Administration / Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

Test test test audio.

All right. Now you're uh welcome everybody to the March administration public works committee meeting for the city of Wildwood. Uh I don't think I've got too much to add. Just we got a pretty good agenda here this evening. So it should be a good conversation. So I wanted to do our roll call. Council member Preston. Council member Mabberry here. Council member Nyan here. Chair Farmer here. Council member Marshall present. Council member Bocker. Council member Vanic

here. Council member Als here. All right, we've got Council Member Alers on Zoom. Um with that, we'll go to uh the approval of minutes. Does anybody want to make a motion or have any questions, concerns, thoughts, etc.? I motion. All right. Mr. Mabry makes a motion to approve the minutes. Anybody care to second? Mr. Marshall will second it. Uh, any discussion? All right. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Our minutes from the February meeting pass. That brings us to public uh participation. Did you want to speak or are you just observing? Okay. Uh before we do this real quick, um if you have not spoken before, you get five minutes. Just kind of uh say your name, your address if you're not in Wildwood or your ward, and we go from there.

Okay. Uh my name is Trentine. I'm W one. Uh my concern is the lack of action of the subcommittee regarding the deer calling. your tasked with 120 days to report back to the city council on December 8th. It has now been 3 months. It's not been on the minutes. I find it curious as that doesn't suggest any serious conversation or discussion given the amount of debate that occurred on December 8th about the ability of local uh participants to support this effort. I also have other concerns that go more I don't represent any uh archery group. I don't have a business. I'm not seeking a contract with the city. I'm merely a taxpaying resident. And my concern is what appears to be a lack of consideration for alternate solutions to this problem. Not even debating the existence of the problem. That's a completely different conversation. But I know it was mentioned in the December 8th meeting and I believe it was mentioned in last month's city council meeting as well about reducing the uh minimum acreage or hunting requirements in the city. And I'm curious to see what the subcommittee has done to consider that as a viable solution to expand the huntable property to further enable the people that do hunt the ability to help

reduce this population uh whatever that'll be. I know in your report it was accounted that uh one of the concerns was the uh carcasses on the side of the road. I haven't seen or heard any conversation or discussion about what the what a proposal would be uh to heighten civic awareness about the resource to report these or if the issue is that the county is nonresponsive. What does the subcommittee propose to do to rectify that as we're paying tax dollars for a service that would seemingly not being rendered to the residents? Um, I'd also uh submit that I think there's a a mindset shift uh that we could do well with if we don't consider this particularly a city problem as much as it is a personal problem. Uh, one of the concern areas was deer uh eating the local flora. not my responsibility to pay to kill the local wildlife population because my neighbor chose to plant tunias. Just not my tax burden to deal with that issue. If they have a problem with that, then they should seek solutions within the confines of their property to address that deer population. But the wholesale slaughter that we have s seen over the last couple years of our wildlife population seems a little bit overreactive or a weed. So

roadside population with car damages still waiting on the results I believe of the latest report of the efficacy in the last couple years on that. I don't understand that basis of a population concern but some of the other approaches that go here. I believe there are no cost solutions. Has the sub has the subcommittee considered the possibility of allowing local hunters to hunt over bait increasing their efficacy of harvesting deer during the seasons? Has this subcommittee considered uh implementing a dough first policy within the city limits that would suggest that before you can harvest a buck, you have to harvest two. I believe that's the standard in the uh Babler State Park uh special hunt that they have there. they implement that requirement and that would be an effective way as we've debated that the dual population tends to be the progenitor of the larger population. So I I know my time is expiring so I would like to see and I'm curious to hear what this is and I I mean we only have one month left on this. Thank you.

Sure. So uh just to be clear so public comment is just that it's comment. It's not really designed for us to interact and answer some questions.

Um but uh we will certainly be having that conversation here shortly. Um one thing I would suggest is um you have a lot of great questions and we'll get around to having those conversations. Um but the way that we do these things is is just structured somewhat oddly in different ways. And so in this case, um, our conversation that will happen is really about the feasibility of incorporating bow hunters in the overall culling program, whatever that program might look like. At the moment, that program is non-existent because it is put on pause. But we have a we have a concept of a program that was approved. So before we can get to any of these other things, we have to one determine if we can fit it into what we're doing and then two adjust whatever we're doing accordingly. So this is a very long process. Um when I I'm probably well Ed might have been around for some of it, but you know when I came on the count in 2019, uh this had already been discussed for several years before I got involved in the conversation and it went on for several years after that. So, um I know it is a uh I know it is an item that is very important to a number of people and we want to do it the appropriate amount of justice to have that conversation and so we will but it is it is going to just be segmented out because that's the way that it works. We it's not like we kind of wave a magic wand and make things you know happen. Um but I can tell you just off the top of my head unless Mr. Lee says differently. I mean, depending on where deer are on the road, if it's a if it's a on 100, if it's a state road, MDOT, you know, if it's county road, it's the county, if it's a wilder road, it's us. Um, but it's usually picked up pretty quickly when we make a call, they go and and get

them. And depending on which road it is, um, if it's a city road, the city is responsible for that stuff. If it's not, then the corresponding body is responsible for the cost of that. Um, but it it does happen. And I mean they they get those things um picked up. I would suggest that we as a city get our roads picked up usually a little bit faster than the other ones, but they do come through and and pick them up. So um so we'll have that conversation, but just know um we'll we'll try to get as many answers as we can to those questions, but it's going to be kind of a segmented conversation for sure. Here's a note too on that. Uh when we do respond to deer hitting the road, either be on a state route or

I'm sorry. when uh that's all right. Um when we do respond to a deer that's been hit on the road or we pick them up, when the police get called out, we do record that data. So we'll see if someone goes out, a police officer records an actual accident where an accident report was filed. And if they go out there and have to put down a deer because it was hit, in that case, those are also recorded. So obviously that's more of a conservative base, an estimate, but we do have a reporting mechanism and if folks do reach out to us, we can include that. Um, we try to have when we talk to folks, if you want to email, if you're listening to this, if you email dear@c cityofwood.com, we can incorporate that data as well. But we typically want to use the police data on one side because those are police officers that see it in person. U, they know for a fact that the deer was hit. Uh, when we get the anecdotal data, sometimes it does come through as, hey, I saw a deer a few weeks ago. We can usually track that down if we removed it on our roadway, but on a state roadway, we don't necessarily get those invoices. So, I just wanted to call out the we do have some data that shows how many deer are being hit.

Awesome. All right. Thank you for coming. You're more than welcome to stick around. It's I'm sure going to be very exciting here coming up. Um but we understand if if you don't want to. Um All right. Uh I don't see anybody else online. Brennan, I don't think we've got if anybody right.

Wild M Brands. Yeah. Go ahead and say, "Sir, uh, he's using the raise hand feature." We do have one. Uh, yeah. Um, sorry, that's my Zoom account. I'm Tom Mitchell. Okay. Uh, did you want to make a public comment? Yes, sir, I do. So, can I ask first, who was that that just spoke? Maybe. Yeah. Well, Bodin. Trent Bodin, I think, is his name. We'll we'll get it off the recording later. Okay. Yeah. I just He did a great job. I didn't know who that was. You can all hear me? Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I thank you. I wanted to be there tonight, but I couldn't be there for logistical reasons. I just wanted to go on record uh to state a couple things. Number one, as Mr. Bodí or whoever that was just clearly stated the council stated at the December 8th meeting and the city has on its own website right now that this committee was directed to assess the deer management program and how local bow hunters could potentially be incorporated into future deer culling efforts. Then to report back to the city council by April 7th. So far, to my knowledge, nothing's been done. And to my knowledge, this is unprecedented that the council would direct a committee to take up a very contentious and according to the city, a very important issue. And for it to not go anywhere is perplexing to me as a novice person that's been involved in civics just the past few months. And it's perplexing to a lot of people that are in the inside as well. This election that's coming up has been used as an excuse. That was the excuse to move it back 120 days at the city council meeting on December 8th. The original proposal was to have a proposal done by today, 90 days, and still nothing's been done. But the election is not an excuse to delay. Uh there was no election in January or February or March. and an election does not preclude the advancement of the people's business and if there is in fact a dear problem and this committee is not taking action in my opinion this is a breach of duty it's a violation of my trust and the public trust it's simply wrong and frankly it's a little bit irresponsible so my question is as I asked in the last

council meeting when Will this deer hunting program be added to this committee's agenda? Thank you. Thanks for the comment. Um okay. Um moving forward unless I don't see any other participants while we've got our panelists. Okay. Uh not seeing anybody else. We'll close public comment. And that brings us to um our review of the fiscal year 2026 municipal building capital improvement plan. Tom, I assume that's

Yes, it is. Thank you, chair. Uh wanted to quickly go over tonight uh discussions that had taken place at a at a previous ad hoc building committee kind of rounding out plans for how to utilize the $300,000 budgeted and the capital improvement plan for 2026. Uh the ad hoc building committee did meet on the vast majority of these items u included in the plan tonight. Uh but wanted to go through these as well from the administrative body just to make sure we're all on the same page. We're heading in the right direction. Um we'll go through a couple of these repairs today. There is one that was added in between the meetings uh based off a recent repair visit. U so I wanted to bring that up as well and get feedback from the committee. But on the February 23rd, 2026 ad hoc building committee, this was reviewed along with a couple other items. But the idea behind it is 300,000 will go towards um first the biggest issue that we have is engineering a solution to the southside basin and BMP and the two uh leaks that are caused by it or in some fashion an issue for us on the south side of the building. The idea right now is to do some preliminary testing, maybe get a firm to come in and organize a way to move the basin itself away from the building. That's going to be the ultimate goal. But in the meantime, um there's also an effort now to look at it and possibly identify that either do we need to go through and waterproof the entire side of the wall on the south facing side of the the building or is it maybe something else. We're looking at possibly doing some tests right now to do just that. U so that's the biggest issue. More than happy to discuss that. That could probably take up a whole meeting like it did. Um nonetheless, uh getting to some of the more housekeeping items that we plan on doing. Uh we do have some interior damage that was caused by two other leaks that were addressed last year. So we had a leak in the upstairs kitchen. We had a leak near the uh near the clock tower on the second floor as well. And if you go to those two areas of the building, you'll notice a little bit of the uh the

drywall has kind of eroded away from the the leakage. You'll see that stain. The idea would be to have a contractor come in, remove it, and replace it so it looks consistent with the surrounding architecture and drywall that exists. Uh the other item that was discussed a little bit of the bigger ticket item was a key card access system. Uh initial quote that we received was about 67,000 um for that and it was budgeted with Prop P monies la last fiscal year. So getting around to do just that. Uh so that's part of it. And then exterior improvements to the metal and woodwork. We'll call that the metal trellis that's on the front side of the building. The idea would possibly remove that. Uh, also it would include if you are on both the east and west side of the building, you'll see fascia boards that are kind of in a crisscross pattern. Uh, the idea would be to remove that as well or to seal it, make it look better. Uh, and then also the trellis that's on the south side of the building too along that walkway. I don't think the the plan would be to to remove that, but it would be more so to seal it or see what it's going to take to salvage it. Uh because the wood does seem to be deteriorating at a pretty rapid pace. Uh so that's really the exterior wood and metal work. Um we do plan as well to do a roof cleaning on the south facing side. Uh actually the north facing side, I apologize for that typo. Uh the north facing side of the building you'll notice is a little bit it looks a little bit dirtier than the south facing side. It's due to sunlight. Um so the idea we don't necessarily need to pay for a power washing of the entire roof. Um we can do just the side of the roof that doesn't get as much sun. So we'll be doing that. Uh HVAC repairs. We're actually looking to publish an RFP for that uh momentarily, very close. And the idea would be also, this was from the committee, we'll make these repairs, but then also start assessing whether or not uh we need to possibly replace the full system or if there's a way to maybe make it simpler, uh make it a little bit more able to avoid these costly repairs in

the future. I will say that just given the the cost of the system itself, it does seem that no matter what, if we're powering this size of a building, it seems from the initial conversations, it's going to be pretty expensive and cost prohibitive to replace it. But there may be some options to be able to at least replace the automated side of it where we can make some improvements and make it cheaper. Uh we're going to be working on HBAC duck cleaning. Uh we're going to do that after we do the HVAC system repairs, just as a FYI. U but we do plan to do that this year. And the idea would be that you're going to have to close city hall um for probably one day. They'll come in on a weekend and then there will most likely need to be one day where we're outside of the building and we'll have to coordinate with police on that. Um the clock tower light, if you notice, there's a light bulb that is out on the uh that would be the east facing wall and there's two lights that make up the light that goes behind the actual clock itself. The idea would be just to go up there. The problem with this is that we have to have the uh elevator company on site to be able to access the the panel that has the light. So, we're working on that now. Um, and it should be cheaper than what's listed here. Uh, but just wanted to be safe with that estimate because we haven't actually gotten a full estimate because we need the elevator contractor there. Uh, spiral staircase doing some revitalization. There is a wood covering along a metal staircase if you see in the middle of the foyer here. Um, we'll be either replacing or repairing any damage to that. Uh good news is it's all metal and it just has the wood as a kind of an accent. Um it'll be to improve and make that look a little bit better. Um there's going to be an effort to redesign and study the front stairs at the entrance of the building on the north facing side. Uh this is going to take a little bit more time to do the study of it, how to replace it. That said, in the meantime, we're planning some type of idea to either make it very bright and noticeable that you're going down two stairs. And then the last one I wanted to bring up here and this is the new one that I wanted to get committee feedback on is we had at the time we thought we might be in good shape. The

council chamber audio systems working really well right now. Um it was not having I mean everybody here was at the last council meeting. There were issues with some of the uh the volumes of people speaking. Some folks sounded you know pretty mute and the others maybe sound a little bit louder. Um, we did have TSI, our audio consultant, come out and they were able to go in the back end and stabilize all of the the volume if you will, all the audio mics. So, all those are sounding great. Um, that's the good news, but the problem is it seems that the inputs on the back end, so the equalizer if you will, that is eroded over time. Typically, those systems are meant to last about 5 years. Uh, ours has lasted about 12. So, we've gotten our use out of it. Um, so they had recommended possibly going in and not we won't necessarily have to replace the entire microphone system, the mics that you see on the dis because those are still relatively good shape. U, it would be and we could show the committee here in the ad hoc building committee too. Um, it would actually be going in and replacing what's on the rack and the back end. So the the computer if you will, the equalizer that takes all the audio input and then you know stabilizes it for our Zoom meetings, etc. Uh we may have to look at our speakers as well, but overall the idea would be to kind of do a partial rebuild, if you will. Also clean up the wiring while we're out there. But that can keep cost relatively low while also making sure that the audio doesn't keep doing what it's doing now, where in 2024 we did exactly what we did a couple days ago, last week, and it fixes the problem intermittently, but after, you know, give it a couple months, it'll start to fade again. And it just seems that the inputs on the back end are starting to not work as well, which I am not an audio engineer, but u it doesn't ne they they confirmed and the reason why we were confident uh that we might not have to do this was we thought that doing this practice, we thought someone might have kicked it or moved the dial, hit the back rack with uh you know t-shirts when they were

moving stuff in for an event. Um it doesn't seem like that's the case. What they're seeing on the back end is some damage. So, the idea would be to replace and actually mount the rack that powers the audio to the wall in there. Um, so that we're able to avoid having those issues where people hit them and moving the buttons away from underneath the counters, things along those lines. So, that's the thing that's added. Um, if that's something we want to, you know, tackle, more than happy to config, uh, go ahead and start talking about it with TSI and then we'll probably have to bid that project out. Um, but just wanted to get that ball rolling as well. Department's available for any questions. I know we also have I forgot the other flip side of this but the other thing that was discussed u at that comm uh committee meeting there was a few things but a important finding at the back end was the development of a maintenance plan long-term uh for the building so that we can stay ahead of some of these repairs and then the secondary component of that was making it possible for us to um really like allocate a certain percentage of funding each year towards our buildings maintenance and make sure that that doesn't get lost of sight it's secure legally so that everyone knows it's almost like uh you know our road our road maintenance budget that we put together. It's you know we don't necessarily decrease it unless we see an absolute uh trend downwards in revenue. So that's the idea behind it and the uh policy that was put forth was to put aside some money almost like a rainy day fund for the building but that would what I could almost see it being is almost like a $300,000 budget each year to do constructive maintenance and do proactive maintenance after we get caught up on a few things. There's quite a bit of money budgeted in the five-year. There's a million dollars in 2029 that could be used in that five-year plan, but the idea would be that's going to include completely redoing the basin over here. Um, and moving it probably on the village green property. So, that's just a part of it. Uh, and then a few other projects that are going to have to tie into that like putting asphalt or some type of material that's going to keep the water away from the south facing side of the building. But the department's available for any

questions. I know uh the last item was added. Oh, was that at the same time? All right. Anybody have any chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for the bulleted items as they're stated. Ad hoc building committee endorsement next steps and that uh move ahead with that as stated. It was pretty succinct, clear, all detailed. I don't see why can't be made. Small questions remain. Have at it. All righty. We've got a motion. Anybody care to second it? I can second it. All right. Any discussion? I have a question. Yes, sir.

Is the sound system worth putting another 20 to $25,000 in it?

Well, this this No, that's that that's exactly right. So, we would be replacing this. When I say sound system, I'm talking about the rack. And that's technically the sound system. the I would say you can salvage the the microphones because the two the two baby mics that we have in there that weren't the bottle uh the gooseenecks when we were able to equalize the volume on the back end. You can go in there now and talk into it. It sounds fine. Those uh condensers are working actually really well and those are pretty topend u top quality microphones for board type meetings. It's not something you'd want at a pop concert, but for board meetings, it's one of the more selected uh selected brands and you know, type those would be incredibly expensive to replace. But nonetheless, uh those ones don't age as as badly as the

I'm just saying the sound system itself. The mic I get that part. I just question the sound system itself. There's so so much improvement in what it is. To think you're buying a sound system for five years these days just doesn't seem to like that makes a lot of sense. Nor did we buy one for 10 years. I'm just curious if that's the useful life because really we don't use a sound system here as much as you would in other businesses.

No. And and that's there and we actually if you look at it, it's interesting you say that when they look at the logged hours and you compare it to their normal five-year life cycle. Ours is much lower. It we do not use the sound system nearly as much as like a board meeting would for a corporation. Uh nonetheless, that's probably why we were able to get 10 years out of it. We're just now starting to see the trailing. The the whole thing is right now over time usually it works fine. Those inputs are set and if as long as no one gets in there on the back end or messes with the dial, they they should be stable. What's happening now is that the the microphones, what they're hooked up to, the computer, the brain behind the the wall, if you will, is not taking in that input as well as it should, and that it's producing, you know, a softer output. So, the idea would be to go in the back and replace the entire rack and the backend materials. So, you still have a lot of the front-facing items. I mean, that doesn't mean you're we're getting a new camera or anything like that. I know that's something we might want to look at, but this would mean that each meeting we are guaranteed to have stable audio at least for the time being. So, I'd say yes, it like it worked for 10 years. It's been a problem the whole 10 years.

It has. So, my my concern is if you're doing the same thing, we're just putting another 20,000 in it and going to do the same thing. Is that really a good investment of $20,000? I I don't know. I'm just saying they've never worked right. Well, I don't think they worked right last night in planning and zoning either.

