City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah, great earlier. There was so on the agenda.

Farmer and I are in the bar.

Well, you mean it's starting to marry the opinion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hey, very sorry to bother you, but I still have this.

Welcome to the Wildwood City Council work session agenda for Monday, July the 13th, 2026 at 530 PM here at City Hall. Ms. Lobeck, would you please call roll?

Mayor Garitano, Councilmember Wroblewski? Here. Councilmember Trottier? Councilmember Ottenberg?

Here.

Councilmember Farmer? Councilmember Means? Here. Councilmember Bockert?

Here.

Councilmember Kranz?

Here.

Councilmember Albers?

Here.

Councilmember Owen? Councilmember Mabry?

Here.

Councilmember Nyhan? Here. Councilmember Dodwell? Here. Councilmember Marshall?

Present.

Councilmember Rambo?

Here.

Council Member Vanek? Here. Council Member Kummer?

Here.

All right. Thank you. First order of business here. Mayor's comments and announcements. And first, we have a presentation of the fiscal year 2025 annual comprehensive financial report from Reuben Brown. And I believe we have Ms. Brandy Lawyer here from Reuben Brown to make the presentation. Good evening.

Oh, my gosh. Okay. I was like, are you going to make me speak right into it? In front of you should be some documents. You have a big thick one that kind of looks boring. The annual comprehensive financial report. And then you also have this nice color copy. We call this our viewpoints presentation. This is going to be what I am going to go through tonight. But I believe you've had these documents in a PDF form over the last week or so. So if you have any questions about anything that you've read that I don't address tonight, please feel free to stop me and ask any questions that you have. So I'm here to present tonight on the results of the audit for the December 31st, 2025 year end for the city. And I'm happy to report that you are receiving a clean, unmodified opinion. So I have no internal control matters to report, no compliance issues to report. um we have already issued the financial report and this viewpoints document and we will be issuing a single audit report which is your federal grant audit that one is in the final draft stage rana is going to review it and then we should be able to final that shortly this year we audited the modoc grant for highway planning which is not unusual we usually audit that almost every year that you have large expenditures that's how we choose the program to audit depending upon the dollars that are spent and we have no findings with the single audit this year either so if you flip over to page four there's just some required communications that um that we need to go through and i'll try to make it Pretty brief here, but as you're looking at the financial report, we just want to remind you that management is responsible for the selection and use of the accounting policies. And the significant accounting policies are in note one to the financial statements. There are no new policies that were adopted this year and no instances of any unusual transactions. On page five, if you have accounting estimates that we consider to be sensitive, we do review those. We don't have any significant estimates identified for the city. There are some disclosures that we have identified as being particularly sensitive, and those are gonna be note two, your deposits and investments, note four for long-term liabilities, and note seven for commitments and contingencies. So if you're gonna look at any of the footnotes to the financial statements, those are the ones I would tell you to look at. If you're also looking at the financial statements and wanting a good high level overview, I would recommend reading just the management's discussion and analysis. It's a very high level review of your financial statement changes that is written by management. And it's probably 10 to 15 pages. And it gives you a good overview of what exactly happened for the year instead of having to read the entire document. So if you flip over to page six, this is for the corrected and uncorrected misstatements. And I'm happy to report that we didn't have any adjusting journal entries as part of the audit that we identified. What you have in front of you, we consider to be an uncorrected misstatement. And I don't like this term because it sounds bad, but it's really not. And there was one entry this year that the city made. It was identified by management. They brought it to us. And it related to an invoice from a vendor that was received late. So it related to 2024, but they received it in 2025. And they said, hey, we really need to record this. We're going to record it in 2025. The amount was, as you can see here, is only $21,000, not really a large amount. And we said, that's fine. You can report it in 2025. We don't feel like there's a need to go back and restate anything because the amount is not material. But we do have to report it to you. As auditing standards say, we have to let you know, hey, there's $20,000 in 2025 that really relates to 2024. We didn't feel the need to restate, but we're just letting you know that that's what happened. Any questions about that? You guys don't usually have that. I feel like a few years ago, you had an uncorrected misstatement for a very similar situation. This is the result of a vendor just not billing timely and getting the invoices. And unfortunately, it's very hard for management to catch that. On page seven, there were no circumstances that impacted our auditor's report. As I mentioned, you receiving a clean opinion, no significant matters for which we had to consult with someone outside of our initial engagement team, and we had no difficulties in working with management to issue the report.

Any questions on the required communication?

Okay, we do have a couple of charts in here that we like to go through just to let you know about your financial health. So the first one is the change in net position as a percentage of net position. And as you can see from 2021 to 2025 here, that has continued to grow modest increases year over year. So you've continued to add to your financial position. So this just talks about your, this indicates your strength as for your keep adding. Your revenues are more than your expenditures year over year. And that is definitely not the case for a lot of places. So I want to point that out. And then on page nine, another percentage here for your unrestricted fund balance ratio. As you can see, this has gone from 162%, slightly down in 25 to 146%. Despite the slight dip there, you guys are still in really good shape. position and have very healthy financial outlook there so you're you're you're taking in more revenue than you're spending year over year it's going to allow you to fund operational needs infrastructure needs things that are coming along those unexpected costs that come along you have that rainy day fund that you've got there sitting to fund those needs and that's also unusual to have this high of an unrestricted fund balance ratio so The city is in a very good financial position. Attached to the back of this is a representation letter that is required to be signed by management at the end of the audit, along with that uncorrected misstatement that we discussed earlier. Any questions on the viewpoints presentation, on the financial statements that I'm sure you read cover to cover before I got here? Anything? Okay, that's all I have. Thank you so much for letting me come and present. It's always a pleasure working with you guys. Thank you.

All right, Ms. Lawyer, thank you very much for the time and effort that went into preparing what is apparently a very clean report. We appreciate that. And I think we also have to give recognition also to Rona Alaniz for the work and effort that she puts in as the city's financial officer that leads to Ruben Brown being able to give us this clean report. So thank you very much. All right, moving on to item number four, for information. We have quite a few items that are listed here. You may have had a chance to look through these items. Does anyone have any questions at all on any of the items that are listed under for information? Seeing none, we can move on to item number five. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Looks like Council Member Rambo may have a question. Sorry about that.

No, no, that's okay. It happens, Scott. Or Mr. Sorry. Yeah, so... could we get a very quick status update on the um jp connell house i was asked to um uh to request that update director vunich

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the City Council, this item is familiar to many of you, I believe, since we've been discussing it beginning in January of this year, 2026. The J.P. Connell House is one of probably a handful of properties, historic assets, that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places of the U.S. Department of Interior Park Service. The owner of the property has been engaged with our Historic Preservation Commission for many months, working through different scenarios or incentives to rehabilitate, restore, and reuse the property. We are reaching a critical point in the process in that the temporary moratorium that has been in place roughly since the beginning of the year will come to a close here in August with the anticipated passage of the historic preservation plan. This coming Tuesday, not this Tuesday, but next Tuesday, pardon me, July 21st, this item will be on the Planning and Parks Committee agenda with the chair's permission. And the property owner has a proposal different than what you've received to date. And that proposal will be discussed there. The proposal was presented to Mr. Lee, our city administrator in the Department of Planning. It seems to be a little bit more in line with our hopes, not to say that it's satisfactory, but certainly we'll have more discussion about it again this Tuesday, July 21st, with the permission of the chair. So if there are any questions about any of the information in the packet that was part of tonight's agenda, the department would be glad to answer them at this time.

Page 2 of the report, incentives in general. There's been a hallmark scheme, not a plan, and that includes surrounding the condo house proper with sufficient acreage or ground to protect it and to provide options for its development, restoration, use, purpose. And I had noticed the first time that while the scheme had always been to protect the property with a non-urban zoned lot of three acre sides, and then the remainder of that four acre northern piece north of the creek, would be relinquished as our one zone, one acre lot, new residence. All that subtlety is now absent. Is that just because that's mired down in too much detail for the paragraph? Or has there been some rethought that the J.P. Connell House proper would not earn all three acres of that three-acre parcel, leaving the other new resident mere one acre. How did that pan out if it has, or is it just economizing on words?

Well, Councilmember Mayberry, what I will tell you is in the recent meeting that Mr. Lee and I attended with the property owner, the differentiation between a three-acre or four-acre lot for the J.P. Connell House was not an issue he identified. In fact, he said, I don't see the need for the one acre lot. So I'm thinking if we ask, we'd probably get four acres for the J.P. Connell House under this proposed new approach. What I will tell you is, is that depending if the city council gets to that stage where an incentive package is considered for the remaining portion of the property, the 10 plus acres, i think the berming the living fence all of those components that have been discussed over the months of historic preservation will be dependent on the incentives do we need this if it's that or certainly we need this because it is that and so i i guess i would like to dial the steps to offset any potential impacts to the actual use thank you director You're welcome.

All right. Council Member Wabluski.

Just a quick question to clarify. Planning and Parks, when we met, from what I recall, indicated that their recommendation was not to pursue a lease agreement. But what I read is that it's underway. So is the intent still to pursue a lease agreement on J.P. Connell?

Actually, my recollection, Ms. Hrabowski, was that the committee was hesitant to proceed forward with any discussion until the city attorney had provided comments. The city attorney did provide comments regarding the temporary lease last week. Those were provided to the property owner. Certainly, you'll be seeing them for the first time at the meeting on Tuesday, the corrected lease.

Councilmember Owen, I think you had your hand up. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Owen.

So I had a question on the potential proposed change to the truck restriction on Wild Horse Creek. I noticed that we were looking to restrict traffic for tractor trailers from Centaur, I guess, over to Wild, or from 100 over to 109. But we have a restriction today that restricts trucks as you come off a wild horse onto Austin Fort. So I'm more concerned about trucks going from Centaur over and cutting through Centaur up to Highway T. And if we've already got a restriction on trucks on Austin Fort, why can't we just make that whole restriction for trucks in general versus tractor trailers? to basically free up Wild Horse on that whole stretch from having commercial vehicles, larger commercial vehicles coming through there and not just tractor trailer restrictions.

Councilmember, the discussion and the request that Board of Public Safety pertain to tractor trailers and it was intended to make the restrictions on Wild Horse match the restrictions that are currently in place on South Etherton. So as you leave the roundabout at 109 and route in Wild Horse Creek Road, the new roundabout, and you go down South Heatherton into the valley, that road is restricted from tractor trailers. So we were mimicking that restriction on Wild Horse Creek Road. It's also the same restriction that's in place currently on Centaur. So it would make those three roads essentially restricted in the same manner for consistency and simplicity.

The reason I ask is that wild horse is obviously one of our more traveled recreational roads for cyclists. And to the extent that we can keep heavy traffic off of that road. So. Commercial vehicles, people that use it as a cut through from center up to highway T. I think the safer it will be for our cyclists. And if those commercial vehicles are making it to center at the bottom of either 10. It's just as easy for them to travel down 109 to 100 and then go out highway T versus. Coming down wild horse Creek road. um with trucks with trailers behind them i'm not thinking of tractor trailers but you know the the work trucks that come through there on a regular basis or dump trucks that are coming through there is a cut through so that we don't have that traffic on a wild horse creek where our cyclists are there on a regular basis i've had A couple of encounters on that road and it's always with commercial vehicles rather than residents and vehicles that tend to have a problem with the cyclists on the road. And so to the extent that I think we can keep those commercial vehicles from being on that part of Wild Horse Creek, the safer it will be for our citizens and our cyclists.

Understood.

I don't know if we can think about changing that from just tractor trailers to trucks and mimic what the rule is on Austin Port from Wild Horse up to Highway T. That's kind of what I'm asking.

