Administration / Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

I think we have audio. We have audio. Okay. Share this. We are recording and audio is live. Go ahead. All right. Great. Both advanced. No, we're getting a good chat. Okay. Um, welcome everybody to our February meeting of the admin and public works committee. Um, we got a couple uh good items here on the agenda tonight that I think will take some good conversation time. So, we'll get started with that. Um, before we get moving too far, let's do our roll call.

Council member Preston, Council Member Mabberry here. Council member Nyion here. Council member Farmer here. Council member Marshall here. Council member Bert. Council member Vanic here. Council member Alers here. Okay. Uh looks like we've got enough folks. That brings us to the approval of minutes from our January meeting. Does anybody have any questions or concerns or comments before we make that approval? If not, a motion to approve them would be in order. Made by Mr. Mabry seconded by uh happy sec. Could we have a discussion? Sure.

In the minutes when people uh vote against something don't we put in the individual votes who voted for and who voted against. Uh yeah depends if it's a if it's a roll call you do but otherwise you don't. Yeah. If it's just the I mean for years we did it that way so you knew who voted yes and no on the different subjects. So we no longer do that. That's why you do a roll call vote. Don't wait. Don't you don't Doesn't somebody have to ask upfront do it by a roll call or just do it by consensus? Isn't that said passes? But you should you I don't know. That's how whatever we're saying. But in the past

time I guess we'd say you know everyone voted there except Ed Marshall abstained or Ed Marshall said voted no. So otherwise it looks as if everybody was unanimous and I don't think we had a lot of unanimous votes last meeting. I noticed that too. They probably add that in. I think I got Let me check my uh pass by a majority. Yeah. Something. I can see some real advantages, but I know for a fact in campaigns before where people came in and set went through all the minutes to say he voted no on this, he voted no on this. Right. And they that's true. With that said, I mean that in the minutes. So that would then reflect technically a roll call vote is taken each time if my

you could I mean so I'm just looking back at the thing. Um but we are taking a roll call. You're not calling names. It's a voice vote. It's a voice vote. But even then like so I'm looking back at the report maybe that I sent over to you. We know who voted no, but I was instructed not to put that name in. So I I mean I think it makes sense to Doesn't matter. I I I do think it's kind of important. I agree with that. Like I do think it is kind of important especially if things are like you know for formatting per I get what you're saying for formatting purposes instead of having it say like because then it would would be kind of cons confused as

it's not unanimous though is what all I'm saying is so when it says motion pass that's fine it passed but it wasn't all people for it. It could in theory say the majority, we could revert it with the city attorney's assistance here too to say that the majority uh voted to approve or disapprove whatever it might be. And then you know this person, this person voted no or abstain. We could add that in but not have it listed like we do with a roll call where it shows each individual's person's name along with their Yeah. I mean like I so that report I sent over which was just from the transcript just like at one of these I'm just looking at. So it says all in favor except Mr. Vanic opposed. Right. Yeah. That's fine. But I think it should say on there if it passed, Mr. Vanic opposed.

Sure. Then it should say everyone who voted for it. We can do that, too. Have that. It should be all or nothing because if he voted no, he shouldn't be called out for voting no anymore than you should be identified for voting yes. It should be ro It should be roll called my two cents where I just think it's important. Yeah, it's okay. We can because in all fairness, there's a good reason he didn't want to vote for it. So, it shouldn't just appear that everybody said, "Oh, yeah, it was good." Yeah. Oh, we'll try. We'll connect. Let me get started. Don't get me started. Don't change. I just I kind of thought that I've waited two years to ask this, but I don't get why someone just says, should we take a roll call vote on this? And I go, well, we decided that we should or shouldn't or why we will or won't.

Well, at the council level, it if it's an ordinance or something along those lines, a roll call vote is absolutely necessary. If it's an ordinance, then it's a roll call. I never knew that. But then in other instances, especially at a committee level, it's really the the uh it's up to the chair. If they do a voice vote and it seems that there might be significant opposition or in support, it might be split. U they can do a roll call vote to clarify, but typically it's it's at the discretion of the chair. So every time it's a vote for an ordinance in a council meeting, no one have to ask should we do a roll call because everybody will know we should do a roll call for an ordinance. Yes. But if it's to say to director Vunich, would you we make a motion, you go back and and find three more answers or something, then that's that's just by voice.

That that's typically going to be a voice vote. And then if some say you call that voice vote and you hear a bunch of, you know, nos that weren't anticipated, that's typically when someone will say, "Hey, you know, to get clarity, let's go ahead and do a roll call." And then the minute taker will run through the whole role. And at committee level, we never have to have no stinking roll calls because we're not enacting any ordinances, right? We could still do it. There's nothing against it.

Here's part of the dilemma when something is coming out of the committees and you're not sitting in. So if I'm sitting on parks and planning, I'm not on the parks and planning thing, but I see something that went through. I just assume everybody's in favor only to find out later three of the seven voted against it. Well, I'd like to know before it gets to council. Why did they not think that was the right thing? Did I mean to me it just a little bit more clarity. I'm sure it's more administrative challenge, but for years that was always like if if there's a split on it and some people never voted for public street always a no. And other people would give you the reason that they weren't going to they didn't want to vote for that. Maybe it was something in their ward. Maybe it's just something that they felt that wasn't

then maybe what we'll do and we'll use tonight as a good test for this. We will do um we'll do what we've always done which is just sort of a voice vote but then if somebody is opposed to something that's totally cool. We'll just do a roll call. I'll abstain if they abain. Whatever. If it isn't unanimous, we'll let we'll do a roll call. All right. Okay. Um other than that, Mr. Marshall, you'll second the Okay. Any other discussion on the minutes? Okay. All those in favor of approving the minutes from the January meeting, please say I. I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Uh that one passes. That brings us to um public participation. I don't there's nobody here in the room this evening. I don't see think I see anybody on Zoom that is there anybody in the waiting room. If if you have interest in speaking I do see one person in the waiting room. But if you're interested in providing public comment now would be the time to use the raise hand feature and we can promote you to become a panelist. Okay. Uh no. And then uh Oh. All right. Um have one Mr. Troier has your hand. You want to do public comment, Matt?