I'm I'm kind of I mean I do some work with this kind of stuff differently. It's not attached to buildings, but usually with equipment like this, if you use it too much, that's not good. If you don't use it enough, that's also not good. So, um I would say like we we need to get it fixed because it is very bad. But I am I I am of the opinion and um I I feel like this is kind of what we talked about in the building meeting that you know a lot of these things whether it's the sound system or the cameras or or whatever it is we need to get that room functioning the way that it should kind of I mean I'm not saying regardless of price but really I think we need to stop trying to fix everything with like duct tape and bailing wire and just fix it. So if we get, you know, the microphones, if they work fine, great. I would recommend get two extra ones just so we have them in the if we need them. But the rest of that stuff, I I mean, if that's the best solution, that's fine. I would really look seriously at just what does it cost to get this the right way because there has been an inordinate amount of change in the technology in the last 10 years for sure

since cos a whole lot of stuff too and and and I think that's kind of one of those things which we'll which we also talked about. We'll talk a little bit more, I think, on this next thing, but you know, that's one of those items that once we get it in place that um if we go with the building manager or whatever it is, those are things we can say this is in place and it's going to we're going to be it's going to last 5 years. We think if it doesn't last 5 years,

whatever. But, you know, part of what we do to try to be transparent and and keep records of these things is we we have to have functioning audio. We have to have video. I mean, we have video technically in that room. We have it in this room. It's just it's just it's just not very good. I mean, it the angle is weird. You can't see half the people in the room. You can't really see who's talking unless you know people's voices. So, I I just think we need to look at like we did with the sound system in here. Like, we we need to look at whatever the best solution is to that and and and do that. And if [clears throat] uh No, that's okay.

I was going to say when they come out to do like the initial assessment to to do what we were talking about here, I mean, they can offer that that as a solution to do a full rebuild. It's going to be expensive. Add in the the tracking. I would I would assume if if if money wasn't a topic here, I would say add in one of the tracking cameras. Um put in some Sure speakers as a backup. You'd have probably two of these tiles installed on top of new audio on the actual DIS itself. Um you're going to have a little bit more of a hot mic situation. But what those serve as is almost a backup to your your audio that you have coming through the main microphone. But that probably would start creeping towards the you could spend $80 to $100,000 on audio and visual in that in that room. So that maybe finding a middle ground.

I I just think well I would just say this. I think like we're going to do here in a minute with our conversation about the the police contract. Like as a council member, I would rather be able to figure out how much money do I want to invest in making sure people can see and hear what we're saying. And if it's 100,000, like to me, I think if that's what fixes the problem, that's what fixes the problem. That's just the cost of doing business. That's how it works. Um, you know, alternatively, we could just all get computers and turn our Zooms on and that solves a big part of that problem, too. So I I would just say coming back when it comes I would suggest I don't know that it needs to stop here necessarily or unless unless you want to bring it back in the ad hoc thing but when it comes to the work session or wherever it is like I think we need to offer I would suggest that you guys offer like an an actual decision. It's $20,000 to fix what we have and it sort of works or you know it's $100,000 to do this or everybody's getting this and we're turning our Zooms on and that's how it's going to work. It it doesn't personally it doesn't make any difference to me. I mean, I have my Zoom on now so people can see and hear me, and you know, that's fine. Um, but I just think I think that's a better way to go. I'm not opposed to we It just needs to be fixed. And at this point, like I would rather fix it right the first time than have to fix it and come back again.

Yeah. No, I I get you that that's it's replace it is replacing the whole thing like that. This is this is a good first step. Yeah. And it might correct. Yeah, it might correct. It it would correct. And the thing that I we could look at with twofold is that you come in, you replace the if you replace the back end, we could make it so it's set up and we could have options. I mean, they they will come in and try to quote us out for well and it might be, hey, we're going to fix we're going to fix the sound system this year and next year we're going to fix the cameras or whatever it is

that I think can be done. And at the end of the day, too, it's going to probably tie into the the projector as well. There's a couple different factors that play into this, but at the end of the day, we might have to break it up like sound, audio, and then visual for uh well really camera um etc. But yes, either way, the first step is going to be having TSI come out do the full audit evaluation of the current equipment and then coming back with a recommendation like they did here, uh which they were able to fix this room. So, I I have a lot of confidence in their abilities, but once we get that quote back, we'll bring it back here um or the building committee. Uh and then at that point, we'll we'll probably have to bid this project out, but we'll be able to bring it back for consideration.

Cool. All right. So, we have a first and second. Um any other questions, concerns, discussion?

Just a quick question. Um, regarding the the leakage in the drywall in the kitchen and and the tower here, is this because of the do we know what the leakage is caused by? Is it is it roof? Is it flashing? Is it siding? Is it the is it the settling of the the the foundation problems? Yeah, we can tell for uh now it's four, but two of the leaks for sure have an have a conclusive evidence of what was causing them because we fixed them. U the clock tower there was what what fixed the problem was masonry restoration work and we added guttering. If you actually go up to the second floor there um where the clock tower is you'll see well you won't see the masonry restoration. what they went in and they put sealant in on the areas that look deteriorated. And then they also, a different company that bid on the project as well, added guttering to the sides to drive water away from that area where water was pooling. What it really was was there's this little bridge between the buck tower and the building's envelope and water was pooling on pretty much brick and over time it just sat there, sat there, sat there and eventually it started creeping its way in. They pretty much took all that out, replaced it to the core, and added a um a waterproofed uh type material to put on top of a sealant. And then they added the guttering, which now brings that water away, which that's great. The leak hasn't had any issues since uh the clock, the kitchen leak on the second floor. Similar issue. We had a u a leak coming in, and this one was somewhat easy to identify cause. We have a dormer on the south facing side of the building and there was both a wind there's a window over there and you'll see there's like almost like these little slits at a 45 degree angle downward and what those slits are is that's the uh HBAC system where they pull where it pulls in air. Uh when the building was constructed they should

have put gutters on that dormer. Uh I don't know why but they didn't. And water if you look at the dormer it's at almost like a a very slight slope. So water would just pull on the dormer and it would slowly drip downward and it would drip eventually but it would slowly drip downward and then as air was being pulled in and also as the uh the sealant along the edges of the window kind of deteriorated over time it just started seeping right in and that's what caused the issue. So what we did was we added guttering up there. Haven't had an issue since. So we're just effectively directing the water away. Uh we've done that to all the dormers except the north facing one because we have to add this special uh here's another little quirk here too. They they encompassed each dormer with this copper uh type material and if you put copper on copper it creates an issue where eventually you're going to produce a leak. So the idea is we're going to have to put an EDPm type plastic material. It actually lessened the price a little bit on the south the north facing side, but you put that on there as a almost as a buffer between two pieces of copper. But the problem area on the south side, so the police station leak and then the uh now the women's restroom on the first floor here, not as bad, but something that has peaked its head around. We do believe that it's something to do either with the basin or the vegetation roof over on the the south side of the building. We don't know for sure. We originally had identified a corner where we ran water. We were able to determine a leak was generated from that water being ran in the corner. We sealed and fixed that. But after that com after we did that, it still leak. So now it's is it further down? We're planning to measure it out and run a hose against the wall practically and test it. But it it just it is somewhat confusing because it doesn't seem where you would think the water's getting in at. It doesn't seem to be getting in at that place. But it comes back to a very simple conclusion that that basin that's situated right on the building that wasn't a good place to

put it. Even if it we find out that that has nothing to do with the leaks um that us moving that basin is going to be a long-term good for the city. All right. Anything else? Okay. All those of basically accepting um these items and pushing them forward, please say I I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Uh, you want to do the framework then, I guess, next, Tom, or is that kind of council rules? What's that? The council rules procedure rules. Yeah.

Okay. Um, all right. Real quick. This was stemming from a recent change by the city council. Section 1110.20 uh. 2110. uh subsection 11 was recently changed to make it so when a reconsideration of a motion is taking place at the council level um that it's now no longer with the majority of it's with the prevailing side and the reason for that uh was because it created some instances where you would actually have a minority um not vote in in the not in the affirmative and then you actually could have a a bill fail and then an individual from the losing side could bring that back up. So now it's prevailing side and that is consistent with Robert's rules. Um when we identified that issue and that's law now but when we identified that issue u there was discussion about is there any of these other Easter eggs or um these other big inconsistencies that sat within section 110.210 which is the rules of procedure for the city council and how it operates that we might want to revisit and update for uh to make it more consistent with Robert's rules of order. went through and there was nothing that was that um let's just say as as inconsistent with Robert's rules as that provision um and everything else like the remote pol the remote participation policy. Uh Robert's rules doesn't necessarily cover that in all too much detail. So there some things that the code has done to make it flexible with time. We changed that with COVID. Uh everything else though is more so specific to Wildwood and there was nothing that you know was a clear one to one. So the department's recommending and this is anformational item tonight. Uh the committee had requested a review of that section to make sure it was consistent. Uh after review the department believes there's no no further changes are necessary since we made that change to subsection 11.

Mr. commercial. My question would be is you need to refer to the date that Robert's rules of order were are being used in this. They change all the time. This is the third version. I think we got the 12th version out on the the counter. So, anybody who's looking at this without knowing the actual date. I think that should probably just be a suggestion that we put it in there so that we know what version that you're working with. Yep. We can fix that. Anything else?

Oh, yeah. My second question is I I really believe that for our council members and for [snorts] me you need to do a better job of explain prevailing. So for an example if a vote is lost 8 to 8 to six prevailing if it's the majority is eight but my understanding of Robert's rules of order were it failed because of the nos.

Yes. So that can be considered prevailing for years. If you knew something's counting heads, if you knew something was going down, vote it down so you could bring it back up two weeks later. So I just I'm not real sure as I read it that I understand is prevailing the lack of passing it or is it the quantity of votes? Well, it depends on the motion, but for a ordinance, if you're on the prevailing side for a failed ordinance, so it didn't get enough votes to pass at nine. It's a little different for that because not you need nine to pass an ordinance in wild. So, if there were eight, the side that lost would be the eight. That's the prevail the prevailing side is the I would say the other the ones that did not vote with the eight. Sorry, that sounds confusing. I rest my case. I I just I honestly believe that you set out here on the council DS people will give you three different answers to it and prevailing I think the word itself

is a little confusing but that's the either winning or losing seems to be a little bit simpler that's just my opinion and I just know in the past if you wanted to make sure you could bring it back up because you were short council members or a couple people voted the wrong way you would immediately vote with the losing side because then you had a right to bring they they six might not want to bring it back up. But if you were the seventh vote, then you were able to bring it back for reconsideration.

When we're only meeting once a month, it's even more difficult because if it's something timely, you lose it and and then you got to call special meeting, which we've done hundreds of those over the years, 48 hour notice, but you've then you've got to have enough people show up and everybody's got a busy schedule. So I just think re and I know it's probably perfect and legally reviewed. I just don't think the common person understands that. So you So in this case, would it be helpful to have like a a common sense maybe with some examples and scenarios for what prevailing means? Because I will say that that's already law. We changed it from majority to understand.

But that night I bet if I I bet if I ask everybody that night, I'll bet it been right down the middle split. People thought it was the wrong side. So in that case based off the legal interpretation would it be helpful to the committee and the council if when this gets brought up for this is a larger item but we can have at the top here is a conceptually agreed upon in writing so it's easy to understand. And I know it's with numbers you can start talking a little wordy here, but having that listed with examples for here's an ordinance, here's what a supermajority would look like, here's what a simple motion at a work session would look like. This is what prevailing means. And if the council agrees with that, then they can make a motion to accept that definition of prevailing as well. We'll make that consistent with Robert's rules, how Robert's rules defines it. But if there's objection, I mean, I guess we'd have to have that discussion, too. But I do think it's important that everyone's on going from the same terms for what

totally agree. Can I ask? But I think it's confusing. So, a lot of people just vote not to ask the dumb question. Yeah. No, I'm serious. I mean, I just think if if you don't really understand it, but I just watched faces when people were that was coming up and I don't think people understood it. And usually prevailing means you change the direction. A no vote changes a direction. But that's not the quantity prevailing. That's the minority. So, and it used to say vote with the minority, you get a reconsideration. So it had nothing to do whether it's eight or nine votes. It's just the fact that that's kind of the way that it was done and I know the laws constantly change. But I just think everybody should be really understand. I see your hand up. Cliff, give me one sec. That's fine. [clears throat]

No, I totally agree. You got anything else? No. All right, Cliff. Okay. Sorry if I'm not You can't hear me very well with this cold. Uh can maybe explain like we had the vote in January on this subject. Um would that change anything now based on what we're doing with that vote? It shouldn't but now it's it would have now.

It would have now but we have before it was majority of the council and now it's prevail the prevailing side. So now what is being requested is that we all come to a uh single definition of what the prevailing side means in a plethora of different circumstances that might happen at both the council and committee. Uh but it shouldn't require a code change unless everyone disagrees vehemently with the definition we have to change.

Yeah. So I let me take a crack at this and see if this uh simplifies it a little bit. So the the vote you're talking about that motion to reconsider in January. The the reason that that was able to happen then and and it then only then was because this wasn't in place yet. So originally like we had another one of these with uh the um Essen log cabin vote where we had I think it was eight yeses and six nos and then uh one of the one of the council members who wasn't there got on logged back on

logged in and he became the ninth vote. So because there was the majority of people voted yes that was at the time how it was written the majority of people. So that worked that time it also worked in January. Now the prevailing side on both of those issues would have been the no because the ordinance doesn't pass. So, the only like my understanding on how this worked and and until the last couple times, the only time I can remember this happening was with the uh fire station a couple years ago and I remember that um I think it was Mr. I'm pretty sure it was Mr. Bro. He came back at the next meeting and said, "I have thought a lot about this and I want to make a motion to reconsider because I was on the affirmative. I was on the passing side and I want to change my vote." So, it's the it is whichever side of the equation wins the issue. So, if you need nine votes for an ordinance and you only get eight, then the m the minority of voting members get to make a motion to reconsider, not the majority. Does that make sense?

Um, yes. But I I mean, it's still confusing. The confusing part of it is eight votes could still be the majority, but it's not enough to pass an ordinance. Correct. So it's two totally different things when it comes to as I understand Robert's rules of order is the the uh when we interpret it as a supermajority or threearters of the of the council to override veto those things are very unique to us.

I was going to say that gets to another instance. So so having would it be pertinent and I think that explaining it from an ordinance perspective as the example is that's the reason why you want prevailing over the majority because that's the best way to illustrate it. But are you saying too we can have that in the code? We I actually drafted something after that meeting uh for another council member that could just be forwarded along that showed here are the times where we need a super majority. What does that mean? Here's the number. Here are the times you just need a simple majority. It's almost like a cheat sheet, like a one sheeter, if you will, for what the vote count, what the tally needs to be to pass.

I mean, that's in a charter, but that's pretty easy to to determine. All I'm saying is I just think the prevailing and watching these three or four examples in the last year is not a good indicator of for people to know if I don't want that to happen then I vote with the nose and then it [clears throat] doesn't have enough to if I vote with the nose then I can come back and be a reconsideration even if the other five nos don't want to do it takes one vote but then you have to have someone else on the other side second that. Yeah. I mean, I I also think that I'm think and I may be I may have misinterpreted this in the December vote with the um with the White Buffalo contract, but I got the sense in the room that most of the people in the room didn't know

how many votes were necessary to pass that or not or whatever. So, it wasn't until we'd counted it all up and then it was like, "Oh, no, we you need nine." Then it became So, I just think there's a lot of those things. the six that vote against it, they they were not they didn't know that they were that that was going that way. I I some people oh I just thought that there'd be enough other people carry it. Well, that's not the way you vote. Yeah. I just think like there are quirks that we have. They're in the charter, but they are it would be we should figure out a way to communicate those a little bit better because there are times that it's just not

I think if it's not clear to people up on the DAS, it's definitely not going to be clear to people. And that's all I'm saying is I think that in here where we use the word prevailing and I I understand that we did that in the ordinance that doesn't mean we have to rewrite this. That just means we have to do a better job of explaining this. Yeah. No, I I I don't disagree that. And that said, I think what we could do is have a a one sheeter that explains like here's what prevailing means. It come I think what would be most important is the council comes to an agreed upon definition of what that prevailing means in different circumstances and that could be the one sheet. you're showing for a supermajority the prevailing side is well it' be whatever the number is over the supermajority if that passes and it's the losing side gets confusing whatever the super majority is always 12

yes no I'm sorry it's always 11 it's always 11 but that said if doesn't matter if you 12 people there or 16 in 11 agreed and that's another key factor of if you go into the code where or the charter is that sometimes it'll say the number of members present and sometimes it'll say the number of members. And that is going to be a key distinguish thing you need to know because if it's members like an ordinance, you need nine that you could have technically uh 10 people at that council meeting, you still need nine votes in the affirmative to pass it. Could we I don't know. This might not uh work, but couldn't we just on the agenda say how many votes it takes to pass something or not? Uh I mean, yeah, wouldn't don't we know that in advance? Yeah, we can include that.

I think that would make a lot more sense. Well, but then kind of I mean that's kind of where the mayor has a role in that that if they want to do a second reading, you need to so you can't do everything that way. Everybody should know that it takes nine, right? Regards to pass and then he can decide whether you need 11 or something like that if somebody wants a second reading of it. Yeah. And I mean I know I always had a cheat sheet of what those triggers were. Yeah. That that part can be done, but the thing is you don't want to and I would agree with you there. You don't want to have like because that could be construed as staff like saying we might want a second reading if it says here's how you do it but

that said if you had it next to it say it's an ordinance that is passing a simple contract which is you just need a simple nine at that point. Um, if it's just that, then perfect. Then you can have the standard, you know, needs nine in the affirmative, you pass. Uh, but if it is something like a conditional use permit that's coming in that needs a super majority. I've had several council people would not vote to spend money without having two meetings. I mean, to give people a chance to think about it. So, if it's a bunch of money, they would not vote for a second reading at all. I mean, that's their prerogative. And we've got people that never vote for privates, right? So, I mean, it takes all kinds. That's why we have 16. U Mr. Maybe you got something

only that um wondered anything that's not for the city administrator and discussion with the attorney. Anything that's not untoward in describing all the different twists and turns deserves to be divulged on a cheat sheet for the audience or DAS or the attorney to know when he's not required to interpret something because it sounds to me like we know that nothing has a right to be interpreted. Nothing. and that every wrinkle, every twist and turn, every permutation of somebody scratching their head should be on a cheat sheet. and all that you do in a meeting instead of having people like they did in December and like they did in January on a very important topic very costly to the city that it wasn't decided properly that we have whether it takes 12 or 75 items we'd go right down the list and say no sorry according to Roman numeral 7 number a 2B one we don't do it that way. Nobody's interpreting anything. Nobody's left to quizzicling anything. It's already every wrinkle's been already countered and we don't have any frustration in sessions as we've done two out of two uh meetings. So, that was all that and I really thought I heard that coming together toward the end of our questions. Is that gel? And is that all something that we can make a motion and pass and be done with it?