Well, the restriction on Austin 4, we have a few restrictions of commercial vehicles, not very many, but we have a few, a handful within the city. My experience is they're difficult to enforce. And it might be challenging to add that in this location. Again, the The tractor trailer restriction is geared towards the larger vehicles that tend to be the biggest safety concerns. And those are the first ones that I think that we desire to have on the state routes and not on the city routes. If the council desires consideration for commercial vehicles, that would probably require a little more investigation relative to the ordinance requirements there and what exact vehicles would be restricted from the department's perspective.

Yeah, and I don't see there being, I don't know that we have very many tractor trailers that get to the roundabout from coming down Wild Horse Creek and decide to proceed on Wild Horse Creek and weave all the way around Wild Horse and then go back up the hill to 100. If they're going to make that effort to come that way, they're going to go straight on Austin Fort. So I think to the extent that we can basically just try to limit that traffic of commercial traffic coming off the roundabout, and not even get that commercial traffic to be coming down there unless they're going to a local residence, the better off we are, whether it's a large box truck that Amazon's driving and that they don't have to stop along the way, then let them go down 109 to 100 where they have more space and room versus cutting down wildfires. That would be my thought.

Any other questions on the four information items? Or suggestions, comments? Okay, then we will move on to Item number five, four action items under Planning and Parks Committee. First, we have a public sanitary sewer extension to historic pond area of Wildwood. And Director Voonage, I believe you have some perspective on this and some recommendations to the council.

Thank you again, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and members of City Council, at the June 16th meeting of the Planning and Parks Committee, a discussion was held regarding the lack of public sanitary sewer service to the pond historic district. That particular area of Wildwood has seen development over the years, which includes Wildwood Middle School, a Rockwood School District facility, as well as Living Word Church. Both of those facilities, which large populations at given times during the week, are on centralized wastewater treatment plants. besides those to all other habitable units dwellings and businesses are on septic systems are pump and haul eight years ago an effort was made to extend public sewer to the west and serve the area of pond including maple and walnut avenues and the major institutional uses that effort was led by our city administrator at the time, Rick Brown and others. Ultimately, an open house was held and the institutional uses were in full support of a neighborhood improvement district to solve their issue with treatment of wastewater effluent, but the residents were not. the matter was dropped with that negative response. Most recently, though, a property owner that has several lots in the area of Maple and Walnut Avenues requested that a consideration be given again to potentially extending sewer. It's important to note eight years ago, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District agreed to extend service to that area, which was in the opinion of the department of planning a major major accommodation given the distance it is from the cox creek watershed so to speak also the city engaged an engineering firm to provide two options with estimates that ultimately again gave a good idea of the cost that would be associated with the neighborhood improvement district The committee was presented with this request and agreed to do two things, neither of which has a cost associated with it. The first was to re-engage with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sur District to see if at this stage, 2026, they would still consider providing service. And then secondly, re-engage with the engineering firm and ask for updated cost estimates. That may cost some dollars, given that engineering firms don't do charitable work generally. But the committee believed it was appropriate to at least take those two steps to see if there is even the opportunity to start a discussion of a serious nature. The department would again note this recommendation was limited and intended to be more fact-finding. But I will assure you that each year, the city of Wildwood receives a number of complaints about wastewater treatment, the lack of wastewater treatment, particularly in the residential areas. And some of the systems now are aging, particularly when you think of Wildwood Middle School, Living Word Church. And those are coming to a point where replacement may be in a short term, five to 10 years. So an opportunity exists to at least re-explore it. And the committee is recommending we take those two first steps. And tonight the department is seeking authorization for the city administrator, the director of public works and the department of planning to proceed with them. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Boonage.

Questions? Ms. Dodwell.

Mr. Vunisch, during these discussions, are we going to be reviewing the costs for implementing those types of services? And then are we also looking at the costs being taken by or paid for by the residents and or entities that live in those areas that some of that burden be carried by them specifically and not just the city?

almost the entirety of the cost of the system would be borne by the property owners very similar to the town center sewer project the neighborhood improvement district so yes the intent would be a very limited outlay I do want to emphasize Eight years ago, we did reach out to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. They have grant programs and low interest loans for wastewater treatment. But in almost all instances, what we were told is you have to be a municipal government already providing that service. And the three of us, meaning the city administrator, the director of public works and the Department of Planning said, no, we don't want to be in that business. So, yes, the residents and the institutional uses and businesses would have to carry the cost.

Other questions for Mr. Boonage? Councilmember Owens.

Are the developers that are out there, you know, we've got obviously the biggest thing that's going on out that way is the two big developments going on of 115 homes and the proposed development of another 42 townhomes or whatever. are those developers interested in having Metro sewer versus having to, you know, put these plants in and given where they're at in their development, especially on 115 homes is, are we too late to the game, which is, you know, the biggest development that would have helped support the cost of that. And now they're not going to want it if they put their, their power, their, their, all their sewage plants all in ahead of time before this comes out there.

Fortunately, those properties have public sewer at this time. It was part of the original town center effort with the neighborhood improvement district. And many of those property owners, particularly where McKelvey Homes is developing now the reserve with the 115 units, those property owners, the Slavik family paid, I think it was over $300,000 as part of the the sewer program and they were quite clear when the discussions were occurring about rezoning the property that they didn't object to it they participated they spent a great deal of money and they were hoping to get some return on that investment so those have been addressed this is for the most part from new pond school west on manchester road to bethel church i should have said that at the start my apologies okay thank you so how many uh property owners would have to vote on this um i had the list boom god but i think it's rick do you remember my new chance was in the 50 or 60 that might be a low estimate it's a it's a page worth of page or two worth of names uh including rockwood school district living word church um the location of big chief roadhouse which is a property owned by a gentleman named ken aston so each property gets a vote uh it's not as simple as that i believe it's uh 50 of the property mr young you know this much better than i so please yeah generally speaking it's going to be 50 of the property areas and i think it's by area not necessarily by value yep yeah acreage so um have you had any other inquiries other than this uh developer On and off, the Rockwood School District contacts us occasionally, just kind of gauging the pulse. Because again, from their perspective, with a student population of that size, getting off an on-site treatment plant would be a boon to them.

So who would pick up the major expense of the project?

The institutional uses in many ways, because I believe the assessments premised on the acreage of the site. And so like Living Word Church with 30 plus acres, another 30 acres or more with Wildwood Middle School. But again, it still gets down to the owners on Maple and Malden avenues, smaller lot, generally 15 to 20,000 square feet. But at the 20 year, at least the last neighborhood improvement district was a 20 year. bond note on their property and do each year as part of their property tax.

So eight years ago, there was no interest in this?

Not amongst the property owners. And those are the ones I think primarily we were trying to serve because they have what I would consider the critical problem, ill or non-treated affluent.

So do you think this will pass? What I'm asking is, is this something you have a lot of interest in to get this started? Or is it just one entity here that wants sewers and wants others to pay for them?

I would consider it very tepid interest. A lot of the property owners there probably would not want to incur a 20-year obligation, although you can pay it off at the start of the neighborhood improvement district and be done, but most take it on an annual basis over the period of the bond.

So you're recommending we go forward with this?

Well, I think it's worth just from a public health standpoint. Again, if you go down there on a hot summer day, you'll know that There's ill or untreated sewage in the area. It's just a simple fact. There's a high water table, it's perched. The soils are not great, and the lots are too small.

Well, I'll make that motion to go forward with this.

All right, so we have a motion. Do we have a second to Mr. Krantz's motion? by Council Member Bakker. Okay. Just for the benefit of the Council, can we get a restatement of the action that will take place assuming that the motion made by Council Member Kranz is approved tonight?

the department had the committee had respectfully requested two items first to contact the metropolitan st louis district to see if they would still serve the area and secondly to re-engage with the engineer and obtain at least an estimate on what the cost increase might be all right thank you uh councilmember rambo oh yes uh thank you i i my

That ship has sailed on my comment, but I did want to point out that we have other places where untreated sewage is a real problem, and we really don't seem to have the enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with that. I do think it's a public safety issue, a public health issue, and I was going to second Mr. Krantz's motion. That's it. Thanks for calling on me, though.

All right. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and we have a second and we all understand the motion. So all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Thank you. Now we move on to item number two, which is the Mayor's Grove relocation. And Director Vunich, we are back to you on this one as well.

Thank you again, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and members of City Council, as you know, many years ago, a decision was made to create a mayor's grove here at City Hall site. That particular location is on the eastern end of the parking oval that is to the rear of City Hall. There are, I believe, five trees planted now with tasteful bases and bronze plaques, recognizing years of service of each of the mayors since the incorporation. As some of you will recall, with phase one of Village Green, the existing trash can closure had to be demolished and relocated. And the ultimate location that was chosen at first was where the parking spaces are by the Mayor's Grove. It wasn't in anyone's opinion, I think, that it was appropriate to have a trash enclosure next to our place of honor. So a decision was made to find another location. before that location was identified we went out to bid and realized the trash enclosure could be almost as much as a two-bedroom house with one restroom and so we chose not to proceed ultimately a decision was made by city council to place the trash enclosure at the end of wildwood avenue and it's been functioning fine there since its completion this year however the committee, Planning and Parks Committee, continued to look at the issue of Mayor's Grove and thought that at this time it would be appropriate to relocate it to Village Green phase one. The reasons the committee supported it are several fold. First, with the parking spaces by the Mayor's Grove, it's sometime not visible because cars are parked there or city trucks and no one would know that it is the location of this place of honor. Secondly, we're kind of running out of room. We've used the level area of that particular portion of site, and we'll be going down the steep slope that leads to Wildwood Avenue. And then finally, the Village Green phase one, there are some wonderful trees that have been planted this time last year, have done very well, and it would be the appropriate place to honor our leaders of government. And so the committee is recommending the relocation of the plaques from the current mayor's grove to the new mayor's grove which is village green phase one and ultimately proceed there with recognizing future mayors with the same and tonight the department is seeking that authorization due to the committee's recommendation thank you thank you director voonage uh questions for director voonage councilmember dodwell

the question lady um how feasible does our arborist feel that digging up the existing trees and moving them they're going to survive well I think the committee actually the committee did discuss that and the idea was just to leave them there um and not try to relocate them

One has died and has yet to be replaced because we've been discussing the relocation. And so the thought was to leave those there, move the plaques to the new area. And any of the mayors that would like to come out and pick a particular tree in the location, they'd be more than welcome, Mr. Marshall.

Much better methodology. Thank you.

Council Member Owen.

Do we have a proposed cost for this yet? I'm reading this and I'm not finding a cost.

Well, all the trees are in Village Green already. The trees would stay. So the five bases would be the relocation. I think it was $100 or so to fabricate them and install them. I'm expecting that we could do that work without a contractor.

Okay.

Thank you. So if there is a cost, it's a very small cost.

Other questions for Director Vunic? Council Member Dodwell?

I'll just make a motion to proceed ahead.

All right. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Council Member Nyhan. Okay. Motion and second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item number three, the Village Green Phase 2 Engineered Plan for the All-Inclusive Playground. And once again, Director Vunic, we are back to you.