I guess this is a question with your permission. Uh Tom, is my uh comment that we discussed earlier uh appropriate now or later in the meeting? You would technically you're technically an exeicio of the of the committee. Um, I would say outside of with the chair's permission at at the discretion of the chair, I would say outside of public comment considering typically public comments reserved for residents. Perfect. Do we uh so then do we you want to do it later then?

In theory, it could be now or later, but it would be at your discretion. Um, but technically, just this is a good reminder for council members, too. Uh, all council members do serve as officios of uh each committee, even if they're not appointed to it. They just don't have the ability to pass mo uh to make a motion or to vote at those committees, but they can um obviously show up to those meetings and provide comment at the discretion of the chair. Matt, are you getting ready to eat dinner? Uh no. No.

Okay. I I I mean I would I it doesn't honestly it doesn't really make a difference to me. Matt, I'm just I'm I think that if you don't do it now, it's going to probably be a while. So true. If you if you don't want to be on the whole meeting, I guess now would probably be the appropriate time. I can do either. And um Tom, this is a question for you. I had sent you a brief memo earlier. Did you get a chance to print that and distribute that? If not, I can make my comment now. I I have not uh council member Troutier uh been caught up this the second half of today.

Okay. Well, if it's all right um with Chair Farmer, I can just go ahead and make my comment now addressing the particular issue. Sure.

All right. So, on the agenda this evening, um section six, public works item B, which is a four action item related to contractor proposals for the 2026 concrete street replacement project. When looking at the agenda in the proposed budget, I noticed that um the bids that we solicited from various contractors effectively cover two distinct scopes of work. Uh one being maintenance uh citywide and the maintenance activities were bid on by the contractors at a unit rate, not scope or project specific. And then the second item that was bid upon was the uh Turnberry Place Drive entrance removal. And that particular item was bid as a lump sum item, not a unit rate. So uh without addressing the merits of uh either maintenance or the turnberry issue, I felt it appropriate that um these items should be broken out into two separate and distinct actions. So as opposed to lumping them together in what I feel is a maintenance scope of work, um I I would advocate that uh one action actionable item is the approval of a maintenance contract for a particular vendor to conduct maintenance work as it's been bid per unit rate citywide. And then I think it would be appropriate to have a second item for review specific to the Turnberry Place Drive project. Um, ultimately the maintenance is what it is. Uh, the Department of Public Works has their own criteria for evaluating what areas of of city

roadways and sidewalks need maintenance. And then in turn the department has a separate set of criteria for which they use to evaluate entrances such as the turnberry place drive entrance. So I feel as the though these are two separate items should be addressed separately. Um, furthermore, I I do believe that the Turnberry issue itself probably um is deserving of a a more focused view, focused review of the particular scope of work, the details, what's going to be implemented as opposed to rolling it up in a broader maintenance activity that is generic and applicable citywide. So with that uh I've made my comment and I think that's about all I can do.

Okay. Uh well we will I guess we can if somebody wants to talk more about that we can do that when we get to the item. But if not you're more than welcome I guess to hang out and watch the rest of this thing and we get there when we get there. All right. Thank you very much for your time. Yeah absolutely. Okay. Uh, anybody else on there this time?

Okay, with nobody else online and no one in the room, uh, that brings us to the end of our public comment and into our administration section of the meeting, starting with a proposal for the preliminary design of alternative storm water storage and management systems for the Wildwood Municipal Building Site. This is going to be very exciting. Let's hear all about it, Tom. Yes, very very watched the wall. Yeah.

Well, and I first wanted to start this off with a kind of a notification to that email sent out today uh to notify the ad hoc building committee of an upcoming meeting. We've got enough items now. We've got quite a few that we'll need to cover for some maintenance items that are going to come come up for the building this year, but also kind of the more most important discussion item of that committee uh and for the maintenance of the building more generally is this issue we have with our our water basin that is uh directly south of the building here. Uh when you go out the back door uh in the back parking lot, you'll notice a large basin that's directly abudding u the concrete street uh the concrete foundation of the building. uh when we had geotechnology go through and do an analysis of that basin but also uh multiple areas of the city it was found that uh city hall there it was found that the basin itself was storing water u unfortunately the water was being uh it's not being drained properly away from the building's foundation which causes a constant pressure up against the concrete wall uh and then leads to over time where we've actually experienced it in the women's restroom but also in the back hallway over here. Uh we've experienced water infiltration at the actual uh building itself. And what that leads to is going to happen again is there's no u drain that's currently placed there. And when we did our excavation, we had four different test pits that were dug up about 10 ft down. And when they went that deep, they found that underneath in one of the holes, they were got deep enough underneath they did not have the drainage at the footer. Uh what that does is when there's a large rainstorm that water sits, pools, and then can seep into the side of the building over time, but also would actually saturate the soil underneath the building as well. And where this becomes more particularly concerning too for our building is that we also found when doing uh two core