And is this in the vein of like we are going to almost publish it this cheat sheet that would cover all items that would say no matter what comes in front of council, here's what the votes need to be to pass it. Here are what the votes would fail. Like it's really just showing that example for every action that can potentially happen. Most will be a simple motion, but it'll go through ordinance when supermajorities are needed when there's even votes requirements that are different for uh overriding a veto. There's different voting requirements for impeachment. There are a couple different little quirk ones, but you know, we can at least have we can have all those. And honestly, we can have a published sheet in the back, too, if we want. That's a that would be a council decision if you want to have that. But continue to hear from residents, and I think they've got a point. continue to hear this persistent uh notion that the city is always trying to pull a fast one and that the city is always got their own inside uh rules and they know how to work the system so they get the end result they want. I I keep I have heard that and I've heard it for 38 years that I've lived here and I've heard it reinforced in discussion with uh the last two years from residents and now it sounds like for some whatever reason these residents are emboldened to rub my face in it even more than when I was just a mere fellow resident and the same victim as they are. It's all my preaching on this item. Anybody have anything else? Yeah, I I mean I'll just add this and I don't I mean I we can certainly work through it, but my preference on all things is to just make it as clear and obvious to everybody what is going on. I mean, we work in the public view. So, you know, things are recorded for a reason. It shouldn't be a secret. I mean, I I I think that most people

that aren't on that don't ever get to a place on a council or a board really probably don't understand the intricacies of how all of this stuff works at all. And there's a difficult I mean, there's a a pretty hefty learning curve even when you do get into these positions to figure out all the ins and outs of it. So, the more that we can be clear on that, the better. I mean, I I was looking through this and there's a couple things in here um that I you know, we do a certain thing, but like we we have a thing in here um about um public comment and in having sat in for the mayor a couple times in council meetings and doing this and other committees like the the introduction to public comment is you have, you know, you have five minutes. This is this enables you to say what you want. We generally don't respond to questions. Um, and from what I can tell, I mean, my preference would be we should just make it the way that like public comment is a separate thing. And right now, it's kind of in this weird I from what I'm reading, it's sort of

It does make it sound as if you could answer it or the mayor would decide or the councilman would decide to answer or not, right? I don't think you want to go there. Well, the council t right now the way it reads is they could but that's what I'm saying. So like so there's a to me by name

to me I think that there's like a a little bit of a it creates a a strange dynamic because you know like one of the I've had and I've had this conversation with a number of council members and just residents like the way that public comment works in in my opinion is just kind of weird. Like we had a gentleman this evening as we've had in other times that are asking questions which would be fine to answer but the way that we have it set up it makes it strange to do and it's also you know it then diverts the conversation into a whole another thing because I'm we can't debate it so I'm answering it and if they don't understand it then you get into a weird place and just as it happens the last few months many of these comments have been directed specifically at me which is okay. Um but you know like I think that people I think people in the general public, they don't understand like how motions affect what is going on. They don't understand, you know, if you know, they look at it as if they're asking a question of any of us and we don't answer, we're the bad guy, which is not actually true. We just sometimes aren't tech like able to answer it in that specific way. So, you know, a good example is, you know, with this deer thing, and everybody's been on it, like every month we get we get uh an email to all of the council members and a bunch of other people asking questions. And as council members, for the most part, we all know if any of us start responding to that, that creates a whole cascading problem that nobody wants to deal with. But the general public doesn't understand that that is the case. So, they look at us and they go, "Well, you're not answering my questions. You're obstructing all of this." And so I I just think like we should just make these things like super easy. Public comment is public comment. It's for you to say whatever you're going to say. Nobody's going to answer a question. If I afterwards want to send a message to that person outside of the meeting, that's fine. But I don't think that we want to give people the idea that somebody's going to answer a question when they're

or they're going to have another three to five minutes to ask you a follow-up question, right? You run into a problem,

right? Because that's the other side is you have five minutes and if you answer ask a question that conversation is now way beyond the five minutes and those things kind of you know get strange. So the public comment thing was something I I also read a couple things in here that and this is sort of more of just a a thing I've noticed and that goes back into the complicated nature of this like a lot of our rules seem to be attendancebased more than like practically based which seems odd. I mean I know in talking to Mr. Marshall, you know, over the years it has been difficult to get an appropriate number of council members places and that is in my opinion very unfortunate. But, you know, that to me strikes me as as a problem when everything is tied to, you know, like we've got a thing in here uh where it's like if there was 12 people that voted this time, there have to be 12 people there the next time. That like that doesn't make any sense

for a special meeting specifically. I don't care what it's for. It's just like that's but that doesn't make sense at all. It takes a quorum of nine. Yes. So it's like if if we have a quorum, we should be able to do business whether you you can't do a second reading without I was gonna say that makes sense too because this council speaks one whole body as well. So it wouldn't make sense if one person technically it we could look into that. I mean the thing is so do we want to compile a couple of these changes? What I've taken note on here is that potentially reviewing public comment whether or not we can make those changes where it's simply a an opportunity for residents to speak to members of whatever board committee commission council u but we take out the component of response from the the council. I mean,

yeah, I would I mean, I've had a number of conversations with a lot of different people and to a person, all of them have pretty much said the way that we do public comment is not particularly helpful. So, like I I would fix that just because it's in our rules, but I personally would love to have a conversation where we figure out is like are we doing this in the best possible way? Because I don't know that we are. And I think it creates, not that people shouldn't have the opportunity to [clears throat] come up and talk. They absolutely should. But we have to I think sometimes we might need to put much clearer provisions out there as to what is going on because I think that that drags

I just think in part of it is the fact that the people that are coming up that are being told to come and comment, they don't understand what they're commenting on, right? So whether you're talking Turnberry or you're talking deer kill people, well, you can't kill deer in wild. Yes, you can. you know, is you just can't kill it in somebody's backyard under three acres. So, I mean, that's kind of the mis because all these people, oh, they you should be allowed to kill them. Yeah. On your own property or you get the insurance to do it on somebody else's property, but those are the requirements that they just assume that we can make all those changes and that's really not the way. I just sometimes wonder that if we know that that's a controversial subject because we've seen uh there's five speaker cards for it,

right? is to look at that and say, you know what, before we get into these five, let's talk about the basic issues of what seems coming up over and over again. Maybe we can save some time. Yeah. I saw last night in planning and zoning, there were dozens of people there came to to complain about Bosworth development and if they would have just opened it up and read it, it was being turned down, right? So, they we spent all that time talking and listening and yelling and screaming and then the department turned it down. Yeah. Yeah. And I think I mean you know I I don't those are the kind of things you just think wow just read something.

Yeah. Well and I don't I don't want to like I don't want to belabor the deer thing but you know the gentleman that came up here was asked a lot of good questions. One of them was the baiting question. We don't get that's not our choice. That's a state thing. So I I would love to be able to say hey man I'm go talk to the state. There's we could say you can bait all you want. They're not going to let you do it. I have neighbors who feed them.

Yeah. So um so I I can I mean we can put a list together. Tom, if that's if that's helpful. I mean, there's a couple other things in here that jump out. There's the contract exemption, the motion reconsider. I think that can get weird in a hurry. That's more on property. So, that that's real clear in Robert's order about to reconsider if it deals with with a transaction, a fin a financial transaction that you can move that faster if you're afraid that deal is going to fall through before the next meeting. Yeah. that this thing I think is saying we can we can we could pass a contract and then resend the contract as soon as as long as you know like before the date is taken.

Yeah. I I mean like to me like I don't want to get the city in a place where we can't get out of a contract. But at the same time I think that that's that can be we used to pass we used to pass ordinances where the council has approved it but the mayor won't sign it until something gets done on the on on the execution side of it. We probably still do we still do that? He does not. He doesn't sign for Okay, great. Um, okay. So, uh, yeah, I mean I that those were some of the things that jumped out at me, but like I I'm glad to hear that we don't have like that one thing that we're fixing was was very strange.

So, I'm glad that we're fixing that. But I do think that, you know, some of these things um maybe invite more problems than we think that they are. And we're, you know, by trying to do the right thing, we're actually not helping the situation. Well, and in this case, do we want to open that up where we I mean the prevailing that I would we can do that and with this report include the information about what prevailing means that definition and then give examples and also have the cheat sheet and I'm I'm okay with putting a laminated copy and taping it to the table out there so residents know the difference too. I think that's fair and it's a good way to go about it. The but the second side opening up the public comment review that that would take some code changes. So, do we want to make that motion tonight to look into revising or looking at public comment, looking at attendance based requirements within it? Uh, we can do that. It It's just got to be an action council.

I I mean I I think we should I mean I think we should review a number of these things. I'm not sure the right mechanism to do it. Like I know like um Colleen, our city clerk as an example is you know she used to work for uh Rockwood and she brought up the public comment thing primarily because she's organizing it in the meeting and trying to keep track of everything and whatever. And so you know her suggestion was, you know, you might want to look and see how some of these other places are doing it because the way that we the way that we have it currently set up doesn't seem like the most effective way to do this. And so that was the start of the conversation and then I started, you know, I don't know if it's that thing where like you see a blue car and then every time everywhere you look you see a blue car, but then a whole bunch of people started asking me those those questions. Um, and so I I just think like, you know, as Ed said, like when you have a bunch of people that are coming up there and there's either nothing that can be done in that scenario or whatever it is, you know, I don't think that they I don't know that they are uh they understand how that process works in that way. And so, you know, they're they're misconstruing what's going on and then it's taking up it's taking up their time and effort and everything else.

I honestly think we'd be better off just stating that the mayor nor the council people will be responding to your questions. Now, thank you for your comments and you leave it there. Sure. That's what I did. I And I'd have other mayors come and say, "Wow, all those people talk." He said, "But you didn't get hung up with people yelling and screaming." I said, "I'm just thank you for your comment." He could be a complete idiot, but thank you for your comment. Nobody's promising they're gonna get back to them because we have an agenda to work off of. But I think once we started putting in there that if you want comments or a particular council, somebody can do this. Why say that? Yeah, we could clean that up. There's I don't believe based off review, I don't think there's any legal issue with us removing that component of public comment. You have to let the people speak. Yeah. But having it be in a way where you control it.

Thank you for your comment. Times up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. That can be done. And I mean part of it also goes, you know, I maybe it's part of it can be in the script I guess for the mayor too if he wants to do that. But like reiterating that point is helpful too because you know people might come up and ask a question and then stare at you and it's like well then it also clarifies a little bit different if you explain it up front about public hearing. Yeah. Versus public comp any kind of public comment. That was the other thing that I've that's been brought up is like, you know, because we usually go from public comment into public hearings, regular people are not aren't always sure when they're supposed to go up and say that whatever they're saying or how that's supposed to work. So, um, that kind of stuff is just some of the public comment

when the person and this kind of goes back to submissions from the residents to have. They should be filling out the speaker card and when they do that, it does question, you know, are you speaking on that? And then when we get it, Colleen does review those and if she sees um oh well this person's actually speaking on the public hearing put it in that pile. So we I mean because residents that I think that gets a little too technical but the idea of having the you know you got to have the public speaker cards in on time or at a you know timely fashion so Colleen has the time to review that could be something. The other thing that's brought been brought up and I think Rockwood does this is you you can register you register in advance online to come speak because then that way things can kind of be you know you can figure out where everything is going to wind up being and then you can have that conversation more appropriately than like a random collection of cards that come in and whatever. It's not to say somebody can't I guess say I I'd have to check and see how Rockwood does it. had a couple conversations about it, but I I know that, you know, their whole thing is you the meeting's at 5:30, you have to be registered to speak, you know, by whatever 4:30 or something like that because then, you know, I get where Colleen's coming from. She's she has a lot to do in a meeting that most people don't really understand. And so trying to figure out who goes where and make the sheet and give it to the mayor and all that kind of things, that's a lot to do in 30 seconds before a meeting starts. I think it is re I mean it is reasonable to have like a a submission time frame for folks to have their card in that's and we can have that. I mean, I think it would be to make sure everyone's in agreement. We could review. I mean, the the part is taking out the component of uh council responding to and guaranteeing that response. That can be done relatively easily. If we want to change

I think it's a two-part thing. I think we should do I I personally think we should do that. That's an easy fix. And if you need a motion to do it, I'm sure we can do that. But I also think just reviewing the process of how we do that is is important because you know from a planning standpoint I think it's you know if there's going to be two and a half hours of public comment or whatever possibly or whatever you know that's that that's going to change a whole lot of stuff because I think I don't know how it works that you might know that's like once we get to a certain time at night we have to start making motions to keep it going 10 o'clock so you know midnight that could be a lot of that you know that would take a lot of public comment but at the same time, you know, there is this compression of timelines that goes on. So, we want to try to solve that too. Quick.

Yes, sir.

What What always default to thinking like a resident. I got a lot more in its that than than here. Um, Mr. What is it about the intelligence, the mentality, the focus of Rockwood parents compared to Wildwood residents that they have the wherewithal and the elected focus to be able to be even capable of thinking too, right? and send something in online prior to a meeting in a timely manner for organizations purposes. And the fact that you're going to have 95% of the people who trapes into a council meeting have no glimmer of a clue on earth that they were expected to have gotten on a computer and fill something out and send it in before the meeting. You're going to have people that are more bad at you than anyone ever was in their life. You tell them, "No, you had to go step through some hoops an hour and a half ago before coming here to be able to be allowed to speak, and you waste your time coming all the way down to city hall, and you're never going to do it again in your life because you're so mad at the process." So, I I hope we're getting the picture. Uh we this has a solution, but it sure in the world can't be anything to do with the people that live in this city getting on a computer and remembering that they got to do something that's more than three minutes before they think they're going to stand up and talk before in front of us.

Well, I think you have to have the I I would have to review Rockwood School District's policy. They do a couple things. I was going to say they have you have to speak you can only speak on an item that is that is technically on the agenda. you have two minutes to speak. Um, short. Well, I think because what it used to be was people would talk for hours because they would just get up and read a phone. And so I think that I think that the idea was if you have something

to impart, you know, if you, you know, it's like anything else. If you have 10, if they give you 10 minutes, you'll take 10 minutes. If they give you five minutes, you take five minutes. That's how it works. So, their thing is it's got to be on the agenda. It's it's a two-minute period of time. Um, you have to do it in advance. I don't I don't remember this exactly, but I don't think it was like a like one day they just decided to do it that way. It was sort of like, hey, we're going to this is coming down the line here, so we're going to start kind of gravitating that way.

Maybe there's a middle ground where because we do have Zoom that they could log in and say, I plan on speaking public hearing or public comment in person or online. So, our excuse is that helps us get more organized so that we can be looking for you. But I don't think you want to try to eliminate people who didn't log in. No, because they'll want to come anyway. But it would give Colleen then a position to be able to know I got six people already for this that and three of them are online. Well, maybe what we do then is we just look at um maybe what we want to do is we'll say, "Hey, we want to look at just how this works and we can figure out whatever the best whether it's Rockwood or

Well, they move around, right? They don't stay at the one location all the time. They'll take care of the meetings. So I think part of that too is to know where you're supposed to be, right? That's true. Yeah. So So I mean we can do the review thing. Yes, ma'am. It says online. It says sign in for Rockwood on the provided cards before the meeting begins to address the board during the designated patron comments period. Speakers are limited to three minutes with a 30 minute total limit to discuss an agenda item. So they must get you won't be able to do it if you just wait a topic too.

So that I know what they're doing there. They're you have to be fair to everybody. That's the main thing. You have to offer the same ability for everyone. So they're saying there is 30 minutes of time dedicated to this public comment and they almost do like a bidding system. First come, first serve. Okay. You get three minutes slice of the pie and if you are outside of that slice then you don't get to speak. Listen to 15 people and that's it. Right.

So I'm not I mean and I don't know. I mean it appears to work pretty well for them and that's a pretty big and you know group of people many of the same people that live in Wildwood. So I mean I just think we maybe want to look at it because our ours our ours is somewhat confusing and frustrating to a whole lot of people. So I mean I think fixing this where we just make it clear like hey this is your time to say you can say whatever you I mean you can say whatever you want. I still think there some cities don't even do public participation. Yeah that's true too.

Just don't do it. they have their meetings and they don't do public participation. So we were one of the there again years ago we were always we've always done it and then they decided to cut it back to five for subdivision three for individuals but that was pretty much because the the crowd would stand there and talk all night, right? Had to be kind of rude with them. Anyway, I think it's I think we got a good start, but I think there are some little tweaks that would make a difference.

So what what do you need if anything, Tom? Um, so I guess the main thing would be uh get a motion solidifying like it's a cheat sheet if you will explaining what the so we can all agree and this will go to council next week at a work session. It'll be prevailing side defining that and then giving just examples of when there are different voting thresholds. We'll call it a voting threshold cheat sheet um for different voting. Uh that's one. Set that aside if that could be included in a motion. Then the other component would be to review public comment uh the portion of public comment within the rules procedures to one remove the back and forth or responses from council members to the residents and then two conduct a further evaluation of u public participation as a whole. It's se it's subsection 16 A and B and make sure that we're doing it as efficiently as possible. So bring that back to committee. I would assume we need we need that subsection. Um, so I we sure we can do that. I would suggest and just is just to help you so we don't get too far in the weeds on the work session. I think we probably want to define or suggest what the definition of prevailing side is. And so in my mind and with the help here of my digital friend which is pretty much how I was viewing it. So the prevailing side is the group of members who voted with the outcome that passed. So if an ordinance passed, it is the yes people. If the ordinance failed, it is the no people. That make sense?

Well, but did it pass though? That's exactly my purpose. Question is six people stopped it, eight people tried to vote it. Six was prevailing. Yes. The eight lost. Correct.

But in the past, you wanted to be on the side that failed. So you would vote if you if you were if I were one of the eights and I knew we had five votes came around to me, I would vote with that group to kill it so I could turn right around and bring it back for reconsideration because I knew there were two people missing or or whatever. I mean, we we don't do a really good job at counting those like a lot of people do, right? But that's the issue is if you fa if it failed for a lack of nine, eight was still larger than six. So that is the that that's the prevailing side. It just didn't pass the bill, right? So the So the ordinance didn't pass. Therefore, the people that voted for it lose. That's what happened in December.

Not. But they're not prevailing though. Well, it prevailed because the or because they wanted it not to pass and it did not. So six was prevailing the outcome. Six would be the prevailing side in that case. Yep. Outcome is whatever the outcome is. I just do a really good job of trying to explain. I They do a pretty good job in these books time to giving you a good example. you know, Mary Smith asked this and this is and it's like, oh, okay. So, I think that would be I just think that this confusion we're just talking about it. Maybe it's just me. I think Thomas wants to do it. I mean, I can I can provide a different example. All right. Would anybody care to make a motion to send this on to the work session with the prevailing side and then we'll talk through the other stuff to be determined? Sure, I'll make a motion.

Amy, are you good with where we're going with this? Okay. Miss NY makes the motion. Anybody care to second? Mr. Vanic will second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, Tom, you're good on that one. Yep. Just to clarify, that motion was prevailing side definition. We'll have that go to work session, but then returning back to this committee with the review potential changes to public comment, public participation policy. U and then also looking at potentially the attendance was the attendance based items. Yeah, I mean just that there's some stuff in there that is seems weirdly tied to attendance instead of how something should actually function. Sounds good. That will come back to Pet.

Okay, great. Uh okay. Uh that brings us to our review of the police services contract. Uh you want to take that Tom or you want me to do it?