Thank you again, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and members of City Council, the memorandum before you tonight is from the Planning and Parks Committee. It updates each of you regarding the progress that's being made on the all-inclusive playground. There are several components that are identified in the memorandum relating to Main Street, a topic we're all very familiar with. the wheelchair swing, which was a late addition to the overall equipment component, and then the restroom facility, which the Planning and Parks Committee has been working diligently on to find the appropriate mix of inclusivity and function. Tonight, though, the department wants to focus on the fourth item in the table, and that relates to stormwater management. And the department, in behalf of the committee, and again, committee members are here tonight along with Chair Wroblewski, is not advocating the development known as Latitude North 38. The committee had a lengthy discussion on this particular matter and suggested that something is going to develop there in the future. And that something will generate stormwater runoff, and that runoff will be directed toward Village Green. Along with the development, we have Main Street that the city hopes to construct at some point in the near term, and that will generate stormwater runoff, part of which will be directed toward Village Green. We have phase two of Village Green, which is the playground, which is going to install its own stormwater facility. due to Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District requirements. And then finally, we have City Hall. And Mr. Lee's been working very hard to address the situation with our water quality basins that adjoin the backside of our building here at City Hall. Collectively, we have a lot of stormwater going from west to east and culminating at Village Green and City Hall. So the idea here was to work together with all the parties to ensure that if a stormwater management plan is developed, it takes into account not only what is known, but what we think might happen. The committee was. agreeable to this and that agreeability was the first step to engage the engineer that's working on village green phase two along with the engineer working on main street. and the engineering firm working with North Latitude 38 to at least put together a comprehensive stormwater management plan in a conceptual manner to be presented to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. North Latitude 38, the development entity has agreed to assist in the cost. And the intent would be, again, to look at the stormwater from a broad range instead of site by site by site i started the presentation saying the committee didn't endorse the project north latitude 38 but they are very much interested in addressing storm water in a comprehensive way so tonight the department is seeking that authorization to receive a change order from the engineering firm for this additional work Thank you.

Thank you, Director Vunic. Questions for Director Vunic? With somewhat Mr. Mabry.

Thank you. which which entity is this an engineer for of the of the three that I think i've heard the village green phase two inclusive playground the latitude north 38 and city hall.

uh so there are three firms four areas the main street is being done by cdi they had started that a while back when we were still working through village green phase one and and that i'm sorry to interrupt but i'm getting the cdi working for wildwood in the future expansion of main street that's correct okay and then the next entity and the next sponsor i guess CEC is the engineering firm that's working on City Hall and Village Green Phase II. and then the final is voles engineering working with north latitude or latitude north 38 latitude north 38 thank you and there were i thought i heard four projects main street latitude north 38 city hall oh and the playground and the playground okay i'm unconfused now and uh sorry i confused you no no there's a lot of moving parts out there in that little area

You're looking for support to fund, to have the city fund three of these four areas and then play on North Latitude 38 willingness to participate as well.

Yes, we had a Zoom call, and that was one of the first questions. Would the development entity be willing to participate in some of the costs to create this master plan, so to speak? And it was an affirmative response. Unless something's changed, department's working from that perspective.

And the request or the ask here is the motion and action to proceed far enough to get a budget or to proceed under a certain cap of money that you're going to tell us what it is and then full steam ahead. What's the next step after or what's the motion for?

Well, from the committee's perspective, they wanted City Council endorsement to consider the overall stormwater management plan, which includes a fourth area, the private development, versus only working on the three sites that are under the city's control.

That's an easy action. That's a no-brainer. What else could we ask for at this time to get it going even further along than

the no-brainer of course you want to take a holistic approach and incorporate well to the fault of the department of planning we haven't at times so we're trying to correct past mistakes that's why you see so many isolated stormwater facilities here in town center we had started out with the hope of having a regional plan for many of the more developed areas just didn't come to fruition

Have you got a swag to throw at it for what this is going to cost and how much time, especially? We don't want to hold up any action that comes either in favor or not for North Latitude 38, and we want to get the playground going as fast as we can. Is there an order of magnitude for the closest double digit thousands of dollars?

Well, I am glad Mr. Brown raised his hand.

I would like to believe that it would be under the city administrator's discretion or the dollar amount he can approve if that's okay with the council. That's what I would recommend. That the motion be that the city administrator approve it, assuming it's within his discretionary amount.

Yes, and that would be under, depending on the cost, that could be under $20,000.

that could be incorporated in the motion that we move full steam ahead at a cap of 20 grand.

I think Mr. Brown's suggestion and Mr. Keeley's concurrence would be an appropriate step.

Yeah, it would be under the discretion of the purchasing policy and as long as it doesn't exceed that threshold.

Chair, are we ready for a motion?

I think we are.

than what we just said.

Thank you for putting that so eloquently.

When I've got Ms. Lobeck, we don't need to talk about it anymore. She's captured it.

All right, thank you. So do we have a second to Councilmember Mabry's motion? Second. Okay, Councilmember Owens seconds.

Did you want a restatement? I thought you don't need it. I didn't think it is. Oh, okay.

All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to item number six here. It was originally labeled as miscellaneous, but I think this is actually a receipt and file. PZ 8-26 Rockwood School District. And Director Vunich, once again, we are back to you.

Thank you again, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and members of city council, I apologize for skipping a few words there. When the department provided the agenda to the city clerk relative to this item, it is a receipt and file. This particular item relates to an action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission week ago monday on july 6th this particular action was the granting of a conditional use permit for electronic message center that would be installed at lafayette high school on its clayton road frontage as you know from our past discussions this year the city of wildwood endorsed a new type of sign electronic message centers and to date the monarch fire protection district at otherton road and wild horse creek road has received a conditional use permit and this would be the second of the group that we were anticipating as with any conditional use permit action of the city council the city council has 15 days to exercise its power review and hold a hearing on the matter if the city council does not exercise its power review tonight That 15-day period will pass before the next meeting. So if there is any concerns, questions that are not addressed in the report, certainly this would be the opportunity. Otherwise, if there are any questions, the department would be glad to try and answer them. Thank you.

Are there any questions for Director Vonage?

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Director Vunic. So that brings us to the most important item on the agenda, which is item number seven, and that's adjournment. So I will, with no further delay, entertain a motion to adjourn the work session made by Councilmember Vanik. Do I have a second to that? Made by Councilmember Trottier. um all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye those opposed abstentions motion carries work session is adjourned we reconvene at 6 30 for the regular council meeting thank you All right, welcome everyone to the City Council meeting for Monday, July the 13th, 2026 at 630 p.m. Some of you may be wondering who I am. I'm Scott Ottenberg. I'm a council member from Ward 3. I'm also Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Garitano is not here because he is with his family on a well-deserved vacation. So I will be sitting in for him this evening. So with that, Ms. Lobeck, would you please call roll?

Mayor, you're a channel council member blue ski here. Council member here council member here. Council member former council member means council member present council member cranes council member Albers council member Owen. That's the member Mayberry here. That's the member 9 here. Council member dad. Well, here else member Marshall president council member Rambo there. Council Member Rambo.

Did you hear me? Yeah, I'm here.

Oh, hello. Council Member Banik.

Here.

Council Member Kummer.

Here. All right. Thank you very much. One of the things I forgot to mention is, although I am chairing the meeting tonight as Mayor Pro Tem, one of the things I cannot do is cast a vote to break a tie. Okay. So with that, I would invite all who are able to please rise and join me in reciting our Pledge of Allegiance.

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

So next item on the agenda would be approval of the minutes, and that will be handled under the consent agenda later on this evening. So now we move along to public participation. Public comment is a valuable component of our meeting. Anyone who wishes to speak must complete a speaker card and provide it to the city clerk who is seated to your left of the podium. When your name is called, please approach the podium and state your name and ward. To ensure that all who wish to speak have the opportunity to do so, there's a five minute time limitation. I will let you know when the time limit is reached. If you have any questions for us, please mention that during your remarks and identify the official you would like to respond. That official will make note of it, and at the conclusion of public participation, any official who chooses to respond will have three minutes to do so, as all questions are directed to that official. The official may choose to respond to your questions after tonight's meeting. Please be respectful to others in making your comments. Interrupting others and using profane and abusive language are prohibited. I want to thank everyone in advance for following these guidelines.

So first public speaker is... Deborah Smith McCutcheon wishes to speak about the luxury villas at Latitude N38 as well as Bills 3063 and 3064.

But 306 and 3064 are under the regular public participation, right? Right now? I thought this was just, never mind. Okay. Hi, guys. It's so nice to see everyone. I'm here to comment on PZ2 and 2A. It's 10.43 acres, and they're asking for 62 homes, which are two stories. It mentioned single family dwellings, but it didn't say how many single family dwellings are, if it's all going to be attached. And then also didn't mention the one thing that we've been doing, which is the frontage for tree perimeters along 109, if it's attached to a development. and mostly i'm here because we have heard over and over and over and over for several years that residents do not want higher density so if there's any way this density can be decreased on this project i'm sure that would be greatly appreciated by the residents as you all know the residents are the city of wildwood and so um decisions our comments from residents should be severely taken seriously. Residents should be above and higher priority than developers. And then for please support bills 3063 and 3064, that's both in ward five. And then I noticed there's a deer management survey coming out being sent to 100 residents in each ward. If someone else would like to participate in that survey, is there a way to do that online? And then please do not support luxury villas at latitude N38. And I don't know if anybody in particular would like to answer my question, Mr. Vunic, if you could talk about the planning and zoning piece, or if not, then I can get in on an individual basis.

Director Vunic, did you want to respond? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Just a reminder, we do have several public hearings tonight. So if you are here to comment specifically at a public hearing, we will open those public hearings for comment. If you are here just for public comment that is not associated with a public hearing, now's the time to step forward. Okay, next speaker, please.

Claire Heinrich wants to speak on Amendment 5.

Claire Heinrich, Ward 4. Good evening, council members and Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak here tonight. As I said, I'm Claire Heinrich, and I'm running to represent all of Wildwood and all of Clarkson Valley in the Missouri House of Representatives. I've made it my business to get very familiar with all the state and local tax policies that would be impacting these communities, and I'd like to use my time tonight to address Amendment 5. That is the income to sales tax switch on the August ballot. I cannot say enough how opposed I am to this amendment. When it comes to state funding, Wildwood contributes a lot, but we always eat last. We're often told that our district is so wealthy that if we want things, we should just raise our local taxes and continue paying our state taxes to be spent somewhere else. Getting rid of the state income tax might seem like a fix to this, until you realize there really isn't a viable plan to do that without raising sales tax to some unspecified higher amount and expanding it to any services that the state sees fit. You'll be told this only happens if sales tax revenue exceeds the previous income tax revenue, but the triggers to ensure this end at a 1.4% income tax rate, which leaves the general fund about $3 billion short. If there is a decrease in that revenue, they will look to communities like ours first to make funding cuts, no matter how much we contribute. And they will look to us to raise our local taxes to cover anything else that we need. I've spent quite a bit of time attending these meetings and watching the town's efforts to support our small businesses. This tax change would make life for small businesses harder. When people have expressed concern for high sales tax rates under this amendment, I've seen proponents suggest those people should simply spend less money and need less things. And when businesses have expressed concern for runaway sales tax that pushes customers online, over the border to Illinois, or even into not spending at all, those same proponents suggest that somehow people spending less money in this state will actually grow Missouri's economy and help our businesses. After about one day in an economics class, I can tell you that those things do not add up to the thriving and functional economy that we want to see, not just here in Wildwood, but in Missouri as a whole. I wish I could give you specifics on the exact industries, households, and businesses that would be hit the hardest by this proposal, but the amendment simply grants the state complete and total power over what gets taxed and at what rates it will be taxed. This isn't some detail that they forgot. It is a deliberate choice. They either don't know, which is deeply concerning, or they know that if voters knew the plan, they wouldn't vote for it. Now, I don't know about you all, but I watched our state underestimate the impact of the capital gains tax cut this last session by about $500 million. I cannot afford to trust them with unlimited power over our state's sales tax. This amendment is a perfect example of government overreach by the state. I cannot urge people enough to vote no on Amendment 5. It is not good for our businesses. It's not good for our working families. It is not good for our seniors, and it is not good for Wildwood. Thank you so much for your time this evening.

Thank you. Next speaker.

There are no more.

Okay. Travis, it looks like we may have someone online. Yes, of course. We don't know the topic they wish to speak on, but I'll promote them if that's OK with you. All right. So if you can hear us and you would like to make public comment, please take your name and ward and then proceed.

This is Keith Ingenthrone. I am in Ward 8. I just wanted to take a few minutes of my time to just voice my opposition to PZ2 and 2A proposed development by Lombardo Homes. While I'm not opposed to developing that land at all, I think Lombardo's plans to build 62 attached single family homes on just ten and a half acres is just it's ridiculous. That amounts to about one sixth of an acre for each home in Wildwood, which still seems to have plenty of land that could be developed. I don't understand the rationale behind trying to squeeze as many homes as possible onto that plot of land. I believe that most Wildwood residents chose to live here because of the beautiful tree-filled landscape. I also believe that no one moves to Wildwood to live in a human anthill, which is what I believe Lombardo's proposed development would be. As someone who walks Wildwood quite a bit, I'm already challenged to stay on the sidewalk because some homes are on such small lots that some homeowners can't even park their cars in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. It makes no sense to me to put on a sidewalk in an area if there's not enough room to actually walk on the sidewalk without having to veer into the street. One other point that I had regarding this, I did attend the meeting in May in person. And as I recall, there was only one citizen who spoke out in favor of that development. Interestingly, though it was not, it was not, nobody spoke to this at that time. I found out later that that citizen had part of that vested interest in the development as her family owns some of the property that is to be developed there. under those circumstances i think that information should have been divulged at the time i have no vested interest in in this proposed development other than i am a wildwood resident and don't believe that we need more high density housing we have enough as it is i wish we'd never put that in to begin with i appreciate the time again very, very opposed to the proposed development as it is. If Lombardo wants to develop that area, why can't we have at least half acre lots there as opposed to just piling a bunch of homes on top of each other? Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Anyone else on the list for public comment? okay seeing none then we will move on to public hearings first item being pz2 and 2a the um mia bella and um what i will need is a motion to open up this public hearing could i get that motion please by council member marshall second by council member owen and we'll do a voice vote on this all those in favor of opening the public hearing signify by saying aye All right. Those opposed? Abstentions? Okay. Public hearing is now open. So, Director Vunich.

Mr. Young, should the city clerk read the request into the record, or can that be?

That's been the city's practice, so I would encourage you to continue it.

Madam Chair, if you would.

PZ2 and 2A-26, Mia Bella in care of Doug Nance, Lombardo Homes of St. Louis, LLC, 4 Research Park Circle, Suite 130, St. Charles, Missouri, 63304. A request for a change in the zoning district designation of four properties that are currently identified in the NU non-urban residence district. town center neighborhood edge and neighborhood general districts to the R6A 4000 square foot residence district with a planned residential development overlay district PRD 2A all being in association with the tract of land that is 10.43 acres in size and located on the north side of Manchester road west of its intersection with state route 109 Street Addresses 17115, 17119, 17127, and 17135 Manchester Road, St. Louis County Locator Numbers 24V430086, 24V430121, 24V430064, and 24V4430112. proposed use 62 attached single family dwellings in clusters of up to four units with associated street and pedestrian networks including public rights-of-way dedications and improvements stormwater stormwater management facilities and required public spaces director vunich thank you mayor pro tem

Mayor Pro Tem and members of the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission has provided to you tonight its letter of recommendation regarding this tandem request. The request, as described by the City Clerk, is for a change in zoning to accommodate the development of a town center project. Along with the change in zoning is the planned residential development overlay district. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered a number of factors in its favorable recommendation regarding both components of the Tandem Request. The Planning and Zoning Commission first noted that the western and northern boundaries of this particular property adjoin the new project called the Reserve at Wildwood being developed by McKelvey Homes. As you'll recall, that is a 50-acre tract of land that is authorized and planted for up to 115 single-family detached homes on individual lots. Abutting to the west is a vacant tract of land that anchors the northwest corner of State Route 100 and State Route and Manchester Road and State Route 109 and is designated under the Town Center Regulating Plan for commercial use. Immediately adjoining it is the old pond school, the city's property, and then across the street are two places of worship. The surrounding development pattern indicated that there is development underway with the reserve, institutional uses, a recreational use, and a commercial use, making the residential component a transition in the terms of type. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission required a substantial reduction in the total number of units. Originally at public hearing on April 6th of this year, 74 attached units were proposed. Ultimately, a dozen of them were removed to reduce the amount to 62. along with the reduction in density the developer was required to have clusters of buildings no greater than four and that those clusters provide ample green space and association with them Finally, the Planning and Zoning Commission required the public space to be a component to serve Old Pond School as well as to provide overflow parking for the units themselves. In addition to that parking lot that adjoins the western boundary of Old Pond School, there are additional on-street spaces available on the east and west sides of the project's area. Additionally, as you can see, lombardo holmes the applicant through the planning and zoning commission was sensitive to retaining the tree lines along the west north and east sides of the property to ensure a buffer would be created between it and the future development to the east and the existing development that is underway to the west and north The department would note that the Planning and Zoning Commission identified that this particular property is in Town Center as a joint designation of Neighborhood Edge and Neighborhood General. So the unit type attached, single family dwellings and density are appropriate under the regulating plan of Town Center. With that statement, the department will conclude its brief presentation of the letter of recommendation. And after public comment is received, the department will be glad to answer any questions regarding the commission's action. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Director Vonage.

Ms. Lohbeck.

Karen Shannon.

Good evening. My name is Karen Channon. I live at 17127 Manchester Road. I own the 10-acre property that Joe just talked about, the Mia Bella development is going to be, the 62 townhome. I am here tonight just to let you know I'm a property owner and what this means to me. I've lived here for over 55 years. I've watched wildwood grow from a pond grover area, watched the highway being built. It's incredible to see what's happened in the last 50 years. My husband and I moved here in November of 1970. We poured our hearts into this community. We raised three daughters and a successful landscaping business. In fact, we were even, if you drive around the roundabout that's there at Taylor and Manchester, my husband was the first one who put a tree there in the original roundabout. like many small business owners our land was our retirement plan but life changes my husband passed away nine years ago and i've been maintaining these ten and a half acres since then i'm 78 years old physically financially and mentally it's just not possible as much as i hate to give up this home i need to move somewhere with a smaller yard house to take care of um years ago when the city imposed the sewer tax my husband and i were at the age of retirement we were assessed so much break we own nine acres we paid over a hundred and forty seven thousand dollars to protect the city of wildwood pursuers which we do not have um At the time that they imposed that sewer tax, they told us that it would improve the quality of our property that would be able to sell it. And so I'm here today to hope that maybe that promise is going to come true, that you will help me sell this. I found a highly reputable developer, Lombardo Homes. They've worked very hard with planning and zoning to make sure that they've done every requirement that they possibly can, including a dog park. They've even joined. I originally owned nine acres. I bought an acre and a half so that I would have the whole 10 acres as a possibility to sell for a developer. The homes fill a critical need in this community for young buyers and seniors. Lombardo has listened to the feedback. It increased the density, added more green space, increased parking, and even for the old pond school. Every month this project is delayed by back and forth discussions of you. It is direct compounding my total on my finances, my physical health, and my emotional well-being. I want to stay in Wildwood. I found a house that's been close proximity to my daughter. It's smaller. I would love to be in Wildwood where all my doctors and everything is. This all happens on you as to how this next chapter of my life goes. Behind every zoning map and development proposal, they're real people. I have supported Wildwood for over half a century, and tonight I ask the council to support me. Please move this development forward in a timely manner. I thank you for hearing mine. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Deb McCutcheon had filled out a card to speak on this public hearing, but she already spoke. I don't know if she wants to speak. Is she gone? I think she's gone. Okay.

All right.

So that would be Doug Nance.

All right. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. Doug Nance, Lombardo Home, St. Charles, Missouri, here to speak on Miabella. So one of the things, when you look at the plan that Travis, I believe he's bringing up the correct one, at the last PNZ meeting, we changed a few things per the comments from the previous meeting with the mayor and the Planning and Zoning Commission. So we added a dog park on the east side. We also connected a walking trail over to Pond School parking lot that we'd be putting in. And then also we took the parking out of the center to make it more, give it more curb appeal when you came into the subdivision and move the parking back out to the sides on the east and west. So when you look at the plan now, when you come into the subdivision, you have two detention ponds and then you see all this green space. And at the far back is a pavilion. In addition, there was a comment made about density. We worked over the past eight months on this with the Planning and Zoning Commission to come up with the plan that we present tonight that was approved last month. Density right now is about six units to the acre. And if I'm not mistaken, allowable is about nine units to the acre. So we're well below the max density as we work through this. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers, Ms. Lovett?

Good evening, Council.

Mayor Pro Tem, thank you for this opportunity this evening to speak. My name is Charlie St. Onge. My address is P.O. Box 14, Wildwood, Missouri. I've been here forever. So it's been a long go. Anyway, I am here this evening to be in favor of Lombardo's development. I am working with Karen in a respect that I'm the commercial broker of a CCIM. I look at markets and I work with developers, but also commercial properties. I found Lombardo to be very good to work with. They have worked with the city every time there has been a requirement. They have jumped through that hoop. They have made it work. They have provided a planning and zoning blessed plan that is less than what the allowable can be. And they have, again, just been great to work with. And I think the staff can probably chime in on that too. From the personal viewpoint, you've heard from Karen. She has been there for 50 years. They've invested into Wildwood $147,000. And at this point, this property is located in an area of the town center that allows a development such as this. The density is less than what it allows. The plan, the developer has bent over backwards to work with the city. and i would just appreciate the fact that you take a good hard look at it and again approve what the planning and zoning has already blessed thank you thank you one more pat belrose

Good evening, and thanks for the opportunity to be here. My name is Pat Belrose, and I live at 2704 Bar Lane, and that's Ward 6. I'm here to support the Melabella Project. All the most desirable cities in St. Louis County offer a diverse range of housing options. Wildwood founders who developed the master plan in 1995 intended for business and higher density housing to be concentrated in the town center area. They also envision higher density housing to be located next to the town center area. This vision was to support the many businesses that would be in Town Center, but also to have the residents to take advantage of the Town Center's many amenities. It only took 30 years for the first apartment complex to be built at the Town Center. I think that's kind of a slow progress. But then now we have this high density development of homes to be built in this PZ2 and 2A proposal. The proposed development of Melabella does not conflict with the master plan. It fulfills the founder's vision for this unique city. The housing shortage in the United States is a major problem. For the first time in many years, both political parties and Congress has just agreed on a bill. The Democratic majority and the Republican majority voted to pass a bill to help improve housing inventory. Everyone talks about the shortage of homes for first-time buyers, but that is only part of the problem. The shortage of inventory for the second-time home buyer has created a bottleneck in housing inventory. The first-time buyer cannot move up to a slightly bigger home due to the huge gap in the cost of their first home versus the cost of moving up to their second home. There are little intermediate-sized homes available on the housing market. The Mellow Bellow development is not Section 8 or HUD housing. We are talking about homes that all of us would be proud to own. The location has so many amenities that can be accessed within walking distance. And one thing that many of us don't even think about is the bus stops. And hopefully, as ridership increases, the number of routes from those two bus stops will increase. I hope that the city council will approve this project so that our city can continue to grow, not only in size, but in its diversity. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, there are no more speakers on this public hearing. So at this point in time, we can open things up for comments or questions from the council. Councilmember Alvarez.

Just from the drawing here, just can't tell, there are sidewalks?

Yes.

Okay. Is there, can you park on the streets? How's the parking designated?

The Manchester Road frontage will not accommodate on street parking. It's there at kind of a slight incline, decline, depending on the direction you travel on Manchester Road. It's also on a curb. So there is a dedication requirement relative to Manchester Road to the developer, so a future date if there are needed improvements. They certainly can be accommodated. Interior to the site, the streets will be 26.1 feet in width. So on the non-hydrant side, some on-street parking can be accommodated. But as Mr. Nance described and the Planning and Zoning Commission required, we have a freestanding parking lot next to Old Pond School with pedestrian access. And then we also have spaces on the east and west sides of the project boundaries.

unless i was just what kind what range will he be selling at do you think um high 400s yes mr nance mentioned uh high 400 000. thank you all right council member kranz i believe you had your hand up just a couple uh the length of the sidewalks or i'm sorry the driveway will the cars block the sidewalks

The intent is not, Mr. Brown and the Department of Planning worked very hard to guarantee that the distance from the garage door to that interior edge of sidewalk is a minimum of 20 feet. We actually are trying to do more, as you know, with latitude north 38. In one of the original proposals, we talked a great deal about that concern. So the intent on the part of the departments is to ensure that the sidewalks aren't blocked by vehicle.

So you're happy with the length of the driveway?

I believe so, because it was an issue identified by the commission. And as Mr. St. Ange mentioned in his public comments, each time the commission added a requirement, Lombardo Homes addressed it.

What are the street widths?

26.1 feet, and under the new fire code, as administered by Metro OS, that's the minimum to allow parking at least on one side.

On both sides?

One side.

Just one side?

Yes. The hydrant side is protected and is posted for no parking.

See, now in my subdivision, the street width is 26, and they park on both sides of the street.

Yes, times have changed.

So there's an inconsistency.

Yes.

Now, I understand this development will open up some more parking for the old pond school.

Yes. As you know, in our zoning ordinance, we require public space, and it's premised on the number of units. One of the items that was discussed early on with Lombardo Homes by the city was we have very limited parking at Old Pond School. The public space we would like to see is a parking lot to add spaces, and they were agreeable to that.

So there will be more parking at the Old Pond School?

Yes, just right across the boundary line.

And how many spaces would you guess?

Well, Mr. Newberry with better eyes is going to count for all of us. 20 total spaces according to Mr. Newberry.

20 extra spaces? OK.

uh last question would you consider r4 zoning designation high density actually i do not r6a is high density to the department of planning in town center for neighborhood edge neighborhood general that range is r2 to r4 um just a comment here um

i think because somebody goes with this r6a zoning which is the most dense and you factor in a prd it gets denser that they're entitled to it um they're not it's something that we as a council these decide what the proper zoning is and and um i just wish we would uh be a little less uh on the units per acre. And that's just my feeling. So that's my comment.

Thank you. Council Member Rambo, I believe you have your hand up.

Yes, I do. Thank you. uh i i won't take a lot of a lot of time there's there's i have questions that you can't easily answer um i'm i'm excited to see the the buffer zones that are that are there they're really substantial i don't know what kind of trees and vegetation currently exist there but i think it's a good thing The juice for me is the pond school parking, because that gives the city another really useful multi-use space, whereas right now you can't use it because there's not enough parking. So I could see us even converting some of the parking back to a little bit more green space there. It's just a wonderful thing. My questions... concern the entrance I just looking at it that's the main entrance so I'm assuming it'll be a nicely landscaped um appealing you know visually appealing uh from the road and so on and so forth um the the the ponds there I hope they are I can't tell from the contour lines but I hope they are um a bit they're more like ponds or something like that than they are those those hideous um uh pits that we have, you know, to catch stormwater that are not appealing. And these look pretty squared off. And so they look artificial. I'm hoping there's something as time goes on or as this plan goes forward that we can do to, you know, sort of address those things. But my my basic question is, what are those? What's the what's the the the the fall into those ponds is it like three to one slope or or is a little bit more gentle than that um and is that supposed to be some of the common ground can you address that please

answer your last question first yes you know the storm water management facilities will be either in common ground or easement in this case common ground and as shown on the plan sheets they are detention with water quality so in terms of slopes the maximum is three to one yeah and that probably is what you'll see out there for the most part so they're not necessarily usable spaces and are intended primarily just for stormwater purposes the commission did identify this particular item and wanted a very attractive frontage yes the road, historic Route 66. So that's certainly something that we can talk with and talk with Lombardo Homes about if the bill is introduced tonight and before final passage.

Yeah, it's always disconcerting to say, yeah, we're going to fix that later because later sometimes becomes never. And I've always had a problem with these detention basins because they look bad most of the time. And if they make them into ponds like we did over there in the point, I think it's called, that's a great thing. And so that was the basis for my main question. Other than that, I think it's a... Pretty decent attempt at providing housing in an area that's zoned for high density anyway. And I really think, as I've said many times, I don't care so much what a development looks like from the inside looking out, but I care deeply about what it looks like from the outside looking in. And if we get the ponds right and with the other vegetation surrounding and the parking for pond school, I think this is a pretty good proposal. So thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem, may I respond very quickly? Yes. First and foremost, Councilmember Rambo, I think the Planning and Zoning Commission also sees the project from a 360-degree approach, meaning inside and out. And that frontage along Manchester Road is critical. And I believe the answer to the question regarding the detention basins needs to be resolved before the final passage of the bill. Again, if it is introduced and read for a first time tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Nyhan, I believe you had your hand up.

Yeah, I just have 2 quick questions. 1, we keep referring to them as single family dwellings, but they are not freestanding. So, is it more like a townhouse kind of concept since there's 4 units per building?

So in our zoning ordinance, we have single-family detached and single-family attached. These are attached.

Okay. My other question is, will these be able to be rented out? Will there be HOA restrictions towards that? Could an investor come in and buy a building and then rent those out, or will there be restrictions?

The intent from day one, as Lombardo Homes explained to the Planning and Zoning Commission, these will be owner-occupied. I would defer to the city attorney if we can do something to minimize the potential for buyers then leasing or renting.

That's something we probably have to look into a little bit deeper.

We'll certainly add that to the list if, again, the bill is introduced tonight.

Other questions or comments? Council Member Kummer.

So I do like the fact that they lowered the density. Sure, I'd love to see it go a little bit lower. I feel for the people that own the land and have spent $147,000 for a sewer and they never benefited from it. And I feel sorry for them and she's in retirement age. I feel that it's a semi-good proposal. I have reached out to the Rockwood School District, which houses their entire transportation depot behind Pond Elementary School. I talked to Mr. Haman in length. So every morning, 70 buses pull out of Pond Elementary School. And I live pretty close to this area. And I can tell you that that light at one on, At 109 and Manchester road, there's the most dysfunctional light that I think city of Wildwood has. I mean, people trying to turn to go down to Eureka. Will could possibly sit there at that light for 15 minutes. I mean, there's 3 to 4 cars go through at best. And that is if you don't have someone playing on their phone, not paying attention. I've also raised three children in this area and it's crucial to get these buses out and it's very difficult. I'm not sure if many of you have ever went down that road in the morning. It's going to be super difficult and I think we need to start considering when we build these new developments in Wildwood that We need the infrastructure and it's not so much the fault of the person selling the land. I personally feel like the infrastructure should be there before some of these developments are built because then it's just, it's complete chaos. I was concerned about the buses before this proposal ever came to the city. I'm not sure looking at this plan, are there two exits from this neighborhood and is there a way out through the reserves to get to that turnabout to relieve some of these people leaving in the morning because the reserves got 115. So let's just say on the low end, 60 people from the reserves go one way and 60 go the other way. And then I feel like this development is kind of trapped because they have no access to the turnabout. And over the years, they've kind of connected subdivisions as they're built. I just feel like there's got to be a better way. I think we're going to have a big problem without putting St. Louis County Police there every morning to work the light for us, which I don't think Captain Mundell would probably be in favor of, which I can't blame him because the police department is generally busy in the morning. They're running crazy. Those are my thoughts, but I understand that they want to develop it and And, you know, it's a pretty decent deal, but I am concerned, like Mr. Cairns referenced, the driveways, because there's a few folks in Canberra that have quad cab GMCs and his bumper's touching the front door and his trailer hitch is touching the street. It's way past the sidewalk. I've talked to him before. He said if he would have measured, he would not have bought there.

well a couple of points mr brown our director of public works was adamant when the conditions were being prepared for this particular project that we get a traffic impact study lombardo homes is more than willing to provide that study but mr nance has reiterated to all of us public works and planning that if they were to do it now there's no school bus traffic so it would miss the window and so he's waiting to do it when school starts so he can get accurate counts levels of services etc and i can assure you mr brown is very very thorough on these traffic impact studies and analyses um Certainly, we're concerned in the proposed conditions, there is a requirement for improvements to Manchester Road. So we begin that streetscape, building that streetscape in association with the reserve. And so we're not ignoring the improvements, but it's certainly not going to be the entire street or the width of the street. We get the frontage half. of the right-of-way width and the frontage. It's what the law allows as we've interpreted over the years, but we certainly recognize the traffic concern and we'll do our very best again if this moves forward.

Okay, and then my last thing was regard to the detention pit. I came to a planning and zoning meeting and I missed the next one, but I was under the understanding that this was going to be a water filled detention pit with a fountain that would kind of mirror Cherry Hills. And because I know that Mayor Garitano even spoke to it and said that he loved the fountain idea and it works very well in their situation. And I can wholeheartedly tell you that it looks a lot better than the ones in Main Street. And just like you said, they're not, they're an eyesore.

They are nothing but an eyesore and a problem. And Mr. Nance and the other gentleman from Lombardo Homes just shook their head. They're going to be wet features with fountains.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments for Director Vonage on this particular public hearing? Seeing none then, I will entertain a motion to close out this public hearing by Councilmember Bockert. Do I have a second? By Councilmember Doddwell. All those in favor of closing out this public hearing, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. So next we move on to PZ 5-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission. I will entertain a motion to open up this particular public hearing. May I get that motion, please? from council member mabry seconded by council member nyan so um all those in favor opening up this public hearing signify by saying aye aye those opposed abstentions motion carries uh miss lobeck would you read this public hearing um or i should say pc 5-26 into the record

PZ5-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, in care of the Department of Planning, Wildwood City Hall, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for the consideration of amendments to certain existing requirements being set forth in Chapter 415.030, Definitions, Chapter 415.400, Sign Regulations. General, Chapter 415.410, Sign Regulations for FPNU and All R Districts, and Chapter 415.420, Sign Regulations for All C and M Districts, which would remove window signs or clings from their current exempted status and therefore require these representations to be reviewed and authorized under a set of new rules to ensure compatibility with the city's dark sky efforts town center neighborhood design standards and architectural guidelines and its outdoor lighting requirements of the zoning ordinance chapter 415.450

Thank you. And do we have, oh, Director, sorry.

Mayor Pro Tem, I'll be brief.

Mayor Pro Tem and members of the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission has provided for your consideration tonight its letter of recommendation as approved at its meeting on June 1st. The recommendation before you is to address window signs and window clings. These types of signs currently are considered exemptions under the sign regulations of the city's zoning ordinance. And the restriction is for the purposes of enforcement, 30% of the glazed area of the tenant space can have signage. What the city has experienced over the course of the last several years is an increase in window signage and the use of windows to advertise not only the business but products associated with the business as well as open and closed. The Economic Development Committee of City Council over the past year has been working on the city's sign regulations to improve them from the perspective of making them more business friendly, as well as to address those concerns that have been voiced by residents and elected officials. This particular set of regulations is an attempt to do so. Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed them and has a favorable recommendation before you tonight. I would note that the Former chair of the Economic Development Committee and our city administrator received an email from a distressed business owner in the Deerburgs Town Center project. And the intent of the department after the conclusion of the public hearing is to request that it remain open and the bill relating to the item be postponed so further discussion could occur with the business community. After the public comment, the department will be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Director Funich. No one for public comment? All right. So any questions or comments from the council? Councilmember Owen.

So, 1 thing, a small point on your proposed change section 3, we still haven't corrected the wording there. So if we can change that to correct who had that discussion with that. Community meeting should say, but no more than once a month. My other comment is, when we make this change, I want to make sure we have adequate time for businesses to make an adjustment to this. I know we had that conversation at the committee meeting as well. But I think we need to understand what that. transition time is going to be for our businesses. We don't put our businesses in a poor situation where they've got a limited amount of time to react to this, especially if they've made capital investments and signage of some kind that now they're not going to be able to use.

Director Furnish.

Councilmember Owens, thank you for the correction. I see also another mistake on my part, so it's good we're not moving forward tonight. and to respond to your request typically what cities will do is they'll amortize the sign the new sign regulations meaning giving x amount of year months years to basically allow the transition The city of Ellisville, many years ago, removed the allowances for pole or pylon signs. I believe they gave up to a five-year period to the businesses with those types of signs to remove them and move toward monument types.

That would be great. I just think we as a council need to understand what that transition period is going to be before we can adequately form an opinion on whether or not the change is properly put in place for our businesses.

The only other item I would note, Councilmember Ohn, is that the signs that kind of prompted this discussion were those types of signs that the product manufacturer gives to the business to advertise for the benefit of sales. So this is a little different than polar pylon signs, but certainly it's a good point and we'll certainly spend time, I believe, on Economic Development Committee with Mr. Bockert and Mr. Ottenberg and the other six, making sure if we move forward, we get it right.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments for Director Vunic or on this particular topic? So does everyone understand what we're doing tonight? In order to address the concerns of the particular resident and business owner, we will leave this public hearing open. However, we will need a motion to refer this matter back to the Economic Development Committee. And City Attorney Young, do you wish to weigh in here?

Yes, if I could make a suggestion that we have a motion, second, and vote to continue this public hearing. That would be the first step. And then when we get to the bill on the agenda, it would be to refer that bill to the committee.

Okay, so what we will do then is entertain a motion to continue this public hearing as a first order of business. So may I get a motion for that, please? Made by Councilmember Owens, seconded by Councilmember Marshall.

All those in favor of- August, for the August meeting.

August, okay, August.

Okay.

Director Vujicic. The department would respectfully request that we have up to the month of September. We have a lot on our plate the next few weeks relative to the department. And certainly it's still summer with vacation season. So no later than September. If we can make it back in August, great. But if not, I'd hate to have to stand before you and tell you we missed the target.

Okay. So for those who may...

I'll change my motion to continue until August, until September.

Until September. Likewise. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing until the September meeting. Any other questions or comments or clarification needed? All right. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. So now we need another motion, please, to refer the proposed legislation.

The bill. Okay.

All right. Very good. All right. Thank you. All right. So then we will just move on then to PZ9-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll entertain a motion to open up this particular public hearing.

No. We continued it.

Yeah, we continued it until the September meeting. So can I get a motion to open up the next public hearing for PZ9-26 made by Councilmember Kummer, seconded by Councilmember Vanek. So all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? All right. Ms. Lobeck, would you please read PZ9-26 into the record?

PZ9-26 City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission in care of the Department of Planning, Wildwood City Hall, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for the review and consideration of the final draft of the Wildwood Historic preservation plan. This public hearing is being offered to collect input on the final draft of the city's historic preservation plan, which can be found at www.cityofwildwood.com slash historic preservation plan, along with a listing of relevant dates of future meetings that have been scheduled to complete the plan's adoption process. This plan will serve to better integrate the city's historic preservation program into the city's master planning efforts, related government processes, and community initiatives. It will provide milestones and a timeline for preservation goals, as well as determine the status of commercial and residential historic properties. this material was produced with assistance from the historic preservation fund administered by the national park service department of the interior of the u s government and missouri department of natural resources state historic preservation office Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation.

Thank you. Director Vunic.

Again, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor Pro Tem and members of the City Council, The Department of Planning is presenting to you the Planning and Zoning Commission's letter of recommendation relating to the city's first historic preservation plan. As many of you are aware, this process started in the fall of 2024 when a selection of a consultant to assist the city with the development of this first plan began. that consultant MIG is here tonight to do a brief presentation of the key points of the plan and its development. The department will then follow with just some brief comments relating to the commission planning and zoning commission's discussion on this matter but before turning the podium over to our consultant ms boyle i do want to acknowledge the efforts on the part of our historic preservation commission which spent 18 months working through this particular document I want to acknowledge, too, the consultant, which I think responded very well to the direction received, not only from the Historic Preservation Commission, but the Department of Planning and our Department of Administration. And finally, I would like to acknowledge Miss Keefe, Robin Keefe, our Historic Preservation Planner, and had to assume much of the responsibility to shepherd this particular document to this point tonight. And Mayor Pro Tem, with your permission, I believe Ms. Boyle is ready to do a very brief presentation of the key points of the plan.

Thank you.

thank you joe and good evening council members it's nice to be with you virtually tonight um to talk about the city's first historic preservation plan as joe mentioned it's very exciting to get to this point and be able to present this final document to you all happy to take any questions or comments after i go through some of kind of the key elements as joe was talking about the kind of beginning of this process, started outlining kind of the steps we've had along the way. I wanted to note some of the engagement that has happened kind of over those 18 months that he mentioned that has really set the tone for what is in this document and for implementation measures moving forward over the next 10 years for the life of this plan. So really things kicked off even before they interviewed for the project and began in that way. Robin, Joe, their team, the Historic Preservation Commission were doing a lot of outreach already to collect feedback for the document. but when we began some of the efforts really at the beginning of 2025 we were able to really tie right into what the city is already doing with some online survey work tapping into the history tent at places like music on maine and then really getting into some plan specific outreach we had a series of in-person and virtual focus groups with key stakeholders throughout the community to really see, you know, what's going on, where are the opportunities to improve the program, to capture what you're already doing and doing very well, and to just drive that further over the next 10 years. There were also attendees at the back to school party event and importantly at Celebrate Wildwood last fall, we had a lot of great engagement and really we're asking folks what they value when it comes to the city's historic preservation program and features of the community that they love and want to see preserved. Not everybody thinks of themselves as a preservationist, but we really do think through efforts like these, there's an opportunity to get people involved and really plugged into key things that they value, even if they don't see themselves as kind of a history lover. And so through these events, we're able to come up with some of these kind of key themes of places and stories and parts of the community that should be celebrated, noting places that are at risk, whether that's for demolition or other reasons, but noting those places at risk and then highlighting the places that have been lost, whether it's recently or in past years, but making sure those are captured too, because they have important stories to tell, even if they're no longer physically part of the community. So all of this information, was really taken into consideration in the development of this document. We moved basically from all of that engagement into a key plan framework that guides the rest of the document. And I'll leave this diagram up here for a minute. I think it helps outline kind of what you'll see as you dive into the document in more detail. There are five vision elements. that really provide kind of the base for the plan that any implementation item that is pursued over the next 10 years should really kind of call back to the vision elements and make sure that it's beginning to implement those elements and keeping those in mind. We have specified this plan to include eight different goals and within those goals there are strategic actions and those are divided into a series of different timeframes. So short-term actions are kind of immediate things that should happen from adoption into the first five years of the plan. Then medium-term actions are years six to 10. Like I said, this is a 10-year plan. So those are kind of the key things to accomplish in the next 10 years. There are some ongoing actions. Many of those have started already. And just notes kind of some key opportunities to check in on things as each year goes by, make sure the HPC and the staff is doing kind of an annual report on certain things. Those long-term actions are ones that through this process we've identified are important things to think about but may take additional funding or additional planning to really get at those and so because of that waiting until kind of after the 10-year mark is appropriate for those that being said there are times when you know funding comes available or There's a lot of interest in the community, and so you shift around some of the actions. So right now there are long-term actions there, but it's anticipated that over the 10 years in the life of this plan, there could be some shifting in the timing of those actions and kind of how they play out. So as we were working on the engagement and kind of creating this plan framework, we were also working on an existing conditions report. And really that was an opportunity to highlight some of the key things that folks brought up at a lot of the engagement events. So the existing conditions section of the document is highlighting everything that the preservation program does today. And you guys are doing a lot already. So this is really celebrating what's already happening. And then there are these key opportunity area pages within that chapter to highlight opportunities to really build on over the next 10 years. And then as we go, as we get into the kind of implementation section of the document in chapter four, really focuses on each of those goals and then the related strategies that I mentioned before in that framework and noting the key timing on here. So you'll see the color coordination between the short term, medium term, long term, and then ongoing strategic actions for each of the goals. And again, here the blue and the orange are the ones that are intended to happen within the first 10 years. Maybe there's an opportunity if there's a lot of interest, let's say, in a historic context study, that's something that could get moved in if things align and that makes sense. But the intent is for short-term and medium-term actions to be the focus of the Historic Preservation Commission and of staff over the next 10 years. And a lot of these things are underway too. Things like the African American Heritage Trail Project, it's already ongoing and so there's a lot of momentum here that this plan captures and seeks to kind of pull into the future, get more people interested in the program so that the group of folks implementing is not just staff and not just the HPC, But there's a lot of folks that are really involved in what this could look like over the next 10 years. Our last piece of the plan effort was also to create this trifold brochure, which if they're not printed already, they will be very soon. They'll be available at the city desk and folks can pick these up and take them home with them. This is essentially an executive summary per se of the document, gives just a little bit of information. There's a QR code and link to the full document if people want to dive into more detail. But importantly, this really outlines all of the goals in the plan and gives you kind of a description of each of those. So you understand kind of over the next 10 years with the focus of the Historic Preservation Program for the city will be. So again, this really functions as an executive summary. And we hope that this inspires people to then dive in a little bit more, look at the plan and hopefully get engaged in implementation and really make it known that the preservation program isn't just for those that call themselves preservationists, but is really for the full community. So thank you again for your time tonight. I'm happy to take any questions that you might have about the plan.

Director Vunic.

Again, I believe Ms. Boyle's done a good job of kind of summarizing. If there are any questions of Ms. Boyle, this would be a great time to ask them. Otherwise, if not, the department just has a few concluding remarks.

Questions for Mr. Vunich? Council Member Dodd-Well?

I just want to say thank you very much to the committee themselves and to this consulting group for putting together such a professional looking plan that can be used to guide our efforts for the coming 10 years. And also that summary document that can be easily handed out to citizens so they understand what this group really does and has been doing for a long time now.

um i'm glad to see it come to fruition thank you thank you ma'am and i know miss keith is here miss boyle's online but we'll pass that on to the commission members as well mr mayor pro tem and members of the city council I just want to highlight a couple of things that came forward to me as I reviewed the goals and strategic actions. First and foremost, I believe that several of these goals relate to economic development. Using the resources we have, many times underutilized resources to promote economic development in the City of Wildwood, particularly relating to Route 66, other heritage tourism opportunities, and diving into our indigenous and African American histories that exist in this area, unbeknownst to many people that now call it home. Additionally, it encourages the city to do more to communicate the importance of historic preservation and the benefits that can be derived from it relative to preserving sites, protecting trees that are heritage types, etc. I believe the plan's goals are consistent with the master plan and the elements associated with it where there is that connection. Finally, the department would note that from its perspective it's been a labor of love it's a document that has i think everything that the historic preservation commission sought and from the perspective of the department it hopes that the city council will introduce the bill tonight which endorses and ratifies it if there are any other questions miss boyle let's keep an eye available

Any other questions for Director Vunic and team?

Thank you.

Ms. Lobeck, did we have anyone wishing to make public comment? All right, then. Thank you. In that case, I'll entertain a motion to close out this public hearing made by Councilmember Mabry. Do I have a second? By Councilmember Means. Thank you. All those in favor of closing out this public hearing signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Thank you. Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. Moving on then, we have old business and we have a number of bills that are up for a second reading tonight. In the interest of time, in order to speed things along, I would like to ask the council for permission to have a mass reading of bills 3063, 3064, and 3068. If anyone would like any of those bills pulled out for a separate reading, we can do so. But if not, I will entertain a motion to do a mass reading of bills 3063, 3064, and 3068. Made by Council Member Bockert. Do I have a second? Council Member Trottier. All those in favor of a mass reading of bills 3063, 3064, 3068, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Ms. Lobeck, please do a mass reading of the bills 3063, 3064, and 3068.

Bill 3063, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to execute a certain purchase agreement with the trustees of Hickory Manor Village D for the purchase of certain real estate at 16550 Pond Grover Parkway. Bill 3064, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a consultant services agreement with SC Engineering LLC doing business as Cochran to provide construction engineering services for the Green Pines Park Shared Use Path project. Bill 3068, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri authorizing certain modifications to Chapter 415.030 definitions Chapter 415090 NU Non-Urban Residence District and Chapters 415.110 through 415.160, such being inclusive of all our districts of the City of Wildwood zoning ordinance, specifically regarding the City's review standards, processes, and requirements associated with outdoor game courts, sport court, along with their corresponding permitting steps that are administered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with such being in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Commission's letter of recommendation on these matters, dated May 4, 2026, PZ04-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission.

All right. Thank you very much. Any questions, comments on the three bills that we just read in mass? All right. Seeing none, then we'll move to a roll call vote on final passage.

Council Member Wroblewski. Yes. Councilmember Trottier? Yes. Councilmember Ottenberg? Yes. Councilmember Means? Yes. Councilmember Bockert? Yes. Councilmember Kranz? Yes. Councilmember Albers? Yes. Councilmember Owen? Yes. Councilmember Mabry? Yes. Councilmember Nyhan? Yes. Councilmember Dodwell? Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes.

Councilmember Rambo?

Yes.

Councilmember Vanik? Yes. Councilmember Kummer?

Yes.

Thank you. Now we'll move along to Bill 3065 for a second reading. Could I get a motion for the second reading, please? Moved by Councilmember Means, second from Councilmember Bockert. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Second reading, please.

Bill 3065, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to execute the attached amended city contractor agreement and associated materials with Charette Creek Excavating LLC for the reassembly of the SN log cabin within the phase one area of Village Green site, which reflect a group of change orders totaling $27,417.89.

Questions, comments from the city council on this particular bill? Council Member Wroblewski.

Really, it's a comment. The contract for the SM log cabin was given to an expert builder in the field, and the thought was that the bid would be accurate. I'm disappointed to see the request for $27,000 at the same time we are doing fundraising for the inclusive playground. I would rather see the funds spent on the playground restroom than spend more money on the cabin project. I also noticed that the original funds that have been or have indicated have been expended and that they have not done the fencing or the landscaping and anticipate there could be another change order that would be coming at a later date to finish the project. So just disappointed to see additional requests for funds coming forward.

Thank you. Other questions, comments on this bill?

Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes.

There will be no additional change orders. The last conversation I had with the contractor was, If this change order is approved, and I'm not saying this will be the maximum amount, there's still negotiations going on between the architect of record and the general contractor, but there will be no additional change orders. This is to complete the project per the plans.

All right. Thank you. Other questions, comments on this bill? Council Member Albers.

How did we get here to this?

Well, in a couple of instances, there were statements made, obviously not statements part of the agreement, that some of the materials that are now being identified as part of the change order would be donated. And that did not occur. Some of it was the logs that were in storage for 10 years were in worse shape, which required the masons, the tinkers, to stay on site additional time. but we're still trying to work through some of the arithmetic to ensure that what was bid is subtracted from whatever's been added. Again, this allows us to proceed forward with the cabins completion, but I fully intend not to spend that $27,500 amount or the full amount. I think there's a lesser amount and we'll get there. And once we get there, you'll be advised the city comes.

Other questions or comments? Thank you. Then we'll move for our final roll call vote.

Council Member Trottier?

Yes.

Council Member Ottenberg?

Yes.

Council Member Means? Yes. Council Member Bockert? Yes. Council Member Kranz? Yes. Council Member Albers? No. Council Member Owen?

Abstain.

Council Member Mabry?

Yes.

Council Member Nyhan? Yes. Council Member Dodwell? Yes. Council Member Marshall? Yes. Council Member Rambo?

Yes.

Council Member Vannik? Yes. Council Member Kummer? Yes. Council Member Wroblewski?

No.

Two.

Okay. All right. Bill passes. Moving on then to Bill 3069. I'll entertain a motion for the second reading by Council Member Dodwell, second by Council Member Kummer, thank you. All those in favor of a second reading of Bill 3069, please signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Ms. Lubeck, please read Bill 3069 for a second time.

Bill 3069, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing an amendment to an existing planned residential development overlay district, PRD, ordinance number 522, which would allow the petitioner to retain two temporary structures for the purpose of their continued use for additional classroom spaces in association with current place of worship, which is situated on approximately 30-acre tract of land that is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Route 100 and Miller Road, with such being in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Commission's letter of recommendation on this matter, dated May 6, 2026.

All right, thank you, Director Vunich.

Mayor Pro Tem and members of City Council, if there are any questions, the department would be glad to answer them at this time.

Questions or comments? Thank you. Bill 3069.

Councilmember Owen, how long are we voting for these to continue to be there when we vote? I know they put them for five years and now we're extending that. Is that for five more years or?

This would be on a permanent basis. based upon the fact that the space is still needed. And you cannot see them from anywhere else but on the property. And they are on a permanent foundation for safety purposes and code compliance.

All right. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll move for a final vote. Ms. Lobeck.

Council member Ottenberg?

Yes.

Council member Means? Yes. Council member Bockert? Yes. Council member Kranz?

Yes.

Council member Albers? Yes. Council member Owen? Yes. Council member Mabry? Yes. Council member Nyhan? Yes. Council member Dodwell? Yes. Council member Marshall? Yes. Council member Rambo?

Yes.

Council Member Vanek? Yes. Council Member Kummer? Yes. Council Member Wroblewski? Yes. Council Member Trottier?

Yes.

Moving on to New Business Bill 3070. First reading. I'll entertain a motion for the first reading. Councilmember Trottier. Makes a motion seconded by Councilmember Owen. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? All right. Ms. Lobeck.

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

All right, any questions? Oh, Director Brown, I'm sorry.

Mayor Barton, council members, I'm available for any questions relative to the bill. In other words, discussion from council member Owen regarding possibly amending it. That could be done at second reading if that is the desire. I would like to have John Young look at the current definition of commercial vehicle, and we can potentially talk about that offline before the next meeting. But other than that, I'm available for any questions. All right, thank you.

Moving on here, and just in consultation with the city administrator, it looks like we can save some time by doing a mass reading on bills 3071, 3072, 3074, And that's it. So unless anyone objects, we can pull a particular bill out if somebody requests we do so. But otherwise, we will go ahead and proceed with a mass reading of those bills.

Can you repeat those bills? Which one are we reading?

Sure. So it would be bills 3071, 3072, and 3074. I'd like to pull out 3072. OK. Councilmember Owens wants to pull out 3072. And Councilmember Marshall.

Oh, it's just the first reading. It's just the first reading.

Okay. So, Council Member Owen, you wanted which one pulled out?

Are we going to vote on these then? No, this is just the first reading. Okay. Fine. Leave it in there. We're just going to, we're not voting on it. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. All right. So, can I get a motion for the mass reading of those bills? by Council Member Kummer, second by Council Member Nyhan. All right, Ms. Lobeck, would you please read bills 3071, 3072, and 3074?

Bill 3071, an ordinance of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, reapproving a minor subdivision of a 2.89 acre tract of land into three lots, each being approximately one acre in area, located on the east side of Etherton Road, north of its intersection with Manchester Road, and more specifically situated in the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 44 North, Range 3 East, City of Wildwood, St. Louis County, and to be hereafter known as Etherton Heights. Bill 3072, an ordinance by the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the change in zoning in association with four properties that form a 10.43 acre tract of land from the NU non-urban resident district to the R6A 4,000 square foot residence district. with a planned residential development overlay district all being located on the north side of Manchester Road, historic Route 66, west of State Route 109, thereby allowing for up to 62 attached single family dwellings, of which no more than four of these units being a single building cluster, while being supported by an associated street and pedestrian network, stormwater management facilities, and required public spaces, all of such consistent with the Town Center Regulating Plan's designation of the property as neighborhood general and edge districts, as well as being endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in its letter A recommendation dated June 1, 2026, PZ2 and 2A-26, Mia Bella in care of Doug Nance, Lombardo Homes of St. Louis, LLC. Bill 3074, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, hereby endorsing and ratifying the final draft of the Wildwood Historic Preservation Plan, which has been under development by this community since January 2025. and subject to a rigorous set of public input processes, multiple reviews by city officials and others, and now completed so as to allow it to be implemented to better integrate its goals and strategic actions into the city's long-standing master planning efforts, related governmental processes, and associated community initiatives. all being consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's letter of recommendation dated July 6, 2026, on this matter. PZ 9-26, City of Wildwood, Planning and Zoning Commission, in care of the Department of Planning.

Thank you, Director Boonage.

Mr. Mayor Potem and members of City Council, if there are any questions regarding any of the bills that were just read into the record relative to first reading, the department would be glad to address them. And the department does have a request. It would respectfully request the consideration of a second reading of Bill 3071-371.

request is made for the second reading of bill 3071 tonight that's correct okay it is the re-approval of a plot mr mayor pro tem and

We were within a week or so of the 120 day limit. I almost thought about granting it a variance, but I thought with the city council meeting so close, let's do it right. So.

All right, thank you. With that, can I get a motion for a second reading of Bill 3071 tonight? made by Council Member Bockert, seconded by Council Member Albers. I believe this requires a, does this require a super majority vote, City Attorney? Okay, so this requires 11 votes. We'll try this by voice vote and see where this goes. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Okay, motion carries. So second reading of Bill 3071. Ms. Lobeck, if you please.

Bill 3071, an ordinance of the City of Wildwood, Missouri, reapproving a minor subdivision of a 2.89-acre tract of land into three lots, each being approximately one acre in area, located on the east side of Etherton Road, north of its intersection with Manchester Road, and more specifically situated in the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 44 North, Range 3 East. City of Wildwood, St. Louis County, and to be hereafter known as Otherton Heights.

All right. Thank you. Questions or comments regarding Bill 3071?

Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I do want to provide an explanation. If you're not aware, the subdivision and development regulations grant the director of planning a broad range of variance authorities, except for the actual planning of properties. I can assure you the department of planning and its director uses that very infrequently. So I do want you to rest assured we're not outgranting them left and right.

All right. Thank you, Director Boonage. So one last time, any questions or comments? Thank you. Regarding Bill 3071. If not, we'll move to a roll call vote on final passage.

Council Member Means? Yes. Council Member Bockert? Yes. Council Member Kranz?

Yes.

Council Member Elbers? Yes. Council Member Owen? Yes. Council Member Mabry? Yes. Council Member Nyhan? Yes. Council Member Dodwell? Yes. Council Member Marshall? Yes. Council Member Rambo?

Yes.

Council Member Vanik? Yes. Council Member Kummer? Yes. Council Member Wroblewski? Yes. Council Member Trottier? Yes. Council Member Ottenberg?

Yes. You're welcome. Now that brings us to Bill 3073, which ties back to the public hearing, PZ 5-26, which we voted to keep open until September. And I believe that the action that we are looking for here is a motion to refer the legislation here under Bill 3073 to the Economic Development Committee to investigate the concerns that were forwarded to the city by the resident and business owner. So can I get a motion to do that, please? By Council Member Nyhan, seconded by Council Member Owen. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Thank you. So that brings us to Resolutions. See the consent agenda. That takes us to the consent agenda. Number of items here. One of the items that we are going to pull out and consider separately at the request of the city administrator is resolution 2026-23. Do we need a motion to pull that out?

No, if you wanted to do the consent agenda en masse as typical procedure does, then the motion would be to do consent agenda en masse by polling, but polling out 2026-23. All right, very good.

And also, is there any other items in the consent agenda that anyone would like pulled out and considered separately? OK, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to do a mass consideration of all of the items in the consent agenda except for resolution 2026-23. Or I should say vote to approve. Motion made by Council Member Albers, second by Council Member Wroblewski. Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries now we'll go to resolution 2026 dash 23 and I'm going to ask the city administrator for some comment on this particular resolution.

Thank you. Um, just wanted to point out today, because we've had a couple of these settlements come through, um. to the city council, but typically they're kind of led by the Missouri Attorney General's office. In this case, there are six what they're calling remnant defendants that are trying to settle as part of the National Opioid Settlement Fund agreements that seem to be going on across the country. that said they are not working and that's why we wanted to make sure that the council is aware they're not working through the state on this this would be a direct settlement with the different municipalities and entities local governments that would typically be included in these law lawsuits it will take a little bit more infrastructure building on the administrative side to do the reporting for something like this versus the one that goes to the state. So it kind of create a new setup. We do not know how much funding would come from this. And one thing we have found with the existing settlements that we participated in is that the funds must be used for a very specific purpose. You can't just use it for general revenue purposes or filling in a spot where you need it. It really does seem like some of these settlements were almost tailored towards different government entities that have departments of health that really focus in on rehabilitation and things along those lines that are directly attributed to, they call it abating the opioid problem across the United States. So one thing we have found is just difficulties figuring out the best way to spend these funds. We do plan on having a discussion about this more generally with the chair's permission, administration and public works in a future meeting. But nonetheless, just wanted to point out that If we do enter into this settlement with the six remnant defendants, it includes American Associated Pharmacies, J.M. Smith Corporation, Morrison Dixon Co., Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, North Carolina Mutual and Wholesale Drug Company, and United Natural Foods, Inc., uh those we practically are agreeing that hey we will get some type of distribution of funds but for that cost we will hold them harmless with regards to the opioid epidemic and no future litigation for that purpose would be brought forth we have spoken the department spoken with the missouri attorney general's office to confirm if this is legit they did look into it and they found that yes this is something that these six remnant defendants are going uh kind of on the side to make sure they can try to settle out side of the state So they would still have to deal with their litigation with the state as time goes on, but the city would not participate in that. The one thing why I wanted to call it out was just that we do have to get this in, that's why it's brought up on a timely day, need to have the participation form by this Thursday. If approval occurs tonight for the resolution, the department will gladly fill out the paperwork and have it submitted in a timely fashion tomorrow morning. But we did just want to call out that we will have to create a whole new reporting structure for this specific settlement, and we do not know how much funding will come through. With the other settlements with larger firms like Purdue and Walgreens and the larger manufacturers and whatnot as well, We've only seen about $26,000 total, and we anticipate receiving about a couple thousand a year. But what we've been finding when we've looked at how can we best spend this on some type of program is that it'll actually cost the city a little bit more in staffing costs to run a program and utilize the funds than the funds themselves. So you're not necessarily, I don't want to look at this as like it's free, you know, it's a freebie that we can utilize on everything. It has to be used for very specific purposes that are defined here. uh within each of the settlements so available to do answer any questions and we can do either or but i did just want to point that out as a caution councilmember owen

So, do we even clearly understand what we're going to have to do? And then based on what you just said, I mean, is this one really worth even moving forward with? Are we going to be in a situation where we get a couple thousand bucks and we put a lot of effort into not only administering it, but do we really understand what we're going to have to do to meet their requirements? So, is the juice worth the squeeze?

Yes, that is the argument making tonight. And in some instances, at least talking with our finance officer and going through, you know, some of the agreed, you know, what you can spend this money on, the conclusion is that the juice may not be worth the squeeze because you're going to probably spend upwards of, you know, let's just take, for instance, what we currently have from the other settlements thus far. We have approximately $26,000, but you have to use that to create a program or to abate the opioid epidemic. And you could definitely have a full-time employee doing the reporting and then overseeing the use of those funds because the problem is there are some really strong teeth within these agreements that practically state if you utilize the funds on a purpose that doesn't qualify under the agreement terms, then you have to then reimburse those funds under your general revenue accounts. so nonetheless i the department's advising that um considering we might want to have a broader discussion about how we utilize these funds and possibly talking about maybe there's a another governmental entity that has the infrastructure in place um we want to caution approving and getting into this settlement councilmember kranz

So if we make a settlement with these six pharmaceutical companies, are there others out there? I mean, if you make a release with one, you might have to release them all. I mean, to me, this is something for a lawyer to talk about. But what about the state settlement? Are we involved in that?

So there's actually, yes, we were, and it's very interesting because it's not just one large settlement that covers everything. It's individual entities that are perceived as being a contributor to the epidemic across the country. And typically how it would work is the state would be working towards individuals, and they've been doing that for the last couple of years. At some point, the state comes to terms with these entities, and then they trickle down to the cities, and actually the state would like the cities to participate because obviously that helps their case because we can actually claim on the ground that it's affected us. Nonetheless, this one does not.

So, that sounds like they're trying to make settlements to the cities avoid.

The state, or for these 6 remnant defendants, that is correct. They are trying to avoid. Well, they're trying to take away a part of the settlement. I would say with the state, because part of it is based on population. So, when the state is able to say, we've got. You know, 46 municipalities with this level of population, it does increase the leverage during negotiations.

So, if we don't do this, we're still in it with the state. Right?

in theory yes um in theory i we would be foregoing this settlement specifically we would say we're not participating in this specific settlement but if we want i'm just trying to say if we get involved in this we have to not what we've done with the state we have a reporting program already we have our team understanding how to report that that expenditure when we get it

we're going to have to set up our own it's going to take probably a good three to six months to set something up that will be proper to just report for this settlement i think we should just stay with the state is my opinion i mean that's my opinion i'm not a lawyer uh and i i think you need to get some legal advice on that because you're selling with a party separate from what The state probably is also suing these parties, so that's what's confusing to me. And you get a settlement here and you get another settlement. It's confusing.

just to be clear this so we're talking about two different suits with two different sets of parties so the state settlement involves different defendant parties so these parties are not involved in the state not in that particular settlement agreement correct so this that's why they're settling why would they be all together Would they be separate from why isn't there's because of likely because of the factual scenarios behind the litigation and how pervasive they were throughout the state as opposed to just a couple of cities.

You got a recommendation.

Well, I think the important the recommendation really comes from the practical aspect of how it impacts.

Okay.

Uh, as the city administrator said, uh, other settlements prepared have. Dollar amounts to them that. are helpful, but not life-changing, right? Because what these settlements are primarily for is to reimburse cities for the cost that they've incurred because of the uptick. And the question is, I don't know if we can quantify those costs, because typically that goes to police, hospitals, care facilities, none of which the city of Wildwood has independently outside of its contract with St. Louis County. I believe there's been some conversations with St. Louis County of how we could use settlement funds to assist America.

So it's about costs, not treating those that have issues?

Well, it could be if the city's running a facility, then yes.

And we're not doing it. And we're not doing it. Okay. I guess I would be opposed.

That said, I mean, we will obviously file the paperwork and this is not even claiming at this time that the settlement will come to terms. This is just to submit the paperwork necessary to have the city listed as a participant. Once those terms are agreed upon, so that just just a note on that and quite frankly, I mean, we can most definitely participate. That's not a problem. It's just. We are going to have to have a broader discussion of how we would like to expend these funds. And is there a better manner to do it? Because we just don't have the facilities we have looked in to having the police. How could it be possibly just used for police funding in general? But that is not a reimbursable expense. You would have to almost have a specific officer that does like the DARE program as a relic firm another time. that said would have to go to you could reimburse something like that where you have a police officer go to different schools but we've also gotten from the attorneys that oversee this program with the state that it depends on whether or not individuals have certain certifications so there's like a lot of questions that have to be answered before you even spend a penny because there's a good chance that they'll come back and say it wasn't a qualified expense councilmember marshall

Yeah, we've been talking about it for quite a few years. I guess my question would be, we initially talked about. Maybe we should get the kits and give them to the police officers. They already had their own. What about the fire department to the 1st responders? So, maybe the idea would be is if it doesn't have to be that we have to administer the training or do it in a unit. Maybe we should just look for a bigger partner to channel the, you know, the information to them in order to do that. Maybe the community college, I mean, I just don't think it's something we want to get into, but I hate to see us walk away from the money. If there's a way to work around it.

Council member Owen, so I'll go back and say, it sounds to me like we're going to get. 3 or 4,000 dollars, and we're going to spend 5,000 dollars worth of city time. when our people are really busy today, putting processes in place to make sure we follow the rules, to make sure we spend the money the right way. And then if we don't do it right, we may have to pay it back. So I would make a motion that we just take a pass and we don't even file the paperwork. And we just say this $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 of money is not worth going for because I don't want our people to be all wound up doing this and have to figure out what all the research is to get it done right for a few thousand dollars. That would be my motion.

So we have a motion from Council Member Owen and I believe a second from Council Member Dodwell. All right. So we have a motion and a second.

Is that correct?

You didn't realize there was going to be a musical background to this, did you? All right. So do we have discussion on the motion that has been made and seconded? Council Member Marshall.

Thomas Greene, We had no idea the first one was 26,000 so not knowing how much the money is and not knowing how we can do it, that was all right, that was all of them combined not one.

Thomas Greene, Correct, and this is how many was that Thomas that we had to get to get to 26,000.

There are approximately, I think there's seven currently that have been listed out, but there's also a larger list that comes with this. It's called the secondary manufacturer's settlement. And that one includes quite a few on top of that. But right now we're at 26. There are long-term timeframes here, but we typically anticipate that with what we have on the books right now, we can like, it all depends when they actually settle in some instances, but it's,

anywhere between two to three thousand dollars per year until about 2035 that we'll be getting for these these programs other questions or comments on the motion that has been made seeing none all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye aye those opposed abstentions motion carries

So, in that case, we get an indefinite ‑‑ Since there's a resolution on the form, you need an indefinite postponement on that resolution.

okay so what we need is a motion for an indefinite postponement of resolution 2026-23 made by council member owen seconded by council member dodwell council member albers absolutely is this related to us using these funds to buy narcan at one time and distributing it to

different parties for their use, right?

Yeah, so this is a different settlement of the same larger settlements going on across the nation. But when we went to the police and asked them about the Narcan, and we actually reached out to all of our fire districts too, all of them already have a full supply and Narcan expires. So in that case, they said if you add a ton of inventory to them, that it would actually be best off, they already have the supply is practically what they told us.

All right.

Other questions or comments on the motion to indefinitely postpone resolution 2026-23? Seeing none, all those in favor of the indefinite postponement signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to miscellaneous. Do we have any miscellaneous items? okay seeing none we will move on to the top item for the night which is the motion to adjourn but before we do that i want to thank the council tonight for your time input the actions taken and most of all your patience so with that no further delay i'll entertain a motion for adjournment Made by Councilmember Kummer, seconded by Councilmember Vanek. Non-debatable. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, abstentions?