberry thing, like if it's if it's at or below a number,

we can the answer is no. Put them in buckets. Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely do that. Uh, yeah, it's not a problem. It's it's more so we do have So, I guess that would be tying into the unrestricted fund balance policy, too. I mean, there is I think they're going to work I think they I really do think they're going to work hand in hand like you know the stuff you have like $300,000 for city hall city hall investment again I mean this is going to be easily a million dollars

that was more so thinking for that one that's a little bit more specific is that how much can we really get done and most likely it's going to turn into for a fiveyear you're going to see that that long-term expenditure but it's almost that that 300,000 would probably cover the engineering and potentially getting started on a few of Sure. So, we get started, but then if we move to the uh the unrestricted fund. Yep. Then it's like, okay, we've got the ball rolling here. Now, we move up here. This $300,000, which in theory could be a annual line item, is now off of this budget. Yep. Um that would be my my thought on that. Okay. Is there still a provision for um I mean, last time around there was an unfunded projects.

That's the idea. I guess that that right now the unfunded project list would be anything in light yellow and red. Um and whatever threshold is it just

it's 750 currently, but the department will come back with that percentage of a total. Um the idea though is to kind of trim it out a little bit and then if the council would like I mean they this is not final. the council can make recommendations as they see fit and if they want to that the idea here today is to provide you know hey we've made some changes to the actual matrix itself and the process behind it u how it's organized we'll go ahead and maybe even make it just here's what's included have that as an attachment here's what's not and it's an unfunded needs list u that said that's going to be a recommendation the council could go back and just say hey we're we're adopting the fiveyear as it was presented um that said you know the department's not recommending that

I guess the only you know concern concern is, you know, you guys had that meeting with uh Paige in talking about a little bit about Old State and stuff and yeah, I mean, if something is to be added, if they were to come up with their portion, but like I would say with something like that to me with something like that, that's an that's an unreserved I mean that if they came and said, "Hey, we got half a million dollars." I mean, just because you're not on the list doesn't written. No, because to me that's that's an item that is like

I mean that score is very high across the board. So those things where it takes different partners to do something like having it sit on on our budget forever isn't helping anybody. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that said I mean would be not excluded from consideration because it's not on the list.

Theory this would be more so for our capital like improvement project plan for each year and then how we incorporate it into our fivey year. be kind of an annual review utilizing this system allowing the council to you know add in if they want a blank copy on the Excel doc and fill it out themselves that would be more than appreciated we can definitely provide that I'd even include it in the actual report itself u the idea would be though that I mean at the end of the day if if they were to come up with that money and the council supported it they could approve an or you you all could approve an ordinance of tomorrow I think we already did yeah but that was you would still need an ordinance approve approving the agreement. No, I know. But I mean I I thought we had a thing that was like if these other groups get on board

was that with the tip? What's that now? Uh do you remember Rick just the did we approve? I thought we had a thing like a bunch of years ago where like if if all of a sudden Ellisville and St. Louis County came up with money, we would all lot money to state road. I think that was through a tip app and then we we agreed to submit a tip application with that framework in place. We didn't get funding that was three or four years ago. I mean, I don't know. I mean, so if we do that, I guess my question is since we did that and we didn't get the funding, does that then go away or does that idea still exist? The idea exists, but that would need to be reappropriated by the government. Yeah. But then you guys would go, hey, we did like we did this four years ago and we approved it and here's

that is that is honestly that that would be used in the report as a basis for hey, this is they've come back the the federal government. They got money and and we offered this before. They're now requesting this. The difference is null. Four years. Here much. Here's how much more cost. It will help I guess from a more so from obviously go through we could have it go through this process too. So we at least have a score to associate with it. But I think more importantly there was a full council that endorsed it and then endorsed the participation.

I would think and it doesn't have to be maybe for this budget cycle but it might make sense. I don't know how many I mean that's a specific kind of a thing but like I don't know how many projects are similar to that but maybe we have a matrix like this that's just saying hey these these types of projects that require multiple entities to be involved then you know this is how this scores that could have maybe helped some of the like J turn and other roundabout conversations we've had not that we wouldn't have done them but it's just like let's like this is where the these rank on this list.

Yep. We do account, at least in the matrix, we do account for this in two different criterion. Um, one under city-owned infrastructure improvement, you score higher if the city is making an improvement to the and it's kind of in the mid, it's it's ranked ninth criterion, so nine times whatever their score is. Uh, but if say you're doing the Main Street extension, that is extending, you know, city- owned infrastructure to connecting to city- owned infrastructure, that is only benefiting the city. But if it was something that you know the roundabout you look at here on the roundabout 109BA it's not going to score highly it actually got a zero right

on that because uh it's not our infrastructure we're improving someone else's so that accounts for it there we can have a separate list though too where it says here are the ones that are tied directly to it. The other one would be the uh the legal u legal requirements. So that's asking really, you know, a project that, you know, did not score highly with the legal requirements taking into account, you know, something like Etheon, the Etherton road improvements. I mean, we have 24, what is it? TW like 24ments we would need on that project.

Oh, probably about that. Yeah. So I mean 24 individuals that have like we just went through this with the process for another project and it was very difficult to overcome you know some of these some folks that just don't want to give up their an access to an easement. Where this comes in is that with 24 folks, it adds a lot of different decision makers and it just those types of factors can really, you know, take up staff time first and foremost, but also can get us tied up into, you know, other situations where we don't we we don't necessarily want to we want to avoid it. So maybe it's a place where right away gets acquired first and then we can take care of the project. I don't know. That's an idea that we've been kicking around here, but really rightway acquisition is tough.

So, okay. So, what is it you need on this from us tonight? uh if the right now we'll go back and get the total numbers for the committee, but next month we'll be bringing back the five-year and the one-year uh for 2026 and we'll have it broken out. Here are the ones that are being recommended for the budget. Here is the unfunded project list. It's going to look different than what was provided last year. Um and it's going to have some cut at the knees. Uh some council members I think are going to not be thrilled with that. So just bringing it up, making sure that everyone's temperature is is gauged here. Um, I mean I I think that there will be people that are unhappy, but I do think it's important, you know, if we put a process in place, I get it. I mean, there's plenty of the things on in my word that are currently yellow. That's just and and like I said, the department,

so to speak, for any council members that would like to, you know, get the I do have a copy of the raw Excel file that has the equations built in. So, if anybody wants to go through the 2026 version or the 5-year um they want to provide that directly back to me, I'm more than happy to provide it to them and get feedback either on the criterion itself or just the process. If anything, I might work together on it. suggest that we take a page out of the turnberry thing that we did and not necessarily make it like an appeals process, but whatever, you know, if if I want to argue about the anniversary park resurfacing parking lot in the drive aisle, like I got to make an actual argument about it. It's not just like I want it,

but I want it. Yeah. You know what I'm saying? like let's put something in place where people actually have to put real work into doing this like a challenge. So if so in that case would it be that if you're not in if the project isn't currently included on that threshold which we'll come back with that well I mean I would think it's similar like so we take down challenge the number

and it's like okay a master like I would just ask so some of these master plan you've got um the wershed erosion task force is a nine the round route 109 BA is a five obviously structurally those are different projects but what what what makes a 189 and 185?

So there for one uh the element of the u sorry the first element is environmental control. So that clearly includes responsible development that's taking into account our wersheds but also just controlling for it is clearly indicated in the master plan. It's nate the most recent update in 2016 had began the process for hey we need to explore this this is a big issue. So that was one where the five comes in is that the master plan also it definitely supports improving public safety. I mean that's and that a little vague as to what that means.