Yeah, you can uh start off. But I I'll add a little note here with your permission chair just to note why we're doing this a little bit. Uh, one is that we're anticipating, you know, with the counties having some issues, um, their budgetary issues they've been having, that there's a good chance that we'll probably be seeing 5% increases for the next couple years. And, you know, we just got done with the budgeting process, but we had to make some pretty tough decisions recently uh, for budgeting for fiscal year 2026. Had to make some cuts. Uh, so the idea is, you know, we're not necessarily adding any easy res revenue sources right now. Um, and without that, you know, we're going to see, you know, incremental gains and since we have some threats, especially from the state side with the food sales tax exemption that could be viewed. I mean, doesn't seem like it's getting too much, but it is being considered. Uh, just some threats to our and also just that one would be detrimental to the city. But with other threats to our revenue sources, the idea would be to look at where does this go? Because right now, if we have consistent revenue year-over-year uh for our general fund, we do start seeing ourselves right now, just for comparison, usually you'll see a city spend about anywhere between 30 to 35% of their general fund, their operating revenue will go towards police services. Ours is currently at 43%. That's not unheard of. You can see that um in other cities as well. But if revenue stays relatively consistent and then you also have an increase of 5% year-over-year in the next five years during the contract period, it'll get up to 53.3%. That's if the same revenue is assumed, but that's not going to be the case. Nonetheless, we're going to be approaching 50% of operating goes towards our police expenditures, which we want to have that discussion now because we had a 3% increase which was nominal just as similar to previous years. We want to make sure that our expectations from the city council's perspective are being

met. Um, and at the same in that same vein, understanding what the real costs are of policing and making sure that we have the money available to continue providing the same level of service that we have today. uh and I'll pass it off to you to kind of go into a little bit deeper the review, but yeah. Um happy to answer any questions.

So yeah, so as this as Tom did a good job pointing out and as this says, this is really not at all a conversation about how well our police force are doing things. They do a great job and we're very appreciative of all of their hard work and all those things. So that's not what this conversation about is really about. What this is about is um talking about how we want to look at the budget, how we want to structure those things because as Tom mentioned, you know, our the math is, you know, in a lot of places it's around 35%, ours is a little north of that. It could get a lot more north of that. Um this to me uh lines up with some of the things we've talked about even in terms of like our staffing of our city staff where um the other municipalities that might have their own police force if that's 35% of the budget, they also own all of those assets and that is a little bit functionally different than what we have. Um not to say it's a bad scenario necessarily, but like from a city perspective, we really don't have a whole lot of uh say in what what our police partners are doing. that is, you know, we're contracting for those services and the expectation is basically you guys figure it out. Um, so there's a a lack of a little bit of a lack of control with that. But then the other side of it is, you know, we probably need to have a conversation about what we want our police service to look like. This is kind of one of these scenarios now where um there's us and I think um Fenton and a couple other municipalities that do the same thing where we're basically paying an amount of money per officer which is fine. I'm certainly not disputing that you know we get the car and their benefits and all all the good things that come with that. Um but you know our needs based on our demographics and our you know topography and everything else are sort of functionally different than a lot of other places. So, you know, to me, I think we want to try to have a conversation about what is the budget number that we're comfortable with in terms of a percent of our budget. The other side to think about

this is um about half, I think, right, of our budget currently is Prop P money for the police. For the police, it's like 40 something%. It's a decent chunk.

So, it's almost half of our current budget is taken care of by Prop P. Um, and so I don't expect Prop P to go anywhere, but if it did, that's a huge amount of money. And the other side of it is, you know, when Prop P was uh, you know, put out there, while it was designed a little bit for this, it really wasn't designed for operational day-to-day expenses. It was designed for other things. And so, you know, over time those things change. So, to me, I think we want to think about or talk about, you know, what is the generalized budget number that is okay? Because, you know, I can't speak for Tom, but you know, I've been on public safety when we get the like you just get a piece of paper from the police and it says this is how much the budget is this year. And I that's wrong.

That's not great. Also, you know, we don't do that with a lot of other contractors where it's like, you know, we don't let them necessarily define 100% of what's going on. So, I think personally we probably want to talk about the budget number, what kind of uh policing expectations we think our residents actually have. I mean, obviously, we have we enjoy an a very low crime rate, which is great, and we're all very thankful for that. Um, and we hope that continues. But, you know, the needs of our residents is a little bit different. So, I think like right now, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom. I don't know if you notice off the top of your head, you know, we have like one neighborhood police officer, right, out of 40? Well, one's an administrative person, but 44.

Okay. So, like one neighborhood officer for a city our size seems a little light to me. Um, so anyways, that's kind of the gist of the conversation. It's not necessarily about the performance, but it is about what we think the residents want, what a budget number is comfortable with. Um, and then also, you know, looking at this long range number, you know, if we're approaching 50% of our budget going to the police, you know, we're already making cuts on a number of things. And, you know, this tax thing that Tom keeps talking about is a real thing. So that can happen whenever and then that necessitates an entirely different kind of conversation because having spent a bunch of time with the budget, I can tell you we don't have an extra several million dollars to keep up with the police contract.

It it would affect Prop P money too because that's sales tax, right? So all that money goes down. So the percent I'm sorry, the percentage that you have at uh it was sorry I said 43% earlier it's 41 and some change. Let me get and that's without prop. Uh no that's that's total of that is if you take our total contract cost and then divide that by our total revenue expected for the general fund fiscal year 2020. But our city cost then is half of that. So it's not 40% it's 20 or 20%. Oh yes yes

I think you hear this big hoopa going on with the city. The state is making them spend 23%. And they just cannot do that because they have no money to do that. Right. So, I just think that we want to make sure that we understand we're offsetting that as we do that. So, I I agree. We used this used to be a much bigger budgeting issue and at one point, you know, we had the position of the marshall trying to do the budget. We put that back and said to city administrator, we'll do the negotiating and we negotiate that through public works. And I don't believe that's the way I know my couple years with public works is this is what you get. there's no answering questions or answering calls. All the calls are different now. We're starting to track that. But I think we're if we're going to do all this, we need to know what's our game plan. You know, how do you want to change those things going down? And then I think the other thing there's a lot of these services that we provide and we I know revenue is getting tight. I still don't understand when we do the TGA generation. Everything we do is for a two-car garage, and there's not been a two-car garage built in this city in the last 10 years. So the mindset of how we do things, I just think we keep saying, "Well, that's the way the county does it." That that just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you could pick up another couple hundred bucks,

right, on a TGA assessment for traffic generator, why why wouldn't it do that? Uh if you're building a three three garage house or you got a business and you got all this part, why don't we go Yeah. do why do we have to follow the county on that? I don't know that that's a problem. I mean, it just I just think there's some revenue laying out there.

Uh that should be and not that it's with the the the traffic tickets and that kind of stuff, but I think that's all part of you know, our goal shouldn't be to raise the money from traffic tickets, but is to ensure what is the right number. For years, we had the cops fund where each a couple years we bring two new officers on and we get $70,000, but we had to keep for five years. Well, you know, that when we started out, we had two and a half officers. So, he's come a long way, right? You know, and I think that's part of uh the challenge we have to look at is what would it look like in the future?

And right now, just a quick recap, we did reduce our officer count by two back in in the fiscal year 2023 going into 2024. Um that reduced cost by very little. Uh the cost per officer did go up that year, too. Um and then this most recent year, we were anticipating a 5% increase. There was negotiation, no negotiations back and forth. we got it down to three, but still even with 3% with this being this large of budget item. It's more so, you know, what are the expectations from the council side and also really establishing a number that we're comfortable with considering we're not necessarily throwing up too many uh we're not proposing new revenue. We can look at the PGA. I'm just saying there's there's a couple things. Yeah.

The city that we just kind of say, oh, that's what it is. Um Yeah. So, I think that's those are good things. I mean, I from a I personally think it's a it makes this easier if we talk about what we want out of the police force versus how much everything costs because we may be getting everything that we want, we may not. We may be getting way too much and so that can kind of help I think have have the conversation because um the the information we're getting back now is certainly better than it was, but it still is, you know, difficult to figure out what's going on. bit differently. Yeah, Tracy,

I just had a question because I'm trying to remember and I may have imagined all this. When we went down two officers, didn't they do something with Yeah. changing the hours? We was just getting as many hours. Yeah. From two less officers identifying efficiencies with the beats. So, we still are maintaining five beats minimum like has to be four beats on on given time. But the way way it was been able to identify was that we had an eight hour shift in three different rotations, but then we switched they switched to a 12 andic identified over like a two-year period.

So from a from a resident or policing thing, I mean I know I hear endlessly about traffic. I hear uh a lot about traffic is tra in my word. started as traffic and deer. That is about it. Um, but you know, I know that we did this thing over the summer where we expanded some uh programs or whatever. So, we were doing some additional speed traps and things like that. And again, like that's not really it's not that type of revenue doesn't really do much for the city. And while I think the speed control is an important thing, that's kind of a I don't think it ever showed up in money. I

I don't think it did either. I mean, all of the, you know, the additional, I'm sure they were writing warning tickets. You'd hear them 60 70, but I didn't there wasn't anything pop up in the fines.

Yeah. So, so I mean to me, you know, like I I think like uh the needs of like I would be willing to guess that the my residents in W four and your residents in W five and half of Bob's in W 2 and some of Tracy's in W three are going to have the same concerns. Folks out in, you know, the, you know, in one and six, they may have an entirely different set of concerns. Um I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I don't even know where the beats. I mean, I know we have five beats, but I don't know where they are. I don't know if it's different in, you know, like it's different by me and than it is out by Jason or whatever it is. And so, part of this is, you know, there's an information gap and that occurs because of how we contract out. You know, Captain Mandela have been great about trying to get us what we're asking for, but he can only be as good as the information department that's giving him the information. There's also to me a kind of a weird quirk in the contract in that like we don't have any expectations seemingly in the contract. We don't have any guaranteed response time. We don't have any of that stuff. It just it it is just an amount of money for police services. And so I mean I've had a number of people ask me, you know, this is a lot of money. Why? And I'm I mean my default answer is well it is important and it is very difficult to be a police officer. We want to be taken care of. Um but I don't I mean I don't know from a operational standpoint in terms of what our city needs like the needs in war one are different. So do we have the guys out patrolling them the same way? Is that a necess like those are the questions I have. Um and so that's kind of why we wanted to have the conversation. I don't know that we necessarily are gonna come up to a decision tonight, but I think that we want to look at this because that my hope is although most of us will

obviously all of us will be returning to the council for the most part, but like these are the conversations that you got to have at a weird time because when new people come in, they don't they aren't aware of this stuff yet. And so every time we try to do it, we get a little get bit confused. So yes, sir. I asked Captain Mandelle when the county uh Mark Carter one day said, "We're taking $5 million out of the police budget." And I asked Captain Mandell, "What's that going to do to our overhead support and stuff?" He said, "Well, they really haven't told us yet." I said, "So, we still have the helicopter. We have the SWAT team." Well, yeah, they're just going to have to do it a lot differently. So, they were really quick to take five million out and then come back and and move this up. So I think part of it should be is to get those answers but then I think the realistic approach that we should do as any organization should. So what happens if we have a revenue shortfall and we lose a million dollars. Where do we cut a million dollars and have that honest discussion about here's things you can do. We didn't always have four beats. We used to have two and then we had and they did that. They worked the areas where the people were and then maybe one guy was running out in in one and six versus having uh the way that it that it was. So, I just think there's a lot more work we could do to be prepared.

Yeah. Uh instead of just coming in and say, "Well, this is the price." Because I can tell you that several years ago, I wasn't prepared then, but we would sit down and say, "We can't pay that."

Yeah. As soon as we said, "We're going to look at our doing our own police force," they brought the price right down. Well, or maybe a good answer, an easy answer is is, you know, and this would, I guess, take some of your input, Tom, but it's like, you know, we maybe we say as a as a city, we can afford $2 million for the out of our budget for the police. The other two and a half can certainly come from Prop P or whatever, but this this is what is available. And so, you know, in a way, you're kind of saying to them like this is what we this is what we have. you tell us how you can fit into this model because you know I'm I I love all of our officers that are around here and I certainly don't want to see any of them go but at the same time you know this is a huge amount of money and the other I mean the other good side on this conversation is because of how we do this versus having our own police force if we were to make changes in that it's not like these officers are just getting reassigned to a different part of the county they're just not coming to us anymore and whatever but I I I think um I mean I don't know Tom do you have an opinion on what like functionally an amount of money that the city can afford.

I mean, I would say revenues where they're at and if they remain stagnant, we're kind of at where we can be in probably less. I mean, it's

totally. So, that's the thing is like, you know, I we've gotten to this place, but I personally I would say, you know, only because I don't know what because we don't have the, you know, we aren't able to really get that information. Um, you know, I I would say we should to me the number should be probably less because I don't know that we need I mean, you know, I I also think it's not great that we're spending uh $2.5 million in Prop P money that is not supposed to go to day-to-day operational expenses and we don't have a choice. And I and I don't think we're the only people. I think most municipalities are in that position now. So, you know, because of how this is working at the state and the county, you know, if they come in and start cutting, slashing and burning things, this number is going to get changed real quick. So, if we, you know, if the if the diaper thing goes away, well, that's $700,000 we don't have. And so, you know, we can start certainly cutting events and things like that, but at a certain point, you know, it's not like we can cut staff. We don't have nobody works here. Hey, any effect with the no overtime tax

on the cost for us? Uh, not necessarily. It's not a crazy amount. It's not It's be $25,000, right? Per Yeah, it's it's I can come back to the report, but it's not going to be enough to overcome like a $700,000 short.

No, no. All I'm saying is that's the kind of stuff in the budgets that those cities that are dealing with direct pay versus us doing a contract may or may not take advantage of. And I just think that if those are some of the regulations then and maybe those discussions you had all of those with them. I don't know. I mean I just think there's tons of questions but I I used to know who the ones were that were doing the the contracting and who those officers were and they were real quick by here's here's the actual numbers. I'm sure you can get the same stuff but I would just be curious. The other thing I thought was kind of interesting is how the up to where we got Prop P which was in 18. Mhm. You know, we were paying everything ourselves, right?

And and so suddenly though after that, the cost has gone way up high. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying that I we don't have a a whole bunch of revenue coming in. I think I think we're going to be very lucky if our revenue stays flat. I think it is going to go down. Well, just to keep what we have, it' be good. Yeah. So, okay. Well, so then Tom, if you're So, what is the what is the exact number right now? The contract or the total cost for that we as a city are paying out of city money?

City money is 3 million uh 3,247,24 from general fund revenue. So, that's either coming from full tax, franchise tax, etc. So, in your and this is kind of how I we may not have much of a conversation about it, but you know, in your estimation, how much of that would you what number would you feel most comfortable?

I think we should keep it capped at I mean literally if it should be a goal to not go over 41.61% which it is right now. So that said, one thing to keep in mind with Prop Ps is that money goes towards the increases in costs since uh 2017. So that 24 million that we spend in Prop P money on that contract, those are costs that have increased. That's why we can't use our full allocation in 2026. Um so that's just something to keep in mind, too, is that if we reduce it, then we will have to mess around with that equation quickly. We can do we could we'll figure it. But I think capping it at 40 I don't think you should be going over 41%. That we should be based off percentages.

And so that's where we are right now and you are comfortable with how that functions at the moment. I'd say we probably it probably needs to be more like 35% most city. That's this that's the conversation we're having. So it's it's like a million dollar decrease. I mean we're talking about we could use that money elsewhere. Save that. Well, I'm not I

So, I'm not asking you to make the decision. What I'm what I'm asking you to do is to provide us with a concept of, you know, if you think that the appropriate number needs to line up with like let's say other municipalities and that's in the 35 to 38% range, then that's where we want to be. And what we then can do is have a conversation with our police partners where we go, this is what we can we think we can afford. If you can help us understand what that looks like, then that gives us the ability to make a decision as to how that's going to work out because, you know, right now we don't we just get a number and the number is going to be more every year and we don't have any more money and we're not going to get any more money. So if you're saying I mean 35% would drop it you you know so you you would be more comfortable in the $2.2 million range than the $3.2 million range be much more we can absorb that a little bit better as long as we don't have massive de I mean the thing is if we have a decrease like the sales tax component we could have we could be making some really uglier decisions as well.

Yeah. But that's if revenue stays consistent then yes I would say if you're talking about 2.2 to around two millionish, then you're we're feeling a lot more comfortable on the other end.

I just think my my thought on this and and I think I think the mayor has done an excellent job in having some of these conversations online with different residents, you know, when it came to like the pool passes and things like that. We've started to have conversations and look at, you know, parks and storm water tax or whatever it may be. Um, you know, I am perhaps a more of a doom and gloom guy. I am I have a sense that the pool tax is going to become very vulnerable here very quickly right around that time downtown Chesterfield gets finished and I think that that tax is going to start to get yanked away and so if that happens then it almost becomes a conversation of a ballot ballot initiative to our residents of do we have a city or not because we don't really have any way to fund things. So, a lot of these things that we're doing, whether it's looking at our reserve, fixing the building the way that it needs to be, taking care of some of these long justestating issues that were somewhat ignored, like that's us getting our money right. And so, I think, you know, I I don't want to slash and burn a police budget at all, but I do think it is worth the conversation and it is worth it to our residents to say, "Hey, you know, th we feel like this is an appropriate amount of money. This is what this looks like. This is, you know, whatever it is, 10 less officers. I don't know. We don't get to use the helicopter to do whatever we do with it. Um, so does anybody have any thoughts on Tom's idea of, you know, this a much safer idea being this 2.2 million number, more of a 35% versus the 41% that we're at because we also are kind of tied into this contract until 2031. So there's

we do it every year though. Yes. And so, but I would love to like to me I think it makes more sense to be able to go to Captain Mandel and say, "Hey, this is what we're thinking, you know, in May or June." No, I totally agree and I actually think that it should be a discussion that the city has with the county and not put Jim in the middle of it. I think that would be good, too. Fair. Uh, so I I just think that but those are the conversations. Again, this we've done this a dozen times. Deal with you have people come in and they didn't like something. I demand you have your own police and we didn't have our own building and I mean so all of the costs associated with that a lot of that's the building cost you we used to we've had them in three or four they used to be in the fire station

right so I think that that's a conversation and I don't know who uh have you talked to Eric more uh with the St. County police. Yeah. Does he talk I mean does he just keep talking about more cost or is he talking cost savings? Seems like they're going to be adding more cost each year. That's why I'm going to have this. And who does he report to?

To the chief. I'm not I mean a lot of the times I'm going to captain. Uh, but I think part of that is we have to decide from a city standpoint, what are we going to do? Because you just can't keep taking an increase. And so part of that is if it's going to be another million dollars, we need to start looking now. What would it cost to buy cars? What would it cost? Because, you know, over a period of time or I mean I've watched this with Clarkson Valley, you know, they went from doing it with uh Bowwin, then they went to the county and now they're with Chesterfield. Mhm. So the advantage of those two officers and they have to beat coverage and that kind of stuff. So I just think part of those options are out there. They're looking at the same thing. What's it cost them to have the two versus what does it cost us if they can do it at that particular level? There's something they're doing differently than us because they got to taking all the pensions, all the training that's all included in ours. But when you start getting into those kind of comparisons, it just makes you kind of wonder. And I mean, you know, I think there's an opportunity then to to look at, you know, what's Fenton doing different than us. They went through some tough times with uh losing the manufacturing down there. Right

now, he's going to be running for County Executive Hancock. But anyway, I just think we should get we shouldn't wait and we should have those discussions to say, "Hey, if this goes away, we need to figure out what would our options be." Well, okay. So if we want to do that then Tom you tell me what do you what is helpful for you to have more fruitful conversations in that space. Do we need something motion from the committee tonight just saying we want to go ahead and do an official request to say hey if we were to decrease the contract amount here's what that looks like in service reduction because from the police. Yeah. And I mean I I mean it might be that's a starting it might be keep it keep the number where it is right now or or go in this direction and the preferences that we're direction where it's at now

and maybe ask the question you cut I don't know what their total budget is. You could get that online but you took $5 million out. What did you cut? Yes. Because if they they were able to do that and and gap and solid really won't affect us. Who did it affect? Right. you know, I mean, I I just think those are some questions that whoever the procurement person is should have some pretty straightforward answers. So, in that case, 41, keep it at at a 5% incremental next year. Like,

well, I what I'm saying is like, you know, like any negotiation, like I if if like I think if what you're saying from a budgetary health standpoint, this this we are at the absolute max and in in reality it needs to come down. I I don't I would love to be able to do that, but I don't know what that looks like. So, I don't know. I don't know how to communicate to say, you know, like I know what this amount of money looks like. It looks like what we have right now. I don't know what the other one looks like. So, in that case, it would just be a motion from the committee requesting what that service would look like at 35%. It could be whatever percentage, but showing that in real costs or how many and we can get that information. I just need a motion from the committee saying let's do 35%. Do 30. Okay.

What that looks like. So, does anybody have a a a sense on the percentage they want to go with? 35 30 I don't care. I don't know enough about it. I've never looked up your number to see that. It's between 30 and and most I've seen is about 45 to 50, which is very rare. So, I would say keeping it getting 30 35 getting that breakdown and knowing exactly per officer that would be fine, too. 35 is quite is a significant cut from where we are now. It is. So start yeah start 35 see what we get for that we can decide well that's too much or that's not enough.

Well because I I would say I mean to me the other thing is to say if our budget if our if our revenue isn't changing which it doesn't seem to be and we and we say okay well we're not going to exceed 35%. Then in theory that number that service number is going to probably change because their costs continue to go up. So we we got to figure that out. So if 35 35% sounds like a good thing to me. So does anybody want to make a motion for Mr. Lee to explore what that looks like at 35%. Then we can have that conversation once we get the information back. All right, Mr. Vanic will make that motion. Anybody care to second it? Second by Mr. Marshall. Any other thoughts, questions, concerns, debate? All right, seeing none. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, Mr. We will be waiting with baited breath to see what that looks like. Um, okay. Up next is uh our review of the board meeting policy.

Right. Uh this came up just based on uh we are have our city attorney had access to all has access to our meetings that are scheduled in the books and we were looking at our policy for uh specifically HOAs running out the room and the the charge we give them for the deposit and there was noted that we had a there was a thought that we had a policy in place for having ward meetings back uh like a blackout period between filing in December and uh the election in April. So the idea was back and we then looked back, we thought this might have been on the books, which made us a little bit more concerned, but it's not. It did not pass. There was a motion back in 2019 that failed to pass a ward uh meeting policy that allows the board meeting to occur, but locks it out between the months of April and between January and April of each year, just during the election cycle. The idea behind it was, and this doesn't ever really happen, but it's a safeguard against it, is if there is somebody running to be a candidate u in the election, that they in theory could use the ward meeting policy in order to, you know, potentially do a campaign message. If that happens, this is where the department wanted to bring it to the the committee's attention. Technically, the mailers that would go with that, and I'll say anybody on the council would do that, but the mailers that would go with that are paid for by the city. since whoever approved or had a part in approving those mailers would technically be in violation of a misdemeanor crime. So, the idea would be, do we want to possibly reconsider that policy to have that time frame locked out again or u do we want to look at it? Right now, we don't have an official policy on the books. We have like a deacto administrative policy that uh was adopted informally in 2010. Uh, and the idea would be to revisit it and possibly come up with a

couple different ways to maybe re revamp it to have like maybe it's a town hall center or a town hall type event or having it be an event that you know if there's a specific issue that we're facing during that time frame between January and March. Uh you could still have a meeting but it would be towards that issue. There's a couple different options we could look at here, but really the idea is protecting the city legally from potentially look looking like it's supporting a candidate if someone were to elect to use it that way. Way for any questions. I'm all right. Happy to explain a little bit further, but any questions? I showed you the one we passed around that was 98,

right? And we never had them during the election period and we set them up and city would do the mailing and the uh council people would bring refreshments or or whatever and you could have two a year and the city did the mailing and and you did the hosting of it. The but I think things have really changed since that. So, we had one the other night and whenever Deborah said she wanted to have it, I immediately called Colleen and said, "I don't think he can have it now because no, no, we there's nothing there. We could do that." Well, then unfortunately, we get to the meeting and Chris comes to the meeting and you got 35 people there. You could introduce him. You can't say anything about him because it's campaigning. He's not running against anybody, right? But I mean, I found that to be very offensive to me that nobody took the time to call and say, "Oh, all these rules are either in or not in because when I asked, no, there's no

they're not in. This this is not adopted." I understand that. But then Deborah's jumping up in the meeting. We can't say anything to him. Well, she'd never even met him before. But how sad is it that you have somebody coming into office that you got 35 people there now? We had 35 people, but this is the first time uh and I guess because Word Five has done it in the past. I know a couple years from when I lived in a ward I would come to the meeting but I had three or four people call and say could they get the link for Zoom or could they get the recording to listen to? They couldn't make it that night. So maybe one of the answers would be I know it takes staff people. I know that. But if you were to do that and you know they you have your agenda and you work through it, that would eliminate having to have it in person

and to do, you know, give them one Zoom meeting and and if does take a staff person to to to do Zoom. I I used to do it every day all by myself, but to have that meeting set up, invite the people, let them log in, and the recording gets sent back out. I'm always a little surprised. Um, I wasn't on a council when all the hoopla came up with your your previous council member about having the public invited to a ward meeting. I'd never heard that that was an issue until they went down to the community college and they had the security people trying to take people out that weren't in the ward because people were coming to those meetings. So,

I just I I think they're important because I really do that. We had 35 people and they they would have stayed another hour if we would let them. But that's not a word too. We used to get quite a few. But the timing, the nights and all that, you know, you might have 21 night and and you might have 15, but I don't know um the last time anybody had that in war two. The other one that used to be the biggest attended meeting I ever had was for trustees. Yeah.

Because they just But now everything's on the internet and but it would the idea was those trustee was like the fifth Monday we would have a trustees meeting and it would be standing room only. there was just no room because the trustees were most of them were brand new and they had no idea what to do. So I mean I I think that somehow to do the communication but when we started worrying about that and I will say that I mean we had to go back and put policies in against letterhead and business cards because people did I mean they they would get out there and start sending letters out endorsement letters and that kind of stuff and the city never paid for it but they they were using letterhead and working around it look like the official city sponsored person. So, I think there's a need for them. I don't know that we need to do two. And I don't know if you if you did one and throw the Zoom component in there, I think that'd be pretty effective. H how many board meetings do we do currently?

So, we've had uh five in the last three years. In the last week, awards that W five must be doing one every year. I I've seen one from the time I over there six, seven years, too. Okay. So, we've had five. W six had one and then W two was sorry had the others. Okay. So W five but W three just had one this week or that was HA meeting. Oh okay. I mean that my thing my thought I've never had I've never Katie and I have never done one but Katie and I also go to all the HOA meetings or split them up. Yeah.

So, you know, my my thought has always been, you know, if we had a real like real worldwide thing versus, you know, some of this stuff is much more subdivision based or whatever, that would have made more sense to me. But then I also think like some of those things are probably more appropriate as like a citywide town hall because then you're talking about, you know, the watershed thing or, you know, the deer thing or whatever it is. Like unless it's a very specific we're coming to fix your part of the creek, I don't know that the rest of the city I mean necessarily cares that much about that. So I mean I think for sure we need to put the policy in about not around election time because that's just it just gets awkward in a hurry anyways.

Well, especially if that's the position from the attorney is you can't do that, right?

Um so that's an easy fix. But then I but then I also think, you know, maybe the conversation is um you know, I've never gotten a complaint about not having a ward meeting. So, I mean, you know, I'm not I'm not opposed to I guess I'm not opposed to allowing them to happen. I just don't I personally have never seen the point. Um because everything like I even think about like the Journ thing that we did like that happened in W six, but that was we would have town halls about those things. So to me any of those bigger structural things that's a city-wide thing not specific to any one word. So um yeah I mean clearly we're not thankfully I guess we're not doing them twice a year and

consistently and only the people of W five are particularly well informed I guess. Um I was shocked with 35 people though it's great and I had like four more who called and said I couldn't make it but could you tell me about this or could you tell me about that? So that was not what we were getting in war when Mary and I Mary and I did it years ago, nor was the other people. All right. Well, okay. So then, um, does that is does anybody have any additional feelings on whether we want to keep do you need how would you like us to fix the word situation? Either way, I think we do need to like go back and so we can do the motion to change like it's going to be a blackout period between

blackout period and then some of these I think maybe we should have we could someone wants to if everyone wants to sit with this for a little bit longer I mean that would be fine if they want to review everything a little bit more but if not I mean well I mean we don't need two yeah like having the ice out period one per year I mean all those are common sense changes that can be made quickly those mailers out if you do two a year yeah if you did if you did two the question is I mean it's about the mailers itself it's a thousand bucks. So if you did two for each ward and then you times times 16, I mean it starts getting expensive pretty quickly if everyone took to total advantage of it. But we haven't had but but even if they don't I mean even if it's only one that's still $8,000 and you know to me

that's especially if you aren't sure. I mean I you know 35 people is good. I mean the HOA meetings I was at was about 50 for each one. So well and we had those too. So I mean I did Hickory Manor and we did Everree. So we have those still. Uh, and they usually tell you what they want to talk about and ask for a police officer to to do it. But they will think how long have you had coffee with mayor? How many years? We had that since 2021ish that around because I feel like that has cut down on some board meetings because you can go anytime. I mean, you know, you go once a month. We might have had that 2017 actually. 17. It did start in 17. Yeah.

And that I think actually lines up. We then had the discussion on this ward policy in 2019 I believe if I remember correctly. So it was right around that similar time and I think that's when that whole situation broke out as community college and I wasn't on the council then but I certainly heard about it every day. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Well maybe then would it make more sense to do something like so we can change we can put the blackout period in. We could definitely cut it to one instead of two a year but do we um you know kind of like we've done some other things. We want to make like would it be easier to say, you know, this is something that necessitates a word meeting, not just I want to do this because that I mean a thousand bucks still seems like a lot of money just to be like I'd like to

Well, those are pretty fancy postcards we send out too. Well, but like I think I mean this is a slightly different thing, but like I always think about you know who whoever's our state representative and you know our most recent one that left like we'd get a really nice postcard about all the stuff that that person did which is basically just a campaign piece that the state is paying for. You paid for,

right? And so like I'm not I don't think I mean I don't I don't think that any of us are doing that necessarily. Clearly not. We've only had I mean we haven't done this very much in very in a long time. So, I mean, do we want do we want to pass would it make sense, Tom, to to to talk about doing like, you know, our recommendation is these things and maybe just look at eliminating them based on the coffee with the mayor unless there's some extraordinary reason to do one. Yeah, maybe we includes defining a criteria for holding one or something like that. to try to think of the best way either having it or not having it or have it. I would say we either keep the policy adopt a policy as written where it's just blackening it out move it to one or you have them uh consistent with that policy and then you're able to

I mean I literally can't think of anything that would necessitate a word meeting that wouldn't be like a big enough thing that you would have a town hall for whoever was coming. It's like a sh I mean I guess if it's like a shared asset between a couple two subdivisions I Yeah, I get what you're saying. Like I'm even thinking like when we did the SEO we had that would have split two things. Yes sir.

Thank you. Um I knew if I just shut up long enough it had come around the first thing I ever saw when I started reading this because I didn't know an awful lot about ward meetings in the two years I've served. The word ward meeting had never come up. And in the five years before that that I was working with uh Don and and Lauren on the on the famous internet stuff for what turned out to be phase two. It never was a phase to begin with. Um, ward meeting never once came up, not even with uh, Miss uh, Hollis Holly with the one even before all that. And then I saw 2010 and I go, why are we trying to make something out of something that was a thing 15 years ago? We've got we've got Zoom now. I don't even know that

and we didn't have that back then. So, I mean, that's the other challenge. And now we have technology. Well, and and I just was gonna I said, "Bob, you're going to sit there and you're going to listen all night because you're going to figure out what in the world this thing is because it doesn't mean anything to me right now. Why are we even still talking about this?" So, with that, I'd like to hear what I thought would come out of this, which is we're not going to be doing none of this stuff unless it's a a rule by exception than by rule type of thing. you you get qualifiers that make you allowed to use free city hall and allowed to use free postcards and you meet these criteria by golly you get yourself a award meeting otherwise use your email you know

tell people about what's coming out with those cards on the resoning petitions that have to go to a thousand within thousand feet of a property something 1500 sorry go ahead no no are you done

yeah [laughter] No, no, I'm sorry if I interrupted, but I kind of go back to my initial involvement with all this and you know, I was running up against what I would say a mayor and a city administrator that were not uh very uh responsive to the concerns of my ward or my area. And uh actually at the time uh my impression of the the uh the councilman that represented us they were concerned somewhat uh but not completely engaged or uh impassionate about the whole uh subject of road safety on the old state. So, I if I was uh somebody who felt passionate about Old State and was running up and I was council member trying to to get public opinion and awareness of a problem and how we could resolve that. But, you know, a city administrator and a mayor who were hosed are not, you know, I would want the opportunity as a councilman to be able to bring people in from my ward to talk about the subject and not have to rely necessarily on email lists that I may or may not have. So in that scenario, that scenario, that's that's an important tool for me to use as a council member trying to represent my ward and try to organize,

you know, some uh public opinion against perhaps uh a city hall that wasn't too engaged. So I I see it as I I would hate to even have to justify it. You know, I you know, if I as a city uh as a council member think that that's an important issue for my you know who who is the city administrator or the mayor tell me that that's not important. That is important. I think, you know, and if my if my constituents don't think it's important, well, they can boo me out, of course, but um it's I wouldn't want to have to explain myself. I just want to know that yeah, if I if I want this, I can do this. I don't need two of them a year, but one of them a year, I think it's important tool in the right circumstances. Yes, sir.

I I think that it's a good idea about the mayor's coffee that that really restricts it to somebody can come at 7:30 in the morning. [clears throat] So people who are we had people wanting to know could we come a little bit later because they're working get the kids to bed. So the night thing maybe the recommen I I do believe we ought to take it away from because of the legal part of it to to restrict it from the filing of the election until after I don't know that you have of course we don't put people into office but the election date itself once that election is over you should be good. Sure. So that first week so nothing say maybe until the 15th of April and then from the filing date which they keep changing every year that closing date is what the third week now of uh January. Yeah.

So that way you could still do it before that, you know, but I would put those dates in and I think maybe one if they want to do one would be fine. I hate to just say go to the mayor's thing because there are a lot of people say I just not getting up that early. Yeah. or they have kids where they kids but I think that's a good reason maybe to cut from two to one and and it sounds to me there's a lot of people didn't even know we had it in there to do you know I mean so if you didn't know it was there but I also believe that you know I we do a lot of the subdivision homeowners meetings you know and they seem to always want you to come to it so right

um okay so we're going to change the you guys want to change the election or, you know, black out the election period, shift it to one meeting, right? And then we just see how that go how how that goes. Okay. Because you don't want to force the mayor to have to do the coffee either. Sure. [clears throat] Well, and and you know, as Jim said, like it's it is very possible that the mayor doesn't isn't into whatever it is your thing is and so they just might not want to mention something. Okay. Who who would like to make that motion? All right. Made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Miss Nian. Any conversation, thoughts, concerns? Okay. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. You good on that one, Tom?

Yep. Excellent. Last but not least, on our uh admin side, we've got our advisory board recommendations.

All right, chair. Um, couple items on this. wanted to follow up on what was discussed last month and wanted to start the discussion by saying the department's provided a couple different recommendations for what could be um as needed structure a meeting structure for as needed. Uh doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that way. It's just city administrator myself looked at the looked at it and legally this could be done. There's going to be if you wanted to adopt everything that's recommended here, there would be some changes that would be necessary um in the code it would take some time to implement and I don't think you'd want to do it automatically, but it is something we can do amount of time. So to go through it real quick as a reminder for what tier one, tier two, and tier three uh what those mean. U tier one good examples are like planning and zoning this committee uh and the city council. They make you know they either serve as a quasi judicial function like the planning and zoning commission does, board of adjustment does or they have statutory and compliance driven functions as in you know this overseeing admin and public works budgets etc. Uh that's a good way to you know differentiate it. Tier two is kind of the gray area between tier one and tier three because tier three it's pretty straightforward that didn't have a judicial authority. Um, it's usually a committee that was made for a specific purpose, limited in scope, might not be narrowly defined. There are some that might be included in the code, but not necessarily uh structured perfectly. Uh, tier 2 though is kind of the sweet spot of, you know, there are some delegate uh duties that are delegated to the committee or commission within the the code itself. U, they do have, you know, they're listed in the code. They may have maybe not the thickest of agendas, but they do have some remnants of authority. They do have some of the responsibility for some of the decision-m that gets to the city council. Um, nonetheless, the only boards and advisory groups that were looked at for potential modification were tier twos and tier three bodies.