samples within our foundation that there were uh signs of expansive soils, especially in the sample that was taken in the back hallway here uh towards the maintenance closet. So the idea with this proposal uh is to have Civil and Environmental Consultants Inc. Um they are planning to come in and really look at this holistically and kind of open up in two different ways. One um they're going to see if there's a way to possibly rebuild this basin or reconstruct it or reconfigure it in a way or check with um MSD to see when we built this building where we were when it comes to how much storm water we had we had stored for this building. Since we're lead certified, there is a good indication that we might have stored an excess amount of water on site. Uh so that can give us some leeway too to maybe make it smaller, push it away, reconfigure it to push it towards the the the drive aisle out there. Um but the other side of it would be potentially relocating the sto storage altogether, which is somewhat what we're leaning towards. And the whole purpose of civil u coming in and doing this this work would be for them most likely to to relocate it. And something that's being discussed, and this is where the building committee will come in, and eventually this committee will have to weigh in on this as well, is that there's discussion and a possibility after speaking with MSD that there could be some advantages to combining the city hall parcel that we have here. Right now, when you look at city hall and the village green, you've got three actual legal parcels. Um, village green itself, six acres total, but three acres and three acres. So, uh, you got a parcel there and then you have the parcel that makes up city hall. If we were to combine all three parcels into one and have it one municipal site, u, we're looking into it. There may be some downsides, but on the upsides, there would be an ability to really control for storm water upstream, which is actually further uh, west. We could find a place really kind of in the trees. If you look at the site in the southwestern portion of the site, you could you might

have to remove some trees, but at the end of the day, you could build some storm water storage upstream, which then would allow us to be uh to be much more flexible down here because if it's one site, they're only using one calculation. And as long as we're storing enough water upstream, they may be willing to let us get rid of that alto together and have it relocated upstream. So, there's a lot that's going to have to be played into this. Uh but this is that first step to get them to evaluate our current uh our current basin out there. Really get to the bottom what's the problem? Then give us a determinative uh here's the solution plan list including evaluating whether or not we should combine the parcels and then last but not least uh setting us up so then we can start actually you know engineering a fix to the problem. It this is one of those things where problem isn't going to go away. uh we keep patching up the side of the walls here and it tends to keep leaking. So it right now we have no active leaks on that side of the wall. U but with two different instances happening in the last you know 10 years it's definitely a concern.

Um your did your analysis did you say the playground also as a parcel? Uh so the playground would be located right now on the village green parcel where that's being part of it though. Yeah, it would be perfect. Well, I just bring that up because with the latitude scenario, if it's correct or not correct, there is the concern of runoff getting down to the playground, I believe. So, I don't know if they were going to discharge onto the city property that

couple things there. They did in this they did post they requested postponement which was fulfilled by the the planning and zoning commission as you saw yesterday. But um they have redesigned it to supposedly not have that no longer be discharging directly on the site. We'll see see more to come. Um that said, this actually raises a a bigger question that's being uh looked at and why it's important to get them on board here. And they're also helping us with the storm water uh storm water control for the playground structure because what you're going to have is a concrete slab and then you're going to have an impermeable uh rubber surface that goes up. That's actually the playground structure itself, but they're going to count it as practically a roadway anyway. So, we're going to have to account for that. The same goes for, you know, city hall redesigning this. And then not to mention eventually we're going to want to kick in the main street extension, too. So, you've got three different city projects all taking place in the same area. Uh and then also when you put in that there's a development proposal on that western portion of this site that we're looking at. There's a lot of storm water consideration to take into account and the idea from the department is getting ahead of it in the sense of the more water we can get away from this building the better. We do have some space on the park property. Uh we might have to use it is really where it's coming down to but we we want to get a consultant to to confirm that. But if there's anything from our our resident engineer here, I would be more than happy to oblige and I um that he did the work getting this getting them on on board.

Yeah. Again, I think the key point with this consultant is they're doing the work for the all-inclusive playground. So, it's just essentially doing the same thing for a bigger picture, a bigger piece of property. So, okay. I just didn't know if it would if we needed to take in latitude in consideration with all this. We not as maybe it's being adjusted now.

So that would not as of yet. I would say um if it were to be approved and that could be something at planning and zoning that additional information could be requested for that project. Uh main thing though is we want to avoid at least we we have to kind of let that work out in its own legal process through planning and zoning and we we almost don't want to make the assumption that they're automatically going to have the development or not. We're going to keep they know about it. The this consultant knows about it. They definitely know about it for the playground that they're working on too. Uh but they're also kind of waiting to figure out what's going to happen there.

Thank you. But but at the development review committee for that project, it was very clear that nothing was going to go further as long as they were going to do the water dumping on the city property. So I know they're holding to come back to planning and zoning, but that was really clear in that review meeting was on there. It was it was clear too at the planning and zoning commission. There's no dumping no dumping your water onto the park area. So, it's been a clear that has been clearly communicated to them and and they have uh proposed that there's there's some changes there that they've no longer directly discharging, but that's yet to be seen. It's been postponed. We'll have to see when it comes back. Let's Yeah, let's look at those.

I'll make a motion that we go with the recommendation to get these consultants in. All right. Mr. Marshall makes a motion. Miss Zen seconds it. Any discussion on the motion? This is for Yes, sir. Yes. Um I saw a cost component for the evaluation part. Yeah. Oh sorry we is that a question? account, right? Yeah. For the um cost consideration for the evaluation, has there been any range order magnitude um of what we've just discussed as what they think the most plausible solution set includes

for the for the re how much it's going to cost to fix it to fix it. Um I'd like to like just to know that they are throwing something at the wall. um that we don't become embarrassed by recommending this evaluation that turns out to be recommending something inly out of scale with what the problem is.

They haven't tied a direct number down to it, but this I mean if we move the rain garden, we have to rebuild it. Obviously, we're going to have to do that for the playground in some fashion. Uh we could see some cost savings there because the idea is to possibly store the water in a way on the park site. Um, that's the long-term view of this is to store it upstream on the park site where you're getting more uh value and more, I guess, credit for putting it upstream. Uh, if you combine the two parcels, we possibly might be building this basin in the first place for the playground, but we might be able to add capacity to it that then makes up for the amount of water we store right here. And you're already building it. It's going to probably add some cost, but I will say we have not gotten a direct estimate. They did provide at the the geotechnical forensic study provided a an understanding of what they we could do to the existing basin to make it more suitable. It didn't have a cost associated with it. But we're talking probably upwards of I I would say at the least like $100,000 and that's if we were just reconstructing it, not relocating it.