It is a little vague to what that means and also you can almost tie in that there's some components of the master plan that say hey we need to be focused in on Wildwood's infrastructure which also ties in. So, I I would just say whatever and you know there's only a handful of us in here, but if if if people have a concern about an item, that challenge the actual score itself, challenge the score, not I just want it or it's been here for 15 years and so it should stay there like it's got to be a real thing. It's not bad. We can definitely have like a a form or something like that put together with it,

right? Okay, great. You want this back on? What's which part of this do you think is not right? And it shouldn't be as we're doing with this other thing. It shouldn't be, well, I just don't like it. Okay. Uh, so you need a motion. Are you good? Uh, the mo Yeah, if we could get a motion just saying, hey, to affirm that this is kind of the setup that we'll produce for the 2026 budget, we're going to also be including 2025. So, we wanted to get the at least the template down correctly so that when we come back and actually start putting together the final budget, not final, but the proposed budget, that it it has the process in place. And if this process is clean, we'll bring this to planning and parks too, just so they're informed. But overall, this is this would be the step we would take for capital improvement sales tax fund moving forward.

All right. Made by Mr. Backard, seconded by Mr. Mabry. Uh all those in what's that comment? Yes, sir. Do we need an extra new column that says vetted by and then tally up all the different entities that have vetted it so that it Yeah. I'm the at least from the department's perspective, it's it's coming from me mostly, but it's also with the input from our directors. Oh, so if it's got vetted by T Lee, then it's a past. Well, it could be that's why I'm saying I'm trying to get everyone to. So it's the idea is like every he's taking the feed he's taking in Ricks and Joe's and then he as the administrator goes

okay you got a seven you got a nine I'm going with an eight or I'm going with a 10 or whatever it is okay no I understand that's the idea that's why we pay them the big bucks you know but that said if a council member specifically wants to provide their direct input on any of these scores they can al they can obviously challenge them independently but the other thing would be more than happy to provide you know an Excel doc of this blanked out without any colors or any any indicators and you you could go through just one or five whatever and I I'll I mean if we're happy we could then I'll I'll talk with the directors and we can see we'll include it in the report but also incorporate that in the in the final tally. I would ask on specific items. Don't give them the whole Yeah, that's specific projects. That's

don't give them the whole thing. Yeah, it's a lot. Anybody else? It is a tedious process. All right. All those in favor, please say I. Amy, you good on the motion? Excellent. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, up next, I think we're going to public works. How about that, Rick? Let's hear about some updates on mod and city projects.

Okay, chair, committee members provided a update again this month to you of current uh and current mod and city projects that are underway or wrapped up already. We've had a busy summer as you know. Um, we wrapped up construction by and large on the Manchester Taylor resurfacing and signal project. Um, probably some final restoration to be done there, but by and large that project has been completed. Um, MOD's making good progress on Route 100 and Route 109. Um, been out working quite a bit on resurfacing 100 um, more recently. So, that progress is moving forward. Um, we did complete our Tentar road, excuse me, our Tentar bridge rehabilitation project. Um, that wrapped up actually early. Um, so we got that reopened in in July, I believe, or excuse me, August. Um, so and Mod wrapped up their 109 route CC roundabout project and I guess had a ribbon pending on that last week as well. So, um, if there's any particular questions you have regarding any of the projects on the list, I'd be glad to address them at this point. Uh, we did get notice I should me should remark to you that we did get notice from MDOT um last week finally that we have authorization to bid our old state road shared use path project. So, that was some good news. We've been pushing really hard to get that through um ODOT and um so hopefully we will get the bid out on the street in the coming week or two and open bids uh in early October. Then Golden State Road should use pass based upon early October. When would construction

I think at this point uh wouldn't anticipate seeing really much construction until next year. Um so coming coming out of the winter maybe some work um potentially during late winter but most of the hard construction next year. Okay.

All right. Anybody have anything else? Um I would just mention this is more of a communications thing and they changed the timing at um 100 and Westland Farms and then Old Manchester and Pierside and the timing seems to work significantly better than it did. But it is definitely very different than it was. So we might want to just put out a post to like maybe pay a little bit of extra attention because everybody's used to getting ready to hop on the gas going straight as soon as that arrow goes and that is not how it works anymore. We did. Cool. Okay. Uh, up next, um, Main Street Extension Project.

Um, so we start off on this one. Yeah, sure. Can um members, Chair Farmer, we um, this next item I think is on the agenda for information as well, if I'm correct. Yep.

Provide you an update and I think it's important that this maybe be aware of this project and where we're at with our process and progress. um especially in light of the fact that uh north latitude 38 development is is going to be back in front of planning zoning commission and presumably the city council soon. Um we have been working on improvement plans for the extension of Main Street the essentially the incorporation of crush drive as Main Street between road and city hall effectively. Um we have hired and city council authorized um civil design incorporated to do that engineering for us and they have started on that work and have developed a preliminary plan and a concept working with the department of planning and parks as well. And so we provided that preliminary plan to you tonight um for any comment or feedback primarily um that's provided in my memorandum and it's shown on the on the display in front of you. Um essentially the the plan that was being proposed mimics Main Street west of Etheston Road. It would be a divided road with a median in the middle. What we have tried to do is to widen the median. So it's a great in greater width than uh west of of Etheertton Road. The idea was to provide access uh uh to the property south and frankly potentially to the north in the future if redevelopment occurred um with a wider opening there. So um the the wider meeting allows U-turn capabilities which is important for the driveways and for the park as well. So folks, if they wanted to access the park coming from, okay, the road, they could drive past it, make a U-turn, and come back, potentially use the on street parking spaces, or even turn back into the uh city hall parking lot. So that's why we've widened it out is to try to allow

the ability for larger vehicles to make that U-turn, maneuver. Otherwise, you really can't make the U-turn, and you'd have to find your way to make a U-turn in the uh residential streets beyond. So um the next steps we're trying to finalize the storm water design um with MSD. We have some final decisions to be made relative to utility adjustments. Um I think this plan envisions that at least at this point in time we wouldn't underground the Amaran overhead power lines on the north. They wouldn't probably require relocation of the poles. um presumably in the future with residential redevelopment that could be considered um at that point in time, but with this plan it it likely it would not because that's a very expensive proposition. The cost I think the most recent cost we had was over $3 million for this project. Um I have asked civil design to update their cost estimate for us so that we have a number budgeting purposes or an budget number. So they're working on that. should have it to us next week. And then the next step that they're working on is rightaway plans, which is the next piece of the puzzle to get completed. The rightway plans essentially delineate how much easement rightway we need to construct the project. Allows us to take the next step of hiring a rightaway negotiator to put together the easement acquisition documents from those plans. uh appraise the uh easements for potential compensation for those property owners and then put offers in the mail to them. Um so we could conceivably be in position to start that process by the end of the year early next year. Um and I guess that would be our plan to do that moving forward. We do have money in the budget this year for rightaway acquisitions um in the next year potentially to continue with rightaway acquisition or even move into utility

relocation work. So with that I'll turn over Tom if you want to add anything.

Yeah, just wanted to add a little bit here just kind of taking into account what the city needs easement wise. We got seven properties in the northern bend here where this is stretching in. We have a property line right here. This is where Crest View is, this small strip strip right here. Um, we need rights to Crest View from every adjacent parcel owner. So, that's seven plus the individual that owns this stake and then the city obviously. So, that's eight total. Um, that is contingent currently on the development proposal that's coming back. Uh, we won't get too far into that. That'll go through the traditional process. That said, we do need about 37 feet of rideway from the southern bend to be able to build the right street. on the northern bend, wasn't it about 15 feet that we're estimating is the furthest cut in to build this version?

Um, that sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah.

So, about 15 feet. And this will be 15 ft of the city moving in on the property. They will also need to dedicate their rights Crest View Drive as well, which is currently in a pretty pretty large state of disrepair. Uh, but the other thing is uh twofold. You know, we will have what's currently proposed is that we will have a larger sidewalk on the northern end and a little bit of a shorter sidewalk on the southern bend. Um that said, what was provided in the previous proposal for the latitude and 38 development was doing you can almost stretch it into this area here and going just up to here and just building one flat piece of concrete 24 feet in width and then having Crest View connected here which would create and I'll let Rick add any issues here but a five-legged intersection which can cause some uh some traffic concerns. So that's what we're trying this the department's perspective and I think the department of public works would agree if we're going to do main street I think we should do it the department department believes we should do it the right way and that does include rightaway dedication on the northern end u but I do think that after some discussions with some of the residents on that side which we did meet with approximately five of the seven um some had really shown interest in the fact that their their frontage would be improved they're having direct access to the new park and that quite frankly they would be it would be they would be a pretty pretty large improvement. I think that a lot of folks are seeing the seeing the the benefits from it. There are a couple residents that live on uh Crest View that are not supportive of it. So just a heads up for what's to come.

All right, Mr. May. Yes. Um Rick, only if you can answer 30 seconds or less. Why are there um what look like absence of curb cuts at several numerous of the properties that are adjacent on both north and south? Uh the plan that we have should provide access to all the existing properties and homes and not aware that we I know he's talking about these two at the bottom. Yeah. Well, the every place I see a concrete driveway hitting the road there and there's no curb cut. I'm wondering why not. That's one right there where the arrow was. That's just one. There's one more to the right. Yeah, that I don't know why it's stretched out.

The one next to it. And the one over on the left up against other. I'll have to double check on that. I'm not clear. I have to I have to check on that. I'm not clear why that's not show quite honest. There's no curb cut for that. And that's just a little tiny nothing garage, but I don't see anything else in the form of a driveway that's fronting otherton. It's just a question. Just nosy. All right. Anybody else?

The 3.2 million. Is it all sitting? No access to any money anywhere else. Developers. The idea would be and that would be something that would be brought up would be that what can the developer cover on the on the frontage but that said they are dedicating 37 feet of rightway and that development has not been approved. So that could be part of the discussion. Um obviously frontage for the development is key. I mean if they build something along their frontage there that they don't have to but it is frontage for that development. So and I think

improvements must be made. I think too it's important to we ran into this a little bit sort of the first time around with the N38 development where like it seemed like we kind of conflated a couple different things like they really kind of in my opinion I think they should be two separate things. we should be talking about a development and we should be talking about the road because the like in my mind if we're seeding responsibility we probably give up an awful lot of control of how that's going to be and then it just becomes like a weird football that everybody's kicking around for some reason. Um that's just me. I'm I had one thing I'm just curious why do we have a thicker sidewalk on the other side of the road than the side with the park? So it's it's consistent with Bain Street west of Ethereton. We have a 10 foot wide right shared use path on the north side and that's what that is.

So it's going to be a it's more of a path than a sidewalk. But then the sidewalk on those green side is just like a regular sidewalk like we have out front here. Isn't it consistent with the west side? That's consistent. There's a regular sidewalk on the west. I I'm just thinking we might hopefully we'll have a lot of people walking on that sidewalk. So, we want to probably make sure that we've got enough space for everybody. Um, all right. Anything else? Looks good. Okay. No gates. No gates. Um, yeah. Remember? Yeah. Um, I would also just maybe I mean I'm sure I think I counted I don't know if this is exactly the scale. I think I counted 20 parallel parking spots in front of the park.

Yeah. And just as a heads up to everyone too there this thing this pretty much from here to the right you're going to we're going to have to as we get in further into the engineering I'll let Rick speak to it. This is where the playground's going in now. So they're going to have to incorporate that. There's going to have to be storm water issues. I think you would want some local handicap parking in there. Yep. Exactly. So all of that this was finalized this version was going to finalized before we had you know a firm approval from the council to start engineering playground in that space which one of the main issues we're going to be using this to address is ADA accessibility for that playground because currently the way it's configured if we were to build a playground here uh we need to build to be able to make sure it's

it's not a big that first entrance to latitude is probably not going to happen there either. So that I mean that's going to be up to the discussions for that that proposal but that is that is currently right as but the idea was this was originally proposed but McBride's development up on the north side too but the whole idea is you want to have you don't

well Rick I'll let you the traffic engineer explain this but you don't want to have folks turning onto the road here because you you're right next to the other intersection and the other reason is the traffic and this is Rick brought this up but a key configuration is that you got someone coming down this way. They're going to want to park here. They need to be able to turn around. And if they have it down, I mean, you just really can't build it in over there to have a turnaround. I mean, you could, I guess, but it would not be the medium width isn't suitable to make that U-turn. And problem is they may try and it's not going to work very well. You're try you're kind of funneling them into a problem. So, we if we can widen the medium, we can get the widths to do the the U-turn. That McBride that McBride project

they were going to have pretty much every property. to use every property except one. So, I'm I'm sure that you guys are doing this for a reason, but I'm like I'm just thinking that some of these driveways are going to have an awful long drive to do a U-turn to come back to go back into town center, we might, which is what it is. But if if down the road future planning we think that hey this is probably going to be the most likely entrance to a new development should that come in here probably want to build that median accordingly. That's so that's what right now would be planned that not only this but also from the northern end that any development if it were to happen would have to go in

would need to go here. Then I mean I I'm just saying the second house in has got an awful long ways to go to come back around at the town center which if it is what it is but just sort of seems like a weird this this seems just a little odd to me because this guy's got to come all the way down and around or he'll illegally go that way which is more likely. So we want to I would if it's possible I think we should maybe try to avoid that. Joe, he's just gonna park in his driveway and walk across. Yeah, that's true. I guess maybe you're just walking that way. I mean, I think this is supposed to be I think there's two there. Okay,

but maybe not. I mean, I don't, you know, I'm just saying we want to try to be as fair as we can. Yeah, there will be a curve cut wherever there's a curve current just All right. Well, I'm excited. This looks cool. I hope we see it. Yeah. Anybody have anything else? Uh, I know this is a just a for information item.

Yeah. one item just it seems like there has been some verbal support but with us moving forward with you know right-ofway uh establishing rightway on this and there's going to be a lot more discussion obviously with the development proposal coming back um the department did you know it's included under the prior priority matrix that was just reviewed as a tier one project if I just wanted to kind of see if that that is also aligned with what the committee's thinking we don't want to be pushing forward on gas if okay I mean I would say if it's I mean if it's a tier one project and we've had a lot of these I mean I personally I think unless you hear somebody go don't do that you should be doing all of the things

that's we're looking forward to thank you all right um up next our uh fall tree project

council member Sher Palmer um this is a uh recommendation to move forward with another tree planting project uh this fall uh this is consistent with our activities for several years now. In large part um because of the emerald ashore, we've had to replant trees to try to make up the ones that we have lost. We're actually with this project, assuming we move forward, we will actually be pretty close to matching the trees we've lost by replanting. So, we're getting to that point where we can say we've replanted um to replace lost trees. Well, that's a really a really good thing because it's taken a few years to get there. So, um, we would like to move forward with another 200 tree planting project this fall. Omni Tree Service, uh, was a low bid from the last proposal that we put on the street about a year ago. They've actually agreed to hold their prices from spring um, and last year. So, what we are putting together for you tonight is a recommendation to move forward with a project with Omni Tree Service to replant 200 more trees um at a cost of $88,000. Again, that is using their bid price from a year ago. Uh the cost was $440 per tree. Again, this will be number 15 container stock, which is the smaller trees. Um but by and large, we found them to be pretty successful. Um, and people are a little bit patient. They do catch up generally speaking with the bigger stuff when when it's in the ground after a few years. So, um, that is the recommendation. Um, and having a arburish on staff is hugely beneficial to us in the success of this project. Um, I guess I'll stop now and if there's any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Mr. Mayberry. Uh, motion for approval. All right. Second. Second by Mr. Backer. Uh any discussion? All right. All those in favor with moving ahead with our tree program, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Yeah. And just I mean for those of you guys that are new, just so you know, Mike now goes out uh and assesses whether these trees made it or not and marks them. And so they're getting if they don't make it, they're getting replaced, which is great because we went for a couple years. We tried to do it as best we could, but it was a little bit harder to do. So Mike Mike's I will keep saying Mike is doing a awesome job. Every time I interact with him I learn something new which is great. He's also ram rod and the tree pruning removal.

Yeahing safety issues. So he's earning his key. He's doing good stuff. Um all right. So that brings us to the snow policy. Tom, did you want to hold off on this or Yes, hold off on it. Okay. Uh so somebody would like to do you need a motion to hold off or we just Yeah. Okay. We'll do a Anybody care to make a motion? We're going to hold on the snow policy one more time. Made by Mr. Mabry, second by Mr. Backer. Uh, yes, sir. Thank you.

Uh, can we eradicate all the qualitative um adjectives and replace them with quantitative terminology, the shell, the the shoulds. I I'm I'm probably becoming known as the guy that eats the shoods and the cans and the mites in the maze. It's it's a shell. The contractors really love having concrete definitive deliverables, but then providing them wiggle words just encourages them to wiggle and then the city ends up suffering faint confusion. So there were quite a few of them just just to labor my point generally would be about

if we'd like to discuss it, we can certainly talk about it. It's on the agenda. Council member.

Well, it's just that it it's it's not worth really continuing to make this an issue for tonight. It can be if the if this city agrees if the staff agrees that um there would be reason to contemplate the advantages and the benefits to the staff and the city to changing things like goals into deliverables. So goals category would become deliverables category and it it really it the contractors are going to add a safety of a couple few percent. To when there's a question of doubt, hey, we better side to the to the side of of of coverage instead of thinking we can uh confuse our way out of this as a deliverable instead of just a goal. That's really all any more than I'm I'm just going to sound like I'm preaching.

All right, we'll talk about it. Well, you still want to make the motion or no? Oh, yeah. Okay. That we motion second. All those in favor? I I one more month. We're going to get to this before it snows. I I swear. Uh okay. Um Moda supplemental agreement request.

Uh Chair Farmer, Council members, this last one I think is a pretty simple one. So, um the Green Pines Park nectar path project is moving forward. We are um in progress with design of the project. However, we are a little behind u getting uh the easements that we need to acquire for that project. As a result, we requested and received a one-year extension essentially from East West Gateway to complete the project and get it on the street for bidding. So um with that extension request in approval, MODOT is requesting that we issue or execute a supplemental agreement with MODOT formalize the extension of the schedule uh with MODOT. So this is a uh request to move forward with the execution of a supplemental agreement that documents the scheduled extension and there is no cost to the city uh direct cost to do the supplemental agreement is to extend the schedule for the project. And with that I'll wrap up. If there's any specific questions I'll do my best to address Mrs.

All right. Any questions? make a motion to approve as this as he Mr. Brown laid out. Sorry. All right. Motion made by Mr. Becker. Anybody care to second? Seconded by Mr. Vanic. All those in favor, please say I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, you've got your supplemental agreement. Um, that brings us to miscellaneous items. I don't have anything. You got anything, Tom? Anybody else? Okay, awesome. Who would like to make a motion to adjourn? Made by Mr. Backard, seconded by Mr. Vanic. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone oppose? Any obstensions? All right. Thanks everybody. It's been a long evening, but I think we got some good stuff done.