And we'll just go through these one at a time and we can get answer questions as needed. uh economic development committee was tier 2 and this would require code change but the idea would be to transition as to as needed meeting schedule for economic development HPC historic preservation. um having that very clearly listed, maybe change the code to have this maybe be an asneeded basis, but at the same time have the duties and delegate uh have the duties delegated to planning and parks committee and make sure that they are available for the judicial function of reviewing demolition permits. So if there's a there's that quasi judicial function that needs to take place, they are available for it. And um when I say as needed, that would also meet for the certification we get from the state as well. So if those two things are being satisfied um at that point, it would be considered you know the criteria is met, they'll meet as needed to maintain those two things. Um sometimes we get quite a few we have four different demo permits in because of that moratorum. So there may be some times where you might have to have you know an impromptu meeting called on the spot. U all right, next one was Wildwood Celebration Commission. This one's not as needed, but the idea would be to possibly structure it a little differently so it's not kind of as needed, but also having, you know, four at least four meetings set up each year guaranteed. Um, but also still having the as needed component. The idea would be to have one a pre-event coordination meeting. So something right before celebrate well would make sure all the ducks are in a row. U having, you know, a little time in between the meeting and then the next meeting it the event and then the next meeting itself to have an evaluation period how the event did go. Um and then having two at least two meetings at the beginning of the year or at the end of the that previous year for planning purposes. But the idea would be to set you know broader goals and expectations and during the interim you know having the planning and parks committee review those items since they do review the budgets and all other considerations for

the events themselves throughout the the whole year. Um that is it that one would most likely need you know four to six meetings per year. uh architecture review. This one was a little bit more unique. Uh but given the fact that we don't currently have uh you know it's difficult finding you know experts that have the architectural background to serve on the board. The idea could be to replace the individual component had this code section changed to make sure that our town center guidelines for design architectural standards are implemented. But we could delegate this out to an architectural firm that then submits reports to the planning and zoning commission on a monthly basis and that becomes almost a standing item on the commission's agenda to ensure that that meets the criteria and that would be passed on to the city council. There's a way you can do that in code. Um it would most likely be a receipt and file item similar to what has already been uh what plan comes out of planning and zoning already. Uh board of public safety also tier 2 transition to an as needed meeting structure. Right now it's on a by monthly schedule. Um I do think you would need to delegate the responsibilities overseeing the police service contract which we talked about tonight uh to administration public works probably be the best place to put it. The emergency operation plan could be folded into administration public works and also uh we would have to find somewhere to put in the considerations for traffic code uh traffic schedule changes. Sorry. Uh so that would be important to do but we can have that as needed. Like I said, it's already on a bottom basis. Uh development and zoning review committee. It is a tier three, but did want to note that there are no changes being recommended. We've actually saved quite a bit of time and uh and money for the developer, but also all parties involved seem to benefit from that committee. Um so no changes recommended there. Master Plan 2026 citizen oversight group, no changes recommended for right now, but definitely do an analysis in 2036 when we have to update it again. Um but it's going to be coming to a natural

conclusion here probably by the latest June of 2026 and then we can look at it in the future how we can improve that committee as well. U ad hoc building committee I think we have a good plan in place. I think we need to keep it in place until we get the major issue identified and completed. Um seems like we've identified it now but having a building maintenance plan put in place and also having that uh kind of a decision made on that back base on the south side. I think both of those two things once we have a driver for both or you know we hire an in-house advisory board to help us with our maintenance plan throughout the years going forward uh that could be then folded back up into administration public works and a council function the all-inclusive playground u recommendation is to disband once the playground starts construction so if we have it you know at the end of the day that that could be held I think those residents could still definitely be kept on uh on board and engaged and still working with the city to help, you know, contribute to donations. But by the time we get to construction, we will have to know where we're at with the fundraising efforts because if it's too low still, I mean, we could we'll still take a donation, but we're going to have to make those tough choices if we were able to cover the $500,000 gap to make the bathrooms nice and have the all the equipment we initially set out to do. Uh then landscape and planning subcommittee, that is a subcommittee of the planning and parks committee. There's no changes because it was folded back into the planning and parks committee. And lastly, we had the watershed erosion task force, which the idea would be to possibly have a one more meeting to disband. Um, but we have a plan now to go forward with the uh basin retrofits and we're going to be looking at that. The idea behind that commission, the task force if you will, was to look at the issues along Cox Creek. Uh, we've had the USGS study. We have a, you know, path moving forward. I think erosion issues but also waters waterershed erosion task force more generally could be folded into an administration and public works and also a planning and parks committee item and could have a

notation to it you know either quarterly or some type of motion that could tie in to make sure those updates are being provided but it doesn't necessarily need a dedicated board or commission department's available for any questions. This would take some pretty significant changes to the uh to the committee structure and we'd have to go through the code and make some updates. I don't think we could implement it next week, but we wanted to make these changes, it these legally could be done. Um, and I estimate from a low end could save just from the changes here anywhere between about $8,000 to 20,000. Um, just for meetings that are once a month. So, we're talking about multiplying that by five different committees, we could be talking $50,000 a year in savings on staff.

All right. Any thoughts, questions, concerns, suggestions? Yes, ma'am. On architectural review, if you were using engineers um or architects to advise, would that be something we have to pay for or would you still Okay, so we don't have any idea what those kind of

they haven't gotten the cost. That's where some work. That one's the only one that would have like a a paid consultant take over just because I know it's been we've been pretty adamant about making sure that our town center guidelines are maintained and also having that that's always been the issue is having the structural uh expertise of an architect to ensure that it's being filed to a te. Uh that would take some time to implement. We would keep the current board structure the same until we would have pricing and understanding how much would that cost to sit. There there was um Clarkson Valley um they hired a a architect who lived in Wildlake and he would do his consulting work for them again long time ago but it was 100 bucks an hour or something. Now he didn't have to attend the meeting he would review it sign off on it and send it back to the city. So I think the positioning here is I just know how hard it was to find seven architects who lived in a city who wanted to come and argue over their egos and and then only to roll it back over to have it done. So and that was again back then we didn't have the defined town center plans. We were saying this is what we think it should be. We're living with a lot of

really like we don't have a meeting Thursday because there's no cases. But really we at those meetings you're giving opinions. It doesn't do anything like it just goes on to the next, you know? So, yeah. I mean, it's it's helpful. Like, I enjoy going. I'm not saying that, but I don't know. So, if you're gonna and I This is Where do you finish? Oh, yeah.

If if you're going to do this where they're kind of ad hoc or when needed, I would only encourage you after trying to get a 100 people to work on these committees, tell us what night it will be on. because we've had people take a job on council and then realize they're out of town every Monday night. So you need to do if you're going to do that on if needed that would be very different when you ask people then will you be able to do it because they all have different committees and boards and that kind of stuff. You just define when you would give them the heads up that it's going to happen. that I think you'd need a little bit of a time span, but yeah, like you just said, but also I think you would almost have to lock in dates like we would just like a normal uh scheduling process and just have that like if we're going to have one that month, that's when we hold this.

It will make sense then to the people that are on this committee. The other thing is to look at which of those committees we keep adding more people and then it's more of a challenge to have quorum and that just doesn't make a lot of sense uh in order to do that. But I think that there's some real opportunities to to bear it down some too.

Yeah, I think you guys have done I mean obviously this has been a long time but this is great great stuff. So I I think you know as we've said a lot this is not at all um you know taking away from the volunteer work of of the folks that are on these things or any of that. This is really more to give you know to optimize what we're doing and to make sure that what we're doing is functional. I know just speaking for the watershed uh task force um you know we had that conversation that we would most likely be winding down when we had the last meeting but you know I think we had I think we had one meeting in 2025 so you know we kind of knew I the number of times my wife said don't you have a meeting a water meeting tonight and I'd be like no she's like well it's on the calendar so I I think I mean I think that there's certainly a couple pain points that people might have on this but I think that this is a good start

a really good a really good start Um that's just me. Yes sir.

This involves a lot of people and as such when you're making this large a change to that many people and you're dealing with this 24 people work for the city. I felt it important to build in a safety valve or or a disclosure that every one of these volunteers is encouraged. not just dared or not just uh threatened to voice either a concern or a critique or a recommendation for some thing that will change their capacity as a volunteer or as a participant so that there be a bench check and a reset at two months or fiscal quarter some some period it's less than a year where people are are where the group is called together whether it's just by a zoom or whether it's just by another meeting to evaluate and grade and critique and bring recommendations for how they feel about their fate having been decided by us in this room and then the council if we act on something and that they don't feel like they're being um intentionally thought that they should be quelled and that their input, their insights should be downplayed or ignored. Uh there's a lot of talent pool in what we're getting free from these what hundreds of people that are part of the city that aren't being paid and that uh their their uh their talent pool and their experience uh ought to be valued and uh really sucked up wherever it possibly can instead of having them feel like we've been fired and we weren't even in the room.

Yeah. I mean I I would say I think you know one of the things the big hurdles we had here is um a lot from what I at least from what I saw looking at agendas and things you know there was a lot of meetings that were happening just because it was on the calendar and they're having a meeting. So sometimes like part of this protection that I I see in this is because it is so difficult to get the right number of people and all those things and now we have this term limit situation where it starts to limit what we can do with certain people. um you know even if we because we haven't been able to change that fully yet. Um but I I think you know I think I know that the people at least I my experience with this was the people that were on the watershed task force um were really dedicated and good at what they were doing but it it was evident that they were getting frustrated that we were just having meetings to have meetings. And so I would say you know giving people the ability to be to me it gives these people the ability to be more valuable because they can add real pieces of information when we need things you know whether it's um you know if we transition let's say the watershed stuff you know here parks and planning or whatever you know Richard Sturman who is into all of the details in terms of how we're going to get money and all these different things I'm certain he would be happy to go to whatever meeting and talk about that stuff. So I I I don't I look at this not as taking away people's opportunity to be to add value to the city. I actually look at this as really enhancing it because you know what I think I've had these conversations with folks that were on a couple years ago we had like a community what's the thing the community like

community engagement engagement whatever

and the concept of that was great but you know all the people I suggested were like like just stop going and you know similar you know I've gotten a lot of feedback like I know we're going to look at the master plan thing when that's over but there's there has been some very real um discussion about how that process plays out. So, I mean, I'm with you. I don't I don't want I don't want to throw people, you know, have people throw thrown away or anything like that. I really do think whatever decisions we make here, we want to make sure that that's communicated effectively. But I do I do think that this adds more value to what people are doing rather than just a date on a calendar because right now I think a lot of people don't really know when you know they're like this is a big tonight is a huge agenda that we're dealing with. Um and that's all good stuff but I've been in plenty meetings where we weren't doing anything. Um that's just me. So anyways, but I hear what you're saying. I I think that's a good thing. So, does anybody have any other thoughts, questions, concerns? Want to make a motion to recommend except Tom's Well, do we want to be a little bit more specific about when do we try to make some of these changes? I mean, we've talked about them.

I guess the question would be is anyone as you kind of did your the rating of what's in there? I know we talked a little bit about that then the length of the terms. Do we have some clarity on that so that you could kind of Well, we'd have to change we'd have to update the charter, but we that could be done at the same time. I don't know. The charter that those terms on those committees are not in the charter. Oh, you're talking about the part that's being confused is in the charter it says two terms to for any appointed position, but the the width of the term the length of the term is not specific other than council and the mayor. So, we automatically implied

Yeah. that uh planning and zoning and all these others had to be continue at the four years and the term limits didn't really apply if they if it were after April 3rd of 2018. But then we get over to historian preservation which are I think two or threeear terms and we're cranking those people. I said well they can only serve four years. Well that that's because we said it's a two-year or threeear. I think that can be done by ordinance because it's not in a charter. So I think we talked about the three doing set all the three.

I know there was a lot of research done we talked about even the council positions. Yeah. Um that what is the right length because it does take a couple three years before you figure out what your job is that there was a study out there I and I don't even know if it's accurate anymore that the perfect length of service is a three-year term that gives people a chance to get in decide whether they're good or not. Now, I don't know how many times we've had council people that didn't even get through the first year and just quit. So, I'm sure there are people like that, but I don't know if that research is still out there or not. I'm just saying if if it is three years, then that would mean based on the charter, they could have six years. And there's no issue, too. I mean, if you changed it to chart to three years, you're still having two terms, but you get six years out of a what would be a

Yeah, you could do four years. You could go to eight years. Yep. But I mean part of that the whole reason for it when we did the charter last time um I I was strongly against I think you should do it for elected people but I don't believe you should have any term limits for people sitting on boards and commissions. Those are appointed and the mayor has a right to say thank you for your service. I'm appointing somebody else. And I had this discussion w with Mayor Bolan. Why do I have to do that? Well, that's your job as a mayor, you know, and if if that person isn't [clears throat] doing what you think that you want done, then you just say, "Thank you. Your term is up. I've got somebody else to put on there." But he didn't want to do it. He would rather the council mandate that people couldn't do it. And I just I would totally disagree with that and voted no several times. It doesn't really matter. But in that particular case, I think that you have an opportunity of people I watched on historic preservation where we turn people out. Well, they were never elected to start with. they volunteered to do that work and then we say, "Oh, sorry, he can't do it anymore."

So, okay. Well, let's break this in a couple pieces then. So, um, do we want to based on Tom based on the recommendations that the department is giving us in terms of putting these in these different things and and just making them as needed. Do we think that that generally is a good idea? because if we do then we can have a motion that is that I think assuming it passes however that works out then to me it makes sense to say if you're going to have a like whatever the next scheduled after it passes whatever the next scheduled meeting is is happening I think if there are um specific things like you know the master plan committee as an just wouldn't be apply to this but like they have a very specific thing that they're doing so with watershed it sense. We passed this basin thing that's kind of like outside of us shoveling. I don't know that there's anything else we can do. So maybe it's a it's like a it's happening at the at as quickly as business finishes. So if they don't have like the historic preservation thing, we p we've moved the uh document forward, right? The master plan thing. So that's happening. That's it, right? Right. I mean, there's not like it's not like somebody's going to make that and they're going to go, I don't like this document. Right.

Yeah. Preservation or the master plan? I'm talking about historic preser. So, like historic preservation, their big thing that they've got happening is this master plan for historic preservation. Historic preservation plan. So, because that has now basically been like enacted by the council. Oh, wait. The council hasn't adopted the plan. What What I'm saying though is we said do the plan. Yeah. do the plan and then that gives you a framework. But I will say I mean there you know I think some of the committees will make make the mentioning I know Mr. Avery knows about it but the award we got for the railroad to freedom that was recently proclaimed. There's a lot of things that are being done at these committees that I think you know there updates but sure there's I think there's this is going to make some folks upset as well.

Yeah that's fine. That's okay. It's okay to make people upset. That's part of the job. Just pointing that out. We don't get to make everybody happy. That's not how it goes. I wasn't going to chirp up because I'm on that committee. Uh but um their their actions and their involvement the city is increasing as um we're at 66

as as all aspects of that become more valuable more more is being made aware about it because more is being researched into it and uh it's it's picking up. So, I didn't want to if I did anything at all, it would be to vote that historic preservation would be a tier one. You got one You got one person that's happens to be on a committee that seems to have 18 people on it that it seems like there's enough stuff coming down the tubes that um as needed is every bit as as needed as it seems to be all the time because our meetings keep going like people get up and leave. Well, if it's at need as needed that is needed.

It could be monthly. It could still be monthly. It was scheduled monthly. So then it just I think it would probably depend. I assume on the chair or whoever the depend on the chair. The chair would have to call it. Um we'd probably have to establish for some of these as needed. We need to we can defer to our normal process. I mean like I know how Joe does it with water. I mean Joe if something is h if I were to say hey I want to have a watershed meeting typically reach out. He would say yes or he would call me and go hey we have something we need to talk about and then I go okay and then it happens. I mean I think Rick you basically do the same thing I assume with public safety right? Like if there's a pressing issue, you're going to say, "Hey guys, we got to get together.

And if there's some request from whomever, the marshall, I guess, then you would It's not like you're going to go, "No, we're not having a meeting, right? It's honestly, it's more or less as needed right now. I mean, yeah, we're scheduled every other month, but if we don't have items, we we don't just don't meet." Yeah. So So like I think to that point, so like if you guys have stuff to do, then great. Then you meet every month. If you don't don't make something up in me. Yeah. Grief. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean I think I mean like to me, you know, like I would I mean I can't speak like I can't speak for you know Scott, but he might be like, "Hey, I think economic development is really important." Okay, then put an agenda together and call a meeting. And if if the members of the committee agree with that, they show up to the meeting. And if they don't, they don't. And then the meeting doesn't happen anyways. And then it becomes like it's pretty I would rather have it be that way than just people kind of not showing up because you haven't done anything in several months and now when something is pressing it's a little you come to meet for half an hour and leave even worse right because then you get all that prep time 15 minutes sometimes.

Yeah. So, um, okay. So, I hear you on the And the other thing I would say is, you know, once we get into the work session, we're gonna have eight eight, well, more than eight, but eight other opinions on this anyway, so everybody can kind of have that. Do we want to Well, there's a question, too. Do we want to make sure that this report goes to the planning and parks committee before it goes to the full council or do we want to have this go to the full council next week? I mean, I would just put it to the full council. I mean, cuz they might I mean, I guess they might say they don't like it, and if we said we do like it, then we have to have that conversation anyways. Yep. Okay. I I mean, I I think I mean, there's no legal issue with that doing that. So, you're

um So, okay. So, so I guess then the motion could be if we want to or we can make some changes to it. We accept the recommendations of the department to move to the work session. We want to talk about do we want to look further into three years at or do you I mean I' I've looked I think we ought to be consistent. We need to realize that the the charter change created a real problem for these committees. Yes. So, we've tried to work around that, but and I don't know and and and if it if three is good, I could do some research, but maybe four four eight years is a long time for people to serve on committee. And part of that when you're asking somebody to do it, they'll say, you know what, my kids are going to be out of school. I just don't think I can commit to those that many years. Right. So I that's why I just kind of thought maybe a threeyear would be

I think we looked it up last time and I mean three years is solid. So two three year terms you know you can serve up to six years if the mayor wants to reappoint you but we need your commit for three years on an asne basis for Thursday night the third week of law. I mean that way you you're telling them right then these are usually when the dates are. Last year only half of those dates happened but would you be would you like to serve on those committees? Okay so that makes sense. Is there any other component of this that we want to send up the line here? All right. So then the motion would be basically to pass forward these recommendations and we can talk about the specific ones at work session

and then make the suggestion our recommendation is to shift the board's non council people to threeyear terms. Yep. though must be treated I would say two separate pieces of this two separate motions okay and maybe the way to set that up is to say here's the the variances that we have now we have some two some three some I guess then we probably also want to say just to make it simpler when it gets there when do we want to implement this like do they finish their term now because if people committed for two years and now you're like oh yeah you get an extra but I I even mean like let's let's pretend that this recommendation that Tom has made on these boards gets approved when do we want that Oh, when do we think we want to roll that out?

I wouldn't think you'd roll it out on the when you bring new people in. Yeah. You know, so somebody's coming in, you're not bringing in on two-year, you let them do a three-year. No, no. I mean, like if we're going to go to this ad as needed basis rather than monthly meetings, when do we want to want to do as soon as possible? I mean, the whole idea is to be respectful of their time, right? Okay. So, then it'll be July 1st or something. Well, I think it's then. So, we're going to accept the department's recommendation on the tiers and the as needed thing and our recommendation then is to implement that as soon as possible. So, that'll be motion one. Does that make sense?

Okay. Does anybody want to make that motion? All right. Made by Miss Nan, second by Mr. Marshall. Any questions, concerns, discussions on that one. Okay. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, that passes. Then number two is going to be to shift the board and commission appointees to three-year terms, but still allow the charter to give it to two Yeah. terms. Correct. I can't change that. But for three-year terms for all appointed official positions, your terms for all appointed official positions. Yeah, I think that's so if they're serving a current two-year term, they would finish they would have to finish that term.

Finish that. And then if they got reappointed for are any of the others I know planning zoning used to be four but that might be by ordinance. So I think is four. So that one probably should stay at four. Yeah. If it's by ordinance but I think the others could you could probably have that flexibility. Well if we're going in there and changing it anyways too. I mean we're editing some of this anyway. So we're going to have to go in and make changes to double check to make sure. But if there's an opportunity to do it, you know, it's one of those things where you tried to explain to people what would happen down the road and nobody wanted to listen, right? And then now you're stuck right in the middle of it thinking man we can't get

so is it better does it helpful time if we say like I assume we're going to talk about this in the work session. So is it is it better to say that at the work session you are going just like you did with this you're going to bring your recommendation specific to P&Z or any other like weird outlier because like the marshall's appointed position right that's a it's appointed by the mayor firm by the council is that a threeear that's a I think it's till he's not appointed anymore okay I don't think it's time specific at all

okay so I would suggest maybe the motion is our recommendation generally speaking is three years. There are a couple things P and Z, you know, the marshall, the judge probably. So, at work session, Tom is going to bring out bring this is what these guys are and this is like do you want here's why it's four years. Do we want to make a change to that? This is for committee members and board members. Non-sil. Yeah. Not non-counsel people. So, like so like it makes sense to me that P&Z you probably want to have [clears throat] a longer Yeah. Uh thing. What's the uh treasure? That's actually it's a yearby-year appointment, is it?

Yep, that's correct. I would have to double check, but I think it's a year by year or appointed until the This is maybe I guess it makes sense. What happens if we don't like if you're the mayor and you or whatever, you don't want that person there anymore. What h happens? Just ask them to resign and put somebody else in. But they don't have to, right? Yeah, they do. So, I mean, I I took the treasure. He said he didn't have to come to any meetings. I said, "No only you do." Okay. So, I replaced him. But I just think same thing with the, you know, I had the judge taken out. So, I mean, you just those are appointments, you know, you don't really have to go into a lot of explanation. It's just the fact be careful about saying public leave had judges taken. You didn't mean that camera. Yeah. Well,

um, all right. So, Tom, does that make sense? Sexual harassment case. So, it What was that? Sorry. Does it make sense to say, you know, generally speaking, we think three years is appropriate, but and implement where legally posed. Yeah. Yeah. And I I'll come back with a recommendation how that would fit in with some of these and just heads up indefinite term for the city treasurer unless terminated by the mayor. So, how about that? See, I think personally I think it would be fine to talk about the terms with the full council because it's going to go that way anyways. But if you guys want to have that come back here first, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think we should explain the wide variety what they were so the people realize that y

and that's just another one of the problems the mayor has trying to get people to agree to do something and it's very I think it's very hard for a council member to try to explain to somebody I'd really like you I mean it was just like with the master plan that is terrible you're getting in for a year and the amount of time and 25 people that's tough and people say do you really want to do that right but I think the more you can put some clarity out there would help getting people to volunteer to serve on some of those. Okay. So, does anybody want to make the motion basically to go with generally speaking three years and then Tom's going to come back for those kind of outlier ones? Anybody care to make it that chiropractic? I'll be happy to.

All right. Mr. Marshall will make that. Mr. Mabry will second it. Any other conversation? Excellent. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Great. Now, Rick, we get to come to you. I hope that you speak quickly. Uh up first we've got our uh status report on city improvement projects. Thank you, Chair Farmer. Council members, the uh department has put together a summary of projects for your information and available for any questions in particular. I would mention and can speak to this probably better than I can. We do expect to see some work starting on our 109 VA project possibly next week. Thanks.

Um so there's some asphalt work. Um, and one of the early changes that's going to occur is we're going to put traffic onto a det onto a detour. Essentially, if you're turning onto BA South, you're going to have to access Bay from a detour from a connection that we're going to construct onto Old Ethereon Road. So, that location is going to move and it's going to be a little challenging for a bit as we start the construction of that roundabout project. So that'll be one of the first things that occurs. And old etherton is the thing that cuts back behind the temp the one that runs right there between the temple and the church.

The pink one, right? 109 to be the one that's eventually going to be closed. That's actually called old ethic, right? Yeah. And then so the plan is to then close that afterwards. Yeah. That might be an item for the uh committee to consider at a later date. Yes. because I I've just noticed I mean they do have services there which is great but it does get it is very strange when you got reflections coming off the windows and cars are coming at you and all those other things. So that feels with a roundabout there too that might get really weird.

Are they going to w I'm sorry I missed that part. That's where they're going to ask Paul to widen that so it can be the detour because you can't even get two cars. We're going to rebuild the connection essentially to route 109 from old etherton. So it will be it will not be on the the extreme skew that it currently is. It'll be squared up a little bit. So it's hard to see to get

and then are we uh there's usually a number a lot of cars parked over there when that uh temple is going. Are we going to put any parking restrictions or anything on there once we do that? But like now I know they you know sometimes they overflow into that other church but then also they're like parked along the side of the building on that road. I think we would discourage that during this period of time when we are using it as a Okay. [clears throat] That's something that Brendon's going to need to do here. We we just might I'm just we just might want to try to communicate that sooner rather than later because that might that might be uh new for those folks. A question.

Yes sir. just whether it's by the nearest month or the nearest fiscal quarter, how long uh will there be perturbation that I can describe to residents who are complaining about anything where where this detour is going on and where October overall project would be October, right? Yes. So expect a good fat six month.

So it Yeah, it'll be while it's under construction. There are numerous diversions, detours that are going to occur um to move traffic around so we can free up different areas for construction. So yeah, it'll be inconvenience. You use 109 through that area, it'll be inconvenience for the next six months. Be as bad as other times. Um and we don't there's nowhere like we had that delay when we did the Wild Horse One with the drainage and stuff. There's nothing I mean I know that substation is over there and they've been doing a lot of work but there's nothing laying similar to that where all of a sudden it's going to be several more months where we're figuring something out this time.

We're hoping we've got all the utilities squared away and um Amron's going to move. There's four poles that are going to get relocated and Amron's agreed to do it and they told us those will be moved by Memorial Day. As long as they keep their word, we should be

All right. Excellent. Uh any other questions or concerns on any of that? Okay. Uh contractor bids for asphalt resurfacing. Um committee members, um I think as you know, we typically try to have a annual asphalt resourcing project and this year we have 650,000 allocated for that work. U we did put together a project as we normally do and put it out for bids um for this year for 2026. And we intentionally kept the uh work a little bit low or a little bit light because we wanted to make sure we were well within our budgeted amount. And so we opened bids um for the 2026 project on February 25th. And we got two bids submitted which is not unusual. Um the two biders as we have typically seen been NB West and um and I apologize if it's a little bit hard to read Pace Construction Company. And that's mainly because they use a specialized piece of equipment, a spray paver that is very expensive. And to my knowledge, only two contractors in the area have that equipment. And that's really why we get two bids for it um in large part. So um NV West was the low bidder. Um and that has been the case except for last year when Pace got the bid and they were doing a ton of work in Wildwood and they kind of cornered the market. So this year it's back to MBS as the old bidder for the project. they were at 243, excuse me, $245,575 versus um near 100 grand more for for PACE construction. So, they were well below um and and much cheaper than PACE this year. So, um the recommendation is to move forward with an agreement with MB West contracting for the project for this year. However, we'd like to bump up the contract amount relative to what was bid and we'd like to spend about

$500,000. Um, and MB West is certainly agreeable to doing that. So, the recommendation is uh with the caveat that we spend or increase the amount that was incorporated into the bid to $500,000. And to do that, we would resurface also well, Reer Road, Smith School Road, and Smith School spur in addition to the previously planned roads, which were Sarah Matthews, Dawn's Trail, Woodcliff's Heights Drive and Court, as well as the little section of Vintage Grove Court off of Old State Road. So, that is the recommendation to you, and I'm happy to address any questions. Again, the total contract amount would be $500,000 for 2026. All right. Any questions or concerns? Yes, sir.

This is more of a philosophy. We were either way off on our estimate or just because the price is lower, we keep adding more stuff in. So, if I were the bidder, I'd be a little frustrated to think that I bid that and then you came back and and I lost a bid, then you came back and added more on. So, I'm it's more of a question about is that the right thing to do because we know we're short on money and if we felt that that's what we needed, then shouldn't we take our win and do what we said we were going to do or is it just a really good idea business-wise to add to that contract? That's quite a bit more than what we I I don't know. I mean, my biggest fear someday is when we contract everything out that nobody's going to bid on the contract here and then what what do we do? You know, I mean that there's been times where there's only been one bidder and then you question what did we do wrong, you know, because you'd like to see it competitive. So, it's just more of a philosophy question. I can go either way. I think that either that's a lot to be off on our estimate uh in this way and it's in our favor

where other times usually it's we're 20 30% under what the forecast is going to be. So get the comment.

Well, and so I I would I don't disagree council member, you know, I would like to have had this closer to the actual amount. We have adjusted it in the past. That's not unusual. This is a little bit higher adjustment clearly and it's greater than I would like. Um I guess I would argue that based on the discussion we had with PACE they told us they were very busy and the bid differential has been consistent between PACE and MB west. Generally MB West has been the low bidder and pay struggles to keep competitive pricing as it is not something we want to we don't want to discourage less competition clearly it's very helpful that we both get we get as many bids as possible in this case generally this the two bids so I you know NB west is more than happy to do the work in fact I I'm more of the concern that NB West would tell us we're too busy we can't do more work than the contrary really. Um, and so I'm very thankful that West is willing to fit this extra work in because it is a significant increase and I don't expect that Pace is going to come back and say, you know, basically accuse us of not playing fair. Certainly, we don't want to do this every year and make

you refer though. It's a special type of equipment, right? Well, it because they have a a spray paver, which is not something that most contractors have. The only ones that have it are the ones that do the the heavy asphalt resourcing work for for mod. It does limit the competition right there and we typically got two biders and except for last year MB West has been the long bid. Yeah, just a comment whatever. All right. Anybody else have anything? Anybody care uh to make a motion, I guess, to approve the department's recommendation on the bids? Oh, there's only five of us tonight. Motion.

Mr. Gabriel will make the motion. Anybody care to second it? All right. Seconded by Miss Nan. All those Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. That one passes. That brings us to the contractor bids for the Manchester Island beautifification.

Any members? Um this next one is a uh proposed project to do a little bit of beautifification on Manchester Road. Um you may be familiar there is a raised median island in Manchester Road just immediately south of Pierside Lane that at one time was landscaped with trees. [clears throat] Over the time those trees grew and we got complaints about them obstructing this the visibility of the traffic signals and um essentially as they died we did not replace them. We've been a little reluctant to beautify or rebutify this island but we did we have received comments through the years that it's a great location that it should be beautified. It's in town center and it would be consistent with other areas of town center and also would complement the streetscape improvements that we've done and more recently improved. So, we put a project together um to we put a plan together and we put a bid out to add landscaping to that island and um we opened bids on that last Friday. Um we did get some very good bids. We got seven total bids submitted for that project. Uh, and I would say that the improvements that we're proposing are very lowlying um, shrubs and hardscape rocks that stay low enough that they should not obstruct motor sight lines to the degree that we get complaints. That's the goal. Um, we're very comfortable that that will be the result. So um we have seven bids and the other important thing that I wanted to mention is we did not budget any money for beautifification or landscape this year in our budget. However, we do have a fair amount of monies that were escrowed over the years for streetscape improvements on Manchester for this very purpose. So by my estimation, there's more than $100,000 available. So I'm proposing that we dip into that money to do this work. I think that's an excellent

opportunity to take advantage of those escros dollars that we probably should have spent by now, but we just never did. So, this is not going to come [clears throat] directly out of our budget, but it'll be funded through the escro monies that we that we have on hand. So, the recommendation is to move forward tonight with um actually the contractor is not the low bid, but the second lowest bid, and that would be um Bill Green Lawn and Landscape. They are um about 3,000 well about $3,000 higher than the low bid. The low bid was at 25,000 is by a company called MACC contracting. We've not worked with MACC before [clears throat] so I'm not real confident recommending them. Um so the thought was to award it to Phil Green who is a known entity and they do the maintenance and they will be maintaining this area this exact uh median when when the installation has been completed. So um [clears throat] this is obviously not a large project. So I guess I wouldn't say this is a strong recommendation on my part. There's not a lot of risk because it is a small project. It's not a $2 million project, but we have seen new contractors come into town. We saw it with Village Green, an unknown entity come in and really create a lot of headaches. So, we saw this on our street, [clears throat] our concrete street replacement project a couple years ago with a contractor that I presented this issue to you at that time. That was a new [clears throat] contractor that we' not worked with before. So there is always that risk and because the bid was so close, I felt it made sense to recommend um go green rather than the low bid. Again, it's not a strong recommendation on my part because it's a small project. It is

fairly minimal risk. So I I guess I can be comfortable either way, but I'd like to support our local contractors.

Thank you. Two questions. Has there been anything in the in the content or the structure of the low bid that can be cited as uh there having been non-responsive to the bid and then that is the disqualifier the the record of achievement or the record of performance great but it's always best to have of course you know the the qualifier that the bidder was simply nonresponsive Well, I I guess probably the answer to that is no. I don't see anything specific that would say it's nonresponsive. Um, but I looking at their pricing relative to the other contractors, I would certainly expect Go Green to be competitive. They're basically working in Wildwood for us and they're going to be doing maintenance work, landscape [clears throat] maintenance work for us. So, and he's given us very competitive bids in the past. So, I'd expect him to be lowest [clears throat] or very competitive, but um to see a new entity lowest and and then the next contractor significantly higher to him to me, it just feels like it's an outlier. [clears throat] They put in a low price potentially to get our business. And that's not always a bad thing. They may perform and they may do a great job. Everybody's got to start somewhere, right? Um, but I did pull some of my cohorts and I only had one other city say they've worked with them and that was Depare for mulching work. Um, so they have done some work for Depair, but I haven't located anybody else yet with any experience with them. They have a nice website. They don't [clears throat] have a lot of completed private. They they say they can do a lot of stuff and they say they work for government, but there's not a lot of here's former projects that we've

completed. Here's a record of what we've done. I don't see that on their website. They're they're a certified or they're an approved city bidder. I take it they've been they've gone through a pre-qualification uh application process. Um no, I can't say that that's true necessarily. We don't have a pre-qualification process or Oh, that's formal. Interesting to know. Um, none of our contract suppliers have a pre-qualification [clears throat] qualification when they apply. We don't have I didn't hear. Sorry. For like our

rightway maintenance contracts and we do pre-qualify them beforehand and then they're assigned work assigned. But at the end of the day when they do some of these RFPs, they're submitting all that documentation at that time. Also, anybody can I mean really anybody can just bid on which is sometimes why we run into problems because like my philosophy on this stuff is maybe different than others but you know I appreciate going with the low bid mentality but a lot of times you know I've learned over the years fixing my house sometimes when you go with the economical solution it just winds up costing you a whole lot more money on the back side of this stuff. So, you know, in the when we've done these things in the past with other things, it's one of the reasons why, you know, the department I think kind of goes and it's not it's not a frequent thing, but a lot of times they'll say, "Hey, you know, this one is more expensive, but this is why we think we this might be the better solution." I mean, per personally, I you know, I am I know why we are beautifying some of these places, but I am also think that like none of this stuff ever lives wherever we put it. So I think you know could be better spent doing anything else but it is worthiness.

Then my second question is u does the city have a a cap on single source u no compete bids that can be uh applied here to this uh newbie contractor to establish a record of performance for the future for the future of the city's benefit. I don't have the time. None. Okay. Thanks. Exhausted all my questions. All right. Anybody have anything else or care to make a motion? That Mr. Vanic. Motion to approve.

All right. Motion to accept the department's recommendation for go green. All right. Motion made by Mr. Vanic. Anybody care to second it?

Seconded by Miss Nan. Uh, any discussion? All right. All those in favor, please say I. All right. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Go green. Do that. Excellent. Uh, next up is the professional services agreement for materials testing. Um, thank council members. Um I think as you probably aware so we have in the past every two years we have re-engaged a consultant firm to help us with m primarily for materials testing services for city improvement projects and um this is generally work that we need done for our concrete street replacement project. So when we do that improvement project we have a firm that comes out and helps us test the concrete materials. So they'll pour, they'll test the concrete when it's [clears throat] poured. They'll check the strength of the concrete as it cures to make sure it's within spec. They'll also have us, they also be on site to help us check the density of the ground, the subgrade to make sure it's impacted properly with the proper density. Um, so they are very instrumental primarily in the concrete street replacement improvement project that we do, but are also generally in available for other um projects as needed. So um for this year for 2026 we would like to move forward with a professional services agreement with Cochran Incorporated to help us again for materials testing and some limited construction inspection work um for a two-year period starting in 2026 and it did provide a copy of their professional service qualifications. Cochran has been helping us with this for some time now and they've been doing a great job. Um and we work very well with them. We found that generally Cochran has been very very cost-effective uh as compared to other firms that we've worked with and um they've certainly been very responsive. So recommendation is to move forward

with a professional services agreement with Cochran for materials testing and construction inspection services for a two-year period. And basically this would be structured to be not to exceed the amount of 150,000 or basically 75,000 a year. So that is the recommendation. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to address them this time. All right. Any questions, concerns, or anybody care to make a motion? Mr. Mabry. All right. Mr. Mabry, you will make the motion to approve the department's recommendation. Anybody care to second? Seconded by Mr. Vanic. Uh, any discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay, that one passes as well. Next up, we have the town center street lights.

Thank you. Um, farmer committee members, this next item is a little bit more unique. Um, and I think most of you all probably are aware in within the town center, the um, department maintains street lights um, primarily along residential street, city streets. Um, so anytime we plot a new subdivision and it's going to be a city street, the street lights are constructed essentially to our standard. The city of Bollywood takes them over when that street is is accepted. Um, this is also somewhat true of private development projects that have occurred. So when those developments are constructed and done, if they're in town center and they're along a city street, we require city lighting to be constructed and then we take it over and maintain it. Um some time ago we've had a few projects that were constructed where and and the goal is when those are done and we this is the way we approach it is that when those projects are reviewed and complete the lighting is supposed to be um separate circuits and metered publicly. So it's usually it's intended to be metered to a box that's maintained and owned by the city of Walden. So it's separate from their internal lighting. if they have lighting on their parking lot, it's wired separately from that. So, um, that's the way we've been doing it for some time now. But we do have some locations that were completed prior to a policy that was in place where the lot or the site was not wired separately. And as a result, the property owners are paying the electrical bill and we maintain the lights and they pay the bill. And we've had situations where they've brought this to our attention. And basically the policy that has been passed in the previous councils way back

Mr. Marshall if you were around at the point or um basically said that that's the way it is and if they want to change it, the property has to pay the cost to meter the lighting separately. which they don't want to do. So, we just basically say, well, that's the that's the choice right now per the policy that's in place. Um, you have to pay the electric bill. We'll maintain the lights, but you pay the bill. If you want the city to pay the bill, you have to pay the cost to meter it separately. So, I guess the question is, we've had this come up, West Glenn Farms, the Bank of Houston. That's the situation with the Bank of Houston is that development though when it was constructed the lighting was not metered separately and I think as it stands right now it's not functioning because they're not paying the bill.

We did confirmed it's weird half of it works and half of it doesn't. Yeah, it's so the bill the lights along the side of it are on. The lights along the front are not. We confirmed too that I mean if they don't want to turn the lights on yes they can have this option available but then we could also site them. though that was recently confirmed too. That's something that I didn't talk with Rick yet about, but it was very recently found out that that could be done. Yeah. Based on the based on the founding ordinance for that development,

right? I mean, you can say the board the ordinance approved the development development included that in it and that's the way it is and you got to you're stuck with it property owner. That's the call or is this is why I'm bringing it to you as committee members. Is that something we want to revisit and the city pay those costs to me those situations separately or just leave it as is? How what are the costs involved with that?

Well, that's the difficult thing because I don't know these I don't know the actual costs but they they are significant and I guess I said in the memo probably on the order of 10 to 15,000 potentially per site. Um hopefully less but I it's not it's not hundreds of dollars. It's it's thousands and it may be tens of thousands. So, we we looked at getting power on from a street light to the sign on road and it was $35,000.

It it can get very pricey and and it it's not easy either because to do it, frankly, we probably going to have to develop a plan, work with an engineer to develop a plan, bid it, get cost, and bring it through the committee to do it. It can be done. Um, but it it will take us work to do it and run through that process. Um, so I can certainly understand a proper not want to take it on either. Um, but it kind of got us I guess that's it's something that we struggle with internally. The other one that I know about is the Living Word Methodist Church. Theirs is not metered separately and they've approached us and basically we said if you want it metered separately and you pay the cost we'll be glad to take it on but right now they're they're paying the power bill. [snorts] I'm pretty sure there's a couple others out there that have predict policy that are metered separately as well that if if we wanted to go down this road it's it's probably going to be I would guess at least four maybe five properties that are like this. I mean this affects right the fairway.

Oh, you're you're not in town center. So Oh, no. Yeah, not center. Oh, so this is only this is just town center. Oh, but the bank's not town center either. It is just barely. But the church is in town. I mean, I I would say I would say this. I my my thing is just because I've seen it over there. Like I it's I guess it's unfortunate that that's how that was wired, but that's how it was wired. So if we have a policy that says that those lights need to operate, then we need to like we just need to in this is kind of to me this is one of those things I don't know that we need to be spending $50,000 to fix a problem that wasn't our problem to begin with. If we have a policy that says you got to turn the lights on, then they should be turning the lights on. And if they don't turn them on,

then what? I don't know what the enforcement mechanism is. been to court multiple times and then after six conviction should force the inter

I mean here here's what I know we my one of the biggest budget items for my subdivision is the street lights we have a ton of them and it's I think $27,000 a year or something like that. So operating six street lights in front of a building is not cost prohibitive in any stretch of the imagination. And I just think ra like I this is just my personal opinion on this and I'll obviously let I'm going to let you guys talk but like this is kind of one of those things where I feel like we open up a whole different can of worms if we start taking this thing on rather than just enforcing the policy that we have. This isn't this is in a similar way like when we talked about the uh the last master plan thing when we took on the roads and the alleyways and stuff and you were appropriately Rick saying [clears throat] this is a bigger deal than what it appears to be right now. I feel like this is another one of those very slippery slopes where you know we just if we have a policy that these things have to be on they have to be on. That's just how it works. I don't I don't get how driving around here half these lights don't work. That to me just seems like a pretty basic code violation, but I could be wrong. Just tell them to turn the lights on. And if they don't like it, send them a citation or whatever it is. And it's either going to be too expensive for them to deal with that or they'll pay to fix it or they'll pay to turn them on.

So, do they own the the bank owns the property now? Are they leasing it? No, the Bank of Houston owns that property. They own the entire frontage. Yeah. But it's weird. That property split in two. Yeah, it's like one building, but one of the owners is Network Technology Partners, who actually just purchased the Central Bank building, too. Oh, not Central Bank. The old Central Bank. Yeah. Well, no, no, no. The new central bank. Yes. Which is just fascinating to know because by the way, those on his side, those street lights work. So, I would be willing to bet that those are wired into that building. That could be that very well that we I'd have to actually get into the closet to see, but that very well could be.

I would I'm I'm going to guess that they are. So, that's it. I mean, we recently discovered we can definitely site that individual based on what they agreed to when we u when they had that constructed. Obviously, it's a different owner, but I mean, but when they buy the property, the inherent things that come along with the property, and I just don't think turning them out's an option, but I kind of agree. If it's in there and the wording is fine and we have a legal position on it, I don't think that's a big discussion. It just you enforce it and uh may not like it. You hate to see businesses leave, but anyone else would have to do it. Yeah. I mean, I can't I can't imagine those lights could cost more than you $150.

Six lights. My old subdivision as a trustee now. That's a long time ago, but it's like 75 bucks a month. Pay for six lights. And boy, they come right away to one burn out, man. They'd be there tomorrow to fill the replace.

Yeah. I I mean, I I just think, you know, we we we have spent in other committees and things, we spent a lot of time on signage. We're talking about some different things. Like there are to me there are just basic lighting things in at the night which I know is difficult for you guys cuz you're not usually around here at that time but like you know I just don't know why we don't I don't understand why we don't enforce the stuff that we have. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But so so if I guess Rick the question then would be um assuming we don't want to do that because that does seem like at least to me anyways it seems like a slippery slope. Happy to have you guys think otherwise. But what is the next step direct force policy?

Yeah, if we we can just continue use the policy enforce it as it is. Um if you wanted to change it then I'd want a motion in that regard and we can modify it and bring it back. I mean what what is the actual current policy which is that we well they can pay the pretty much said no no I'm saying like whatever we're going to site them for like I know what they're supposed to be doing but if that's going back to the site specific ordinance that they it's practically the agreement that they agreed to when they got the zoning approval for the for the plan. So like hey you're getting a bank here you're building these lights and you're going to have more the lights that's part of the deal. It's part of the deal when they made the building.

Yeah. So I I mean I'm happy if somebody wants to make a motion otherwise, but I think I think when we have these agreements, you know, they're there for a reason. People have spent a lot of time doing it and and I just think it's a it is a dangerous precedent to just Well, and they were aware. Well, I will say too in the future though, we I think we do this now, but we shouldn't set it up where it's metered that way. We should do our best if we're going to if we know we're going to take on the lights, they should we should have that meter. That's exactly what we're trying to do is to to meet it if you anything that was the intent when the policy was passed. It's just that we had background. We had some that were not done that way. So then your the policy moving forward is correct. Yeah.

It is the it is the rear facing these ones that were incorporated and constructed before. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um so sorry I kind of monopolized that guys. But so then if uh if we don't want to if we don't want to make a motion to change the policy, we I guess maybe we don't have to do anything or do you guys want a motion to enforce the current policy or do you not need it? We don't need that motion. I don't know that I need it. I just Yeah. Okay. Agreed. Okay. Excellent. So that one is what it is. Um okay, that brings us to um miscellaneous items. Anybody have any miscellaneous stuff?

Yes, sir. Mr. Marshall. Um, where do we stand on getting an insert back to Turnberry on the appeal?

The fact that the board of public safety move passed it, we p passed out of here. We took it to council and said it's going to be open and then they came back with their appeal and then every meeting they come back and tell us how the fire department told them they could do it. Well, that just doesn't really hold a lot of weight. So my my question would be is and then we get into the situation about well we're going to separate that out of the contract. Some of these things I just think we need to really have a good solid answer because otherwise they keep on going from one committee to the next and next thing you know it's kind of like the tin can comes out three or four different ways. thought the I thought that the next council meeting was going to be the second reading of uh imminent approval and then there was some I didn't say noise but there was some I didn't say contrivance either but there was some issue about well can we can we split them apart and can we vote on both of them separately even though they're the same thing I didn't get it

I'm fine with that vote and everything I just my concern concern is we kind of our own worst worst enemy on some of these issues. We spend all the time in one committee goes to the next committee and then we come back up and public present. We spend another hour on it and they're still out telling everybody they're going to get their streets changed. Articles in the newspaper about how the pressure is going to make this all change. And I just think that part of that is our communication. Uh and this I agree to to do that. So I'm fine w with that particular one. my second one if I might. Sure. I understand the golf cart thing is back up. That was voted down by board of public safety in DC.

And now I understand they're they're going to come back up in PL parks and planners where there's going to be state changes on that. And they had that was brought up as a as an item like, hey, there are state changes coming up. But the whole thing was to kill it right then and there. But but where do you go from one comm you get one answer back? You report it back. I mean, the board of took the time to go back to look at from 2017 the 2018 studies, talked to the police and said, "No, we're not going to do it. We're going to send it back." And then it pops up in another committee that we ought to be reconsidering this because the laws are going to change. Well, those laws were all reviewed by that committee that that brought that report forward. It seems to me that we're our own worst enemy.

Planning and parks. So, that was done. The chair had mentioned that from resident concerns that were brought up to him and he placed it on the planning and parks agenda. chair. Does it belong on there? Yeah, but he can pick I mean he can put whatever he wants on it, but but they they I guess my concern is why would they even get involved in that if it's already been in public works?

I mean I think and I can't speak for Council Member Galani, you know, I know like I think a lot of these things are kind of all it it's all sort of the same conversation. you know, for a long time and you know, in some cases still, you know, we just it could have been this way even here with the light thing. Like a a lot of this a lot of these issues are sort of like hunt and peck things where it's like, well, I'm just going to find the place to go that's going to start the, you know, the process this way. And so, you know, I I think that for a long part of our city's history, you know, we made a whole bunch of like oneoff things that just for whatever reason, like it just it just is. And you know, personally, I think that's a dangerous thing to go down. So, like, you know, I know Tom and I had a conversation when it showed up on EDC because I was like, I thought public safety already turned this down. So I I think part of it is trying to get I don't know if consensus is the right term but but trying to allow everybody a conver a place to have that conversation so that we aren't all kind of like arguing with each other during the work session which I understand but I also think that you know we need to find sort of a natural conclusion when it's like this is not this conversation is like just over now like because in like one of the things that we've tried to fix or at least you know some of the things I the our committee has tried to fix is, you know, to stop these sort of like neverending looping things where it was like, well, we talked about this in 2018 and now we're back in 2026. Has anything changed? No, but we're going to talk about it again. So, I mean, to me, I think that that's that's the way that our city should function, but I could very well be in the minority of I mean, after public safety had that, did the homework on it, presented it, then it goes to two other board, two other committees, meaning that the staff has got to do that work all over again,

right? Go to that committee and technically that committee doesn't have to then it have to go back to council to override board of public safety. And then I I just think it's that's the level of frustration with some of these committees. Why are we talking about this again? And and maybe some I mean I think it might be a frustration of some of the residents because they just never know when something is done. I mean I it was just similarly I think with the folks you know where they were building that house that was going to come in the backside like they you know they had an idea that there was something that we could do and there effectively is not. It's just that's not what we wind up doing. So I think I think that stuff we probably need to talk about but I also think that that's you know

it's not to be solved here. I just think these are the kind of things that end up being on everybody's agenda and somehow we got to figure out where it belongs and then live with that. I mean, if the council says, "No, we're not going to do that." Then I think the repercussion is who's going to do inspections? Where are people going to bring their trailers and unload their golf carts? They can't go across the highway. They can't get on the trails. I mean, when you go down that whole list, uh I think there was a lot of research done even back then. Yeah. As to the safety issues associated with them. So, well, so I mean, but that effectively I wasn't at part go on now. Okay. All right. Um, I anything else? I'm just going to ask one more question about our concerned bow hunters.

I I just have a really basic question. Do you think anybody on the council wants to have the city take the responsibility of telling a one acre property owner that we're going to coordinate hunting for them? I don't know anybody. I mean, you still have your own property, but the challenge of trying to do that just seems to be way overboard. I mean, if it really comes down to all of our different opt, that's what they want. And my concern is I just don't think that that's something that our neighborhoods want. I know it's not something all the neighborhoods I talked to want.

Me, too. I mean, they were even in our word meeting, they were they were they were so impressed with White Buffalo, but they said, "I don't we don't want people shooting our neighborhoods." I mean, I would say my suggestion is this, and and I had I I had lunch with a council member, and I I made this recommendation. If if that's something that somebody thinks is a a viable option, it's a democracy. They can certainly make a motion to try to do that. I I I know I don't think I know how I would I mean I know the conversations I've had. Well Oh, me too. I get my my fear is we put all kind of hours into this but really comes down to it's that basic. Yeah.

Are we going to reduce our three acre hunting which we've had all of these years? Are we going to change it for the bow hunters? I I I just don't think that's something that in our res now non- urban is totally different. Yeah. And you have to eliminate if you do that, you have to start talking about eliminating setback conditions as well. The 200 foot setback for both and that's not up to us. No, that is that one's up to us, too. I thought that state the acreage minimum is both. Oh, I'm sorry. Acreage, but also the setback 400 ft. We we can be the city can be more restricted than the state but not less.

That's exactly right. The the state leaves that authority to this the municipality to enforce. So we have a policing mechanism in that regard to you know threeacre minimums. I mean technically I mean it's pretty crazy what the state would allow this if you don't have anything on the books like our firearm and uh hunting regulations. People can hunt wherever they want. It really there is no restriction on private property. There's firearm regulations but for archery it's a little different on private property. You still and there's something important to understand too is that there are still private property rights we need to take into consideration.

Uh sorry. It's okay. Uh but also, you know, trespass is still a major component. If you look through the code of regulations from the state, uh the conservation department, that's a very large message throughout is the private property and ensuring that you have permission. And there also are concerns too. I mean, if you reduce it down from three to one, if you're using aggregate, I mean, if you're adding halfacre lots together and you know, the state does say you can't shoot an arrow or projectile across the street. So, that's one thing, too. So, you can't do two properties that are across the street from one another. Um, they'd have to be contiguous on one side of a public ride ofway. There's some weird considerations that have to be met in order for it to work. That said, in theory, the city could have it, you know, be a oneacre minimum and have setback requirements that match it, which would be, you know, 50 feet, which that just to me sounds pretty scary. It starts getting

we're going to have some residents reach out. I think I mean so the point just so everybody understands you know we're we're following this motion so we're going to have this much larger in-depth conversation you know next month um but you know like from what I have seen and gathering some information our city outside of the size of the parcel is the least restrictive hunting city of anyone that I have found.

Yeah. So, um, you know, I think that, you know, that is that again kind of comes back to some of this public comment and some of these other things like, you know, a lot of the statements or questions that are being asked, they're not we we don't really get to we can't just we can't let them feed deer to hunt them. That's that's an MDC thing. So, you know, I think partly what will wind up happening when we have these conversations like, you know, the concept of this conversation is to try to answer the question that was asked at the council, which is, is it feasible to incorporate bow hunters in the wider management of the deer? That's the question that we're going to try to answer. My hope is that we will come up with some level of a consensus out of here that will go to the council to have that conversation. all that other stuff is a whole different kind of a conversation and just based on what happened before is going to be a long one no matter what we were trying to do. Well, when we talk about it next month, are we going to have the city give us some facts as far as like have you talked to other municipalities that are using bow hunters, but are they just people that are going out and hunting or is it their city's giving them permission like to go hunt? Like there's just things that I want to make sure that everybody like here's the the facts and there can still be arguable or whatever

but and who has the right to say certain things like the state has to say that so we can't you know just like bullet points like here you know here's the things like so we all h are working from the same page that's not opinion that's not you know no feelings involved like this is what the other municipalities do, this is how many deer they call, but it's not with a contract with the city. It's just individuals going and getting their own permission to hunt on those. And maybe that's not how it is. That's what I'm asking. Everyone I've talked to, that's how it is.

Is this a cityrun effort or is this x amount of deer called by people that go out and get their own permission and hunt? Like I feel like we all need to understand the way it works everywhere else because you can say, "Yeah, they call their deer in other cities, but is that just like going out and doing it?" That just means they have there's two things that are included there. It means there's permitting present. So that means we don't provide we don't require permitting. They can just do it here in Wildwood without

having to apply. Let's we I want to be careful about this because it is an important I know. Okay. So, like what I would love if if it works, I know Tracy, you have already emailed me some some stuff. So, if there's something specific for those of you that are here, and I'll reach out to Jason and and Cliff and Chris. If there's something specific that you would like to have a definitive, however you want to phrase that, answer on, if you want to, you can send it to me, send it to Tom, send it to both of us. I don't really care. But, you know, my goal, like I I know that the attorney has been working on a whole lot of questions that have been asked to be able to say this is the this is the answer or this is the answer and here is the the power that the city has to change this section of whatever it is that we want because at the end of the day, the question that we're going to be asked is, is it feasible to incorporate bow hunters in this program? The question is not is it are we turning this over to the bow hunters. What is that going to look like? All of those things. We don't have a a program outside of the one that was already approved before. So without us creating a whole new one, we the only question we can answer is is there a place that bow hunters fit in what currently exists? Outside of that, those are all new questions that we got to ask and figure out.

I know this will be a huge conversation. So that's my goal is to have as much factual information so that we have a starting point for the conversation and we're not just going well I think this and I think that I want to have it like as much as we can. Obviously there's going to be opinions still but

there will and but I'm just I'm going to say it again because this is what you're going to hear a lot. The the question we are being asked is is it feasible within the current program? So, one of the things that will be laid out is this is what the current program is. Right now, the program is on a pause because we don't have a vendor, but we do have a program set up. And so, you know, the the the question that we um answered, I guess, in December was we don't like this vendor's contract. That doesn't change the fact that we'd still have to create a whole new thing if that's what we're going to do. And that that takes time. I mean, we couldn't I mean, we certainly somebody could try to make the motion to do it, but you know, we had I don't know how many open houses to figure out this current deer. It was a lot.

We had a whole committee. [clears throat] Well, we had not only we we have a committee, we had like fairly regular open houses on all of this stuff. So, I mean, my assumption is I my my question is they keep they keep telling us this is what we have to do the one acre and honestly I have not talked to one of our residents that said they want anything to do with them hunting. So, if that's that simple and we have to change a regulation to do that, I I don't know that anybody wants to do that.

Yeah. I mean, I would say if somebody if if there is somebody that wants if that's the if that is what it is me that's a different question and I don't care the mayor or John or or or whoever and decide if that's if that's the thing you want to propose here's the way to propose it and then we can go through the process of trying to figure it out. I I don't think that it would be particularly wellreceived but I I can only speak for the people in Ward 4. And I think part of that is a difference of right now the way it was originally set up is three acres. There's three acres in even some of the more dense areas in the city. Yeah. I mean, but that doesn't mean, you know, the the city's not taking responsibility to give people a blessing to go hunt on private property,

right? And every I mean, from what I have seen with some of these other municipalities that I've talked to, their um size on that is really kind of predicated on the larger slots that were in those cities when they figured it out. So, I mean, the the largest lots in Wildwood are significantly larger than 3 acres. So, I think I think I wasn't around then. My assumption is they went with that because most people are under the understanding that all properties are going to be threeacre properties out here. They don't factor in, you know, some of the more dense areas, but I think that's what it was, but I wasn't around to figure that out. So, so I'm going to try my best next month to just and I am my and I'm not trying to quell whatever you guys want to say. I'm just I'm just trying to say we are trying to answer one question. We're not trying to figure out all the other pieces.

That date was April 8th and then the next council meeting is April 13th. Correct. So, our 120 days is April 8th. Correct. We'll be meeting on the second or something. Yeah, we're going to it's got to shift around a little bit, but yes, we will be meeting prior to the meeting and then as is appropriate on that motion, we are delivering our report when it was asked for. So, we should be in some shape. There does appear to be like three different contingencies of people.

There are I mean I I I well, we can talk about it. I mean, I I went out and I went out in the field with a whole different group of people. They had a whole different opinion bow hunter guys. So, you know, there are there is a I would say just as there are lots of different opinions on how we do it in general, there seems to be an equally large number of opinions on what they would like to have happen. And I get it. I agree. Thank you. Um, yeah. All right. Anything else? Yes, sir. Legal council review. Yes. 10 years is up. We've done it the last 30 years. Every 10 years, we've done a review and looked at who we want to be our legal representation.

Yes. I actually stumbled on that the other day, but I'm sure Mr. Lee has it. The whole request for legal review for legal services. Are we going to address that or are we just going to let it go?

No, I think the plan is I think the plan is to do that. Um I'm you know, as I said a couple months ago, we're trying to get to a place where we're you know, there's going to be some level of change here very shortly. So I don't I don't want us to be in the middle of something like that and then have to get other people up to speed. So my my hope would be once we get past April, then the next group would be, you know, probably the new folks or we'd have an understanding of what that's probably going to look like and then we can have that conversation. But my recommendation, you know, if you know, if we were all stay together and do this thing and it is what it is, then we would probably be having that conversation in May.

That's nice. Thank you. Yep. Anything else? All right. Uh then we need a motion to adjurnn. So moved made by Mr. Marshall, second by Mr. Vanic. Non debatable. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any extensions? Anybody say no? Great. Thanks everybody. I know it's a late night. Thank you. Good job everyone. Yeah, it's a lot of stuff.