But it hurt my ears. I think the point is though if we were going to do it now would be the time to do it because we would do it quicker playgrounds would be the most cost effective time to approach that problem. Whatever recommendation we make or whatever we just do to say okay let's approve it whatever they say. Uh what I'd like to be able to communicate to the council for them not to put it off another month would be to go through and flesh out these things. uh we got a $40,000 bogey over there fixing this thing thing, but if we combine it with this over here in a timely manner, we're looking at 100K, which is actually smarter than spending 40 over here and 99 over there. But that's the type of thing that it seemed like this could really carry a lot better weight to make a much more um a much less of a kicking the can down the road another month at a time as we hear sometimes mentioned.

This is what they will definitely do for us. That's this is what the this contract I would say would be more so for it would be for them to come in study our current basin figure out what the solution would be give us a kind of a conceptual cost of what we would do with uh if we moved it into the playground over that area or if we reconstruct it what those cost differences would be and then it would give a clear example of what direction we want to go. That's the whole idea. This is actually not for the final design and engineering of a project. is to investigate and come up with the best solution and possibly find a cost efficiencies by moving it to another site.

Right. I promise the last thing I'll throw in is can we add in the motion that they promise they're going to come back with this bogey figure by next meeting that we can then give to the council to make an action because it's kicking spring and we're going to be kicking construction open pretty soon here. When you say bogey, you're talking about the c that same thing you just said about the what the what? I think he's just saying basically correct me if I'm wrong. Go ahead. How long will it take for them to do this study? How long before we get an action for council action? One more meeting, three more meetings. It won't be a meeting, but

Oh, I would say one meeting might be a little aggressive. Um, but we can certainly push for that and see if we can make that happen. Well, we do know that they are currently I mean the the playground project itself is of utmost importance. We're trying to get that out the door as quickly as possible, too. So, I mean I I think nailing them down to 30 days would be a pretty tough to do the full analysis and let's threaten them with 30 days. So they'll give it to us in 60 because I don't want to put off the the park kickoff which that and just so you know to that this project will be tied in but we wouldn't let that we wouldn't let that interfere with our our project timeline for the for the playground. So we saw how unrelated shell was

I just would like to see them be able to put in writings that the initial building was faulty. Yeah. There's no pipe in the ground. If that's true, if that's what they find, [clears throat] I mean, I agree. I know there's no pipe there. There is no pipe. And there appears to be

blueprints there four times. I I just This whole thing is dragging us another year now and now we're over 10 years. Oh, well, we're going to go sue the different people. We haven't been able to come back to say and somebody, oh, it's $5 million. It's three mill. We don't know. But it's not getting any better. And I'm all in favor of doing the park thing, but this is a serious issue. and we've been now we're in a year and a half, a year and a half and we're not any further along than than we were before. So, I just hope that we're coming out of there with some acknowledgement that there were steps that were not done properly when this thing was built. And if nothing more than, you know, I'll go get my old buddy Elliot Davis and we'll do a big interview [clears throat] one.

So, I just have a I have a two questions and I don't know, Rick, they might be for you. one, this proposal is dated December 10th and it's a 30-day Yeah. date. Did we assume we got their permission or whatever it is to extend the proposal out? I haven't asked him, but I I would rarely find that to be an an issue. Okay. The other question I I have, and I'm I am I'm all in favor of this. In fact, I I mean, I would just suggest it's not my not my job, but I would suggest Tom, this falls way underneath your spending threshold. I would have just approved this without asking us to be honest. I mean I get you want to try to understand the scope of it.

Well, it's more so that that where this comes in. I know the expenditure threshold isn't there, but it's more so talking about combining the different parcels to allow us to be a little bit more creative with the design. Yeah. And that's going to be a council action at the end of the day. Combining the parcels is a council action.

Yeah. But if we get what I would suggest is by getting this data then that helps the council to go well this makes sense to combine these two things. Again we're not trying to influence people to do that but this just is another data point for people to go yeah I understand how this all lines up now that's just me. Um I would only also s mention and I don't know if it's possible because it's across the street and all those kind of things. Do we need to factor in the garage at some point in this as well as that will be a city parcel? Not not for a decent amount of time. The SID can technically operate till 2040. Okay. Yeah, there's a lot of time before we'd have to factor that.

Okay. Then any other discussion points? Okay. Um, last piece. Are we going to have to have any other studies after this before we start figuring things out, Rick, do you think? Or this is this is going to be the plan. Well, again, this is not for design. No, I know that. So, there would be an but I'm saying like this is going to inform the design. And we're not going to come up with some other thing that we got to look at. Yes. Yeah. Correct. I don't Okay. This is them coming up with a solution based off that report we had earlier, too. So, we would be designing whatever their solution is if we agree with it. Perfect. Any other questions or comments? Just the the motion that we're going to be voting on includes Councilman Marshall's um thing about the pipe. Correct.

Yeah. I mean, I mean, I would expect I would assume, and this could be incorrect. I think I'm with you on this too, Ed, but I mean I would assume they're going to come back with a complete assessment of what is going on. And I mean I don't I have no idea if they're able to assign Well, we're not signing blame blame, but I mean I think saying that these things observation.

No, but I mean it's so obvious. We have this problem. Every Oh, we don't know why it's there. The building wasn't done right. Right. And they the people who signed off on it were so concerned about being lead building, they didn't fix the drains or they didn't take the clay out from underneath the building. I mean everything that we said going into this thing they were supposed to do. Nobody watched anything and we just did this gigantic overrun and you know it's been 10 years and you know people complained about the old city hall. This is a bigger problem and a lot more money tied up in it. So outside of accepting outside of the motion being to accept this plan that you guys are proposing, which I think is a good plan, is it helpful or necessary for us to include some type of language to just say to get this as quickly as we can get it.

Yeah, that'd be I mean it we we can take that whatever that means. It doesn't have to be included in the motion, but we can definitely you'll get that that's the perfect. So everybody's good on the motion. Yes. You okay with that? All right. Uh we'll try this the first time around. All those in favor of uh passing the uh consultant plan forward, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, that one passes unanimously. Excellent. That brings us to the review of advisory boards.

Thank you, chair. And thank you. Uh tonight we've got uh a little bit of an extension of what we've been doing recently. Uh the last couple meetings we've gone through and broken down the almost took every commission committee and uh board that we have that's active in our city especially the advisory board city councils. We'll we'll get to that but obviously is may not be even considered for major changes other than possibly the term limits etc. But the composition or anything like that is not up for debate. Uh but all the other advisory boards the question was what is their legal reasoning for being there? What's their importance? Is there something in the way of us making modifications if the council were so to wish that? Um also just any things that the city itself, you know, is there any charter restrictions that we might have tied to ourselves? One that we've talked about here is the appointment uh term limits that we have for appointed officials. Obviously for elected officials, uh that was one reason to do it, but then it got tacked on that appointed officials also have that same uh same rule. And that's something to take into consideration. That's something I wanted to bring up because we can consider that for all appointed official roles. I think, you know, especially as we get into a charter review here next year or so, uh, could [clears throat] be something to discuss specifically for the appointed side because that's always been the issue is finding enough folks and not just doing a rotating basis, but finding enough new folks to be able to bring them on and have them work in that role for a decent amount of time. U, so that was the first phase of this was to really break out the legal function and the basis for the establish for establishing each individual commission, board, committee. And then we took it a step further after the committee gave input at the last meeting to break out each individual uh commission board committee into a tier. We're just going to call them advisory bodies uh into tiers. So tier one uh three different tiers. Tier one being, you know, really can't make changes. It's kind of locked in uh you could make changes to certain things such as, you know, maybe there's a meeting frequency

discussion. Maybe you want to have a discussion about the uh a liaison that serves there, but you're not going to change the firm composition and overall the the structure their their powers and duties that are established per the code and sometimes the charter. Uh what typically does what kind of gets that defined is that quasi judicial function. I think that's really important to note here. uh when you think about some of our you know one some of these tier ones that I've listed out uh the department's listed out in this report you'll note that city council it does perform quasi judicial functions especially for appeals business license appeals etc. Uh there are some planning and zoning matters that end up there too that they serve a judicial function. Uh the I'll just go through that's actually just committees that to the tier ones the administration public works and the planning and parks committee a little different. Don't have that quas judicial function but they do oversee the four major departments that make up the city. Uh and I almost think that city clerk somehow is can can fall kind of under the umbrella of administration since it is the duties do get covered in this meeting as well. Uh but the reason why those are tier one obviously they're made up of eight council members. Uh and then also the most important component is they oversee and approve the capital improvement budgets for right of way and then the planning and parks committee approved capital improvement for parks and trails and then also overseeing the pretty much the four departments of staff that make up the majority of the budget. So there really is a an ability and a important ability for these committees to be able to lock in and deal with a lot of the issues that are going to come and rise to the city council level but kind of be that first response to it. So I think you know based on the department's perspective they're tier one because of the who they oversee department wise and how much resources they direct on. uh planning and zoning commission meets that tier one threshold because of their quasi judicial function and also the fact that they are locked in as an established uh group and advisory board for the group

for the council uh because they serve that uh role to effectuate our zoning law. And if we were to give up our planning and zoning commission there, that would put us into tight legal scrutiny. And not only that, uh you could very well not be able to have the zoning that we have, our land use code that would be very important to keep. Uh same goes, and this is piggybacking off the planning and zoning commission, but the board of adjustment component. Uh just as important, they go hand inand if you have a planning and zoning commission to review and implement your zoning code, you have to have a mechanism for variances or requests to kind of go the other way. Uh so that is required to you have to have that. We actually have a court reporter that does the minutes for each of those meetings. It is treated as a court function. It's one of the only meetings that the council doesn't actually have the ability to override that decision they make. It goes to a a judge if if there is something that gets challenged. So wanted to call that out. U board of ethics meets as needed. uh all these other meetings that we talked about, they do meet more regularly, but of ethics is more of a uh component to have because it's better to have it when you need it than to need it and not have it. Uh we used to have quite a few more meetings. We've added in a component. It's an important note. Uh that's a little different than we had re previously. We now have there's a charter complaint, there's an ethics violation complaint uh about, you know, a staff member or elected official more specifically that goes now to a an individual attorney that reviews the complaint and finds its merit and see if there's actually any weight behind it prior to calling in the ethics commission and then starting to break into an actual case and then talking about what those next steps might be. It's great to have this uh committee. It needs to be a tier one because if you ever needed that to be there, you need to have it for that quasi judicial function, especially if you're talking about impeachment or if you're talking about some type of disciplinary action towards an elected official. Going into the remaining even [clears throat] the remaining tier one, the last one we

have, and there's not much the city council can do to change the makeup or the the uh the committee, I guess, or the board itself is the SID. I wanted to include it just because it does have staff time implications. It does have implications on how we have to spread our time out as staff but at the same time it is created by uh well the indentures are going to be retired here shortly but it's really made developed by the council's initial approval and then also you know there's the annual review of its budget by the council but it's really more of a comment section versus actually implementing that change. What really governs the overall U CCID is the agreements that were made between all the property owners that participated at the beginning of it. That's what will govern it till about 2040 is when we're anticipating the property and sales tax would be able to retire uh be retired. So, we wanted to include that as a tier one because we really can't do all too much to change it. But just as another important note, if we were to go ahead and say we don't want to have that those meetings anymore, which they meet three times a year typically unless special meetings needed. Uh if we were to change that, we would be effectively losing, you know, decent amount of money in property tax and almost $90,000 in sales tax revenue that's generated. So, uh I wanted to make sure to bring those up. Those are tier one. Really can't open the box there on those. If anybody disagrees, we can have the discussion. But those will be very difficult to change. If they were to be changed, we would have some farreaching implications. Um, now we get into a little bit more of the discretionary side. Tier two and tier three. Let's let's do a quick uh I'll explain the difference between the two. It's a little bit between them is a little gray, but there are some things you can look out for. Uh, one easy one doesn't have to be, but being established per city code is an important factor. Uh I also included in here that you can be established by city code or possibly by another mechanism, but it it it kind of

automatically starts getting you considered for tier 2 if you are part of the code because we'll have to change code in order to do it. You'll need an ordinance on the books. Uh the other side of it would be more so the load of the the board that's actually taking what they're taking on what they're covering. Uh and then really uh the most important piece here was that if we did have the the actual committee board or commission modified a tier 2, you can almost think of it like this. This is what we did as an exercise. If you change the way they were going to function or you eliminated them, then you would have to take the powers, duties or responsibilities that are assigned in the in the city code and make sure those are attributed to another board, commission, committee or council explicitly. meeting the duties that are outlined for that that board are so important that it's listed out independently in code. Uh that's a great way to kind of look at it because as you start reviewing some of the code, you can see some of these examples that you know may not rise to the level of you like an administration public works committee where a lot of financial matters come through before they reach the council uh or planning at parks. Same could be said for planning our events etc. Uh but where it does come into play is you know for different committees like our economic development committee for instance we have it does have a decent uh arm there in the sense that it oversees a lot of the the economic development activities we have and it does play a role in the planning efforts for different park events and uh different events more generally. But one thing that we looked at that was a tougher one because it is in code and it is made up of council members. Uh so it is you know you would think that would naturally knock it up to knock it up to a tier one but where we had some issue there was that within the economic development we looked back on past agendas really studied what items were coming out and what we found was there were a lot of really meaningful discussions happening there but we found after it came out of EDC it wasn't going always directly to council. A lot of the

times it had to go to planning and zoning and some other times it actually had to go to planning and parks because it might be a park event. So we saw a lot of those coinciding responsibilities there and also seeing a lot of work that gets passed to another sub subsidiary committee and we wanted to make sure we at least noted that that's why it's more hanging on the tier 2. Uh the same can be said for the historic preservation commission. Uh they do meet monthly as well and they are established via ordinance. uh they serve the one somewhat quasi judicial matter that they do serve for us is they if there is a demolition they serve a role and as much as they do go toward the site they make notes on it they try to work with them but overall the council still has to approve the demolition at some point um unless there can be an admin for legal taking. So there there's a little bit of a stretch there but it still does have that quasi quas judicial function. Uh they also are responsible for keeping our certification uh as a as a historic friendly city. Uh and then going just through the line here we had tier 2 as well with celebration commission. We found that a lot of that work it is a lot that goes into that the sponsorships theme etc. But we also wanted to just note that a lot of that also is discussed at the planning and parks committee as well. U we just wanted to at least make that note if there was something that somewhat overlapped that's where you started sliding down to tier 2 even if you were established per code. uh the architecture review board that was also determined as tier 2. It is pretty crucial in assigning uh uh not assigning but effectuating our our design standards in town center and also uh any kind of commercial building outside the town center. an idea that was discussed and when we made a change more recently, we changed the makeup of that committee of that board and we actually made it a little bit more flexible to allow the city to hire a consultant an a architect to serve on the board if we're not able to find a resident that meets the requirements because I think the most important part

of the architecture review board is to have architects with that experience because they're they're really weighing in on the overall look and feel of uh commercial development or more importantly we have at the reserve at Wildwood where we've had some things go through architecture review. They're determining how 115 homes are going to look in our city. So, there's some importance there, but there also could be a discussion where architectural review could be absorbed into something like planning and zoning, which does somewhat get discussed, but maybe it's you assign a u an architect to that to that job. You have a retained architect and then maybe they report to the planning and zoning commission for these things. It becomes its own agenda item. Uh there's some ideas, not necessarily endorsing these, but we had to look at it that way for when you're tearing them out. If we made a change, is there a way to make a fix and work around it? If there's not, it was tier one. If there was, but it kind of caused a hamper and a problem, it was tier two. And if changes could be made and really wouldn't affect all too many operations other than uh legally anyways, then it was tier considered tier three. So then the last one here for tier two, we got into board of public safety. Uh this is established per code. It does have listed in there uh the duties and responsibilities of the police department or a police contract. In this case, police contract advising on uh the individual developments for safety reasons. We do have also the uh looking at our traffic schedule is mostly what they do. The component that was noted here when we were going through the review, if if the council were to make changes to this board, the one recommendation that we would have is to still have a mechanism for having that open dialogue with the captain and and a representative from Metro West Fire Protection District. That was that is one thing I think with the board of public safety that's pretty beneficial when we have an item come up. Doesn't necessarily have to be a board at all times, but we have an item that comes up that does have a safety component to it. making sure that those emergency responding partners have at least a voice even if it's a non- voting role

like they are now. Uh wanted to point that out, but overall a lot of the work that happens at Board of Public Safety, a lot of it doesn't necessarily get transferred over to admin PW, but it in theory could. Um so that once again, it was one of those things where we'd have to make some pretty pretty big changes to the code, but it wouldn't necessarily, you know, stop us short immediately. Uh, okay. That's tier two. Sorry to go through all these in so much depth, but wanted to really explain the rationale here for from the staff's perspective. Uh, development and zoning review committee. I have this listed as a tier three just because I couldn't find a way to not have it be tier three, but the department and speaking with individuals from the staff side and also some of from the business side, this is a very critical board that we have in the city. It was introduced back in 2017. I think we've saved developers uh I've actually had a developer mention this that they it saved them a couple hundred thousand dollars because they were told you know just couldn't flat out couldn't do something uh instead of having to go in and do the design and engineering and work towards an official submitt they're able to typically get a you know preliminary concept and at least run the rough edges to you know really some key decision makers before it really hits you know and we have to do public uh public hearings and whatnot and we're able to kind of shape not only to improve the development that's being proposed for the city to make it better for us, but also to make it realistic for them too to make standards and set standards up front so that they're not catching uh catching issues right as they go to the first planning and zoning commission meeting where they've already invested a good deal of money. Uh so I did want to just note that the department would not recommend any changes development and zoning review committee. I think that's actually one of our really good groups we have. uh wanted to note some of these other ones you'll note too are usually they're they were designed for a specific purpose or they're a subgroup of another committee. So that's really another distinguished piece here is that it is groups that were made for specific

task oriented items. So typically they'll have a sunset u and if you go through these you know in theory a lot of these could be absorbed by other committees. is just looking at master plan. You could have those be covered by standing council committees if you needed to, but we've always done it that way where we had a citizen oversight group do it. Ad hoc building committee. I think there's uh a lot of work that needs to be done at this building. So, I think it's important, but there is a time that's set to this once the building is, you know, we correct some of these issues. It will have the natural sunset all-inclusive playground fundraising group. Uh that one will have a sunset obviously once we start building the playground itself. landscape and planning subcommittee. We're getting we actually will not be having any more meetings with them, but it's subcommittee of planning and parks. And then lastly, the watershed erosion task force, which was created for a very specific purpose, collected the data necessary. Now, we're in a a construction phase. And at this point, we're um most likely going to be having their roles and responsibilities somewhat absorbed by the planning and parks committee and also the administration public works committee is kind of a a joint topic for coverage. Uh the department uh would not necessarily recommend modifications to tier one, but we can confirm that tier two and tier three uh we can explain if there's any specific direction tonight from the committee. We can explain what steps would be needed for each if there's anything any changes that the council's looking to make tonight. Available for any questions.

Any questions? Taxing district. Will the new apartments and retail fall into that taxing district? the the uh the new one over here near Rose theater's not in it now, right? No, it so the the boundary for it it starts across the street from here. So almost think of it where the parking garage is, go down to Walgreens and then to 100. It's that little corner there and it includes also the uh the retirement home, but the the corner of Taylor in the south side is not in there. No. So city hall is not included. uh several times that was brought up in discussion. They wanted to add it because they wanted to put uh steakhouse in there in other places in order to do this.

So they there was discussion for that and if the and it could happen, but if it if they were to be added then not only would you have the folks that own the current properties would have to agree to that, but then the individuals that own the properties outside of it would have to agree to possibly well they'd be signing up for a property tax and a sales tax. So we I know too bad. Well, they we gave what, three and a half million. I would think that's pretty fair. But no, he means the other people like the people because we just wound part of that down. So, they'd have to re-up the whole thing again. Yes. Well, okay.

Right. Like the like because we we're Starbucks and all that stuff is they would have to agree Yes. to the new all the owners of the real property would have to agree to kind of accept a new person into the club and then that that party would have to accept, you know, um going into the club as well. interesting. We certainly try.

I just think it I mean again it it was always negotiated back when we did it if I was here the first time and the intent was as those lots would fill out and I can remember Greenberg and Con asking about being able to come into that because they wanted to put the restaurant in there and all this other stuff and then suddenly when there's something coming in you don't hear any more discussion about it in order to do it. That that's fine. So, I guess my a couple questions I had or I'll let somebody else go and I took my first one. Cliff, do you stay I mean, sorry. Do you is this maybe you can restate what what we're actually trying to do. Is this just a review? Are we trying to consolidate reduce when possible or

so um I would suggest you know we've talked about this for a while and now we and so like parks and planning had this on their agenda. So what what I would suggest is I think the staff has done a great job of putting [clears throat] these components together and we've done so I think you know really appropriately um appreciating the volunteer work that goes into all these committees. We're not we're not necessarily trying to get away from that. But I do think from a planning perspective, like it would be it would make sense to me to take this information that we have tonight and be able to put forth sort of the next part of that plan and whether that then maybe goes depending on how the timing works out or whatever that might go to our next council meeting because everybody's talking about it already or if you know or it kind of moves up to um planning and parks because at least based on what I saw and you I don't know Tom like correct me if I'm wrong but planning and parks basically kind of endorsed what we already suggested which is like let's put these things into this kind of a tiered framework and and we'll go from there. So in a in a way just the way timing is lining up we're kind of leading that conversation. Um so I think we can go with those next steps at that point. Well, just general observation. I I know I brought up economic development before, but instead of maybe it's a little light, I would say maybe there's more that could be rolled into that from the tier twos and eliminate some of those tier 2s. And I would suggest that we really try to eliminate the tier threes and put them into something else.

Okay, that's good, sir. Mr. Maybe.

Uh, yeah. I was wondering if we were getting into the stage of mints and dicing, and it sounds like we are without having anything that this is the stage we're at now. Um, I we're getting down to cases and brass texts and go after them one at a time and have them captured by the scribe. And then we say, "That sucks. That's horrible. We're not going to do that." uh we say that looks pretty good to explore further watershed erosion task force. You take however many eight or 10 or 12 or 75 people that were on that watershed erosion task force now that we're done with the headscratching and brainiac stuff and you take three uh of those members of somebody's choosing uh and advisers as I've noticed that there is one advisor on the historical preservation commission and you take those three that you've chosen out of those however many are on that task force and they now become advisor and they're invited in anytime a name another tier two or tier one that they apply to and they're invited into that meeting to be advisers either technically or by experience or by where they live.

So that's one down for a watershed erosion task force and now the erosion task force is now disbanded except for those three adviserss that are on call. How do you like that? I I think I mean that's that's just one way to attack it.

Yeah, that's a little bit of the way we approach it. Anyways, I um I think we can hear some other thoughts. I I I might have an idea that kind of incorporates all of this stuff, but um let's hear what everybody else has got. If anybody else has anything else they want to add. Well, except that I agree wholeheartedly that all tier three need to be disbanded and their best parts and pieces need to be salvaged uh and either uh built into added to something else to make that car run faster or uh maybe sold off to another group where their expertise individually and privately can be used in a tier two or a tier one for further skills. So, we're just taking talent sets and reapplying them. Can there be an official subcommittee of one of these or not?

Well, I think there can. So, um here's what it may not be the answer. I just didn't know if that's even possible. Any any committee can technically make a subcommittee of itself, right? Yeah. So, my thought on this, and I appreciate you guys doing the work. I know that this has taken a lot. So, you know, a lot of the tier three things probably with the exception of the DZRC are pretty temporary or like really kind of as needed

projects. A lot really a lot of these are kind of as needed. So, the suggestion that I would like I'll throw out there is, you know, we have a very small handful of basically our tier one meetings that are, you know, very obligated for a variety of legal reasons. They need to happen at a certain cadence and all things like that. And I think that everybody agrees that that those are where they should be. I would suggest that anything really anything else um and even like board of ethics as we said like that's not something that meets regularly. That's that's a really an as needed thing. Um I [clears throat] would say board of adjustment is technically probably as needed. It just is needed more frequently.

It monthly because we have to schedule that the minute taker. Yeah. And legally you have to offer the opportunity but if there's nothing on the agenda it doesn't have to meet. Yeah. So my my thought is we take all these things and then anything that isn't in that tier one um whether it's economic development, historic preservation, you know, the wilderness celebration commission is kind of more of like a seasonal thing. I mean they meet a lot but it's really important at a certain time of the year. Um architectural review board of public safety. I mean Rick does a great job of saying hey we don't really have anything to talk about this month or whatever it is so we don't do it. So the thing I came up with was to um preserve legally required bodies and meeting requirements. So whatever the state and all these and our charter and things say those are the those are the ones that need to say and then authorize everything as needed and it is discretionary with and then we just define what as needed is. So instead of just like saying well it's as needed and then you know the chair or somebody goes I think we need to have a meeting. Why? because we haven't had a meeting in a while like great but you know as Mr. Marshall and I have had conversations. He's the chair of the ad hoc building committee and we do need to have some conversations about what's going on. So there are kind of real things. So I think if we can my suggestion is to come up if we can come up with as a group what actually defines as needed then we can allow the staff to apply that and then that should free up a lot of the calendar work and things like that because you know we can fold up a lot of these things. I think we don't want to burn out volunteers the way we have them set up right now with the term limits as they currently are which I think we certainly should fix for the boards and commissions and things. Um, but a lot of this is a lot of these meetings and what we found I think you know I I thought about this I'm not picking on EDC although we seem to do that a lot like we had our EDC meeting the last whatever when was

that a week ago two weeks ago and when I started thinking about even the light number of hours if it was on the low end of the hours that meeting cost the city $1,000 to have and it was in my opinion although I'm a member of the committee and whatever like that wasn't worth $1,000 And there's certainly a lot of meetings that we have that are probably not really technically worth that. And so if we can, that's not to say they aren't valuable in general, but at that specific time, I think we can do a better job of that. So I don't know. I mean, I guess my question would be, I guess, Tom, to you and Rick, since you're also, you know, our director on these things, like, is it better for you for us to go through each one of these things and say we should get rid of this or change it this way or to say generally speaking, these things should be defined as needed if they aren't needed anymore. Like watershed can be just done away with more more or less. Um, and then give you guys the definition of what defines as needed. So it is not just sort of like

it would be helpful to feeling. Yeah, that that part would be helpful either either one or the other. You're just saying either have one where it's you explain the as needed component so it's very easy for us to apply and then it's not there's no question to whether it's kind of defining it it that's why it's needed and that's why that frequency is needed. I think that's where we're getting at too is the meeting frequency. The other side of it would be

if we were to go through these independently u I think that could especially if the whole council weighs in on it that I think that would carry some more weight with some of especially with the volunteers if we if the staff has to enforce this portion of it where it's like hey this is what as needed means. No, no. I think I mean so I would say the like my suggestion unless you guys want to do something else which is fine. Like I'm happy I can throw out some ideas of what as needed means. If we all come to an agreement then the recommendation for from us would be this is what we think it should be. This is as needed. That then goes to the council. Then everybody can figure out what they want to do if that works or not. And then we go from there. That then should give you guys the direction right that you would need.

Yep. and it would probably lead to a couple code changes, but it wouldn't be if you're not totally eradicating some of these code required meetings. I think it that actually be a pretty simple way to do it. Okay. So, like architectural review board meets the second Thursday of the month as needed. Like if there's no paces, then there's no meeting. So, would these groups keep a date like, okay, it's the second Thursday. If it's not needed that month, you don't have meeting or is it just like we might You know what I mean? Like, hey, tell everybody when there is a need and we're going to throw that in on a Tuesday and we might not meet for six form.

So, I mean, I would suggest because we used to I I just this is what uh director Vunage and I used to do on the watershed thing like I would say in that case it has a place so that you know people can schedule when in advance when they need to be there but then we can define a period of time. So, um, you know, you shouldn't be hearing that you're having a meeting on Thursday on Tuesday, right?

And so, I think if we like if we set this thing up very clearly, so in this case, you know, we've I've got like basically five things that would define what an as needed is, then we can say, hey, based on, you know, number four, this meeting is at, you know, is needed and therefore it will occur at its normally scheduled Thursday time frame. That's how I would probably set it up. But, you know, that make sense.

Yeah. I guess one of the things I'd like to see us look at is the whole term limit definition and what a term is needs to be cleaned up. Some are three years, some are two years, some are one year. Those got that way when we set it up and add more people to it. So in order to do that the next year this person's got three years four years if or we go back and change the charter and take out all volunteer positions is not initially that's the way the recommendation came out of the charter review was elected individuals had term limits no one else right and Mayor B oh no we got to do it for everybody. Yeah.

No because you're going to create and now we know what the problem is. The mayor gets to appoint 104 people every four years. And so through that process, that doesn't mean, you know, and you do have to tell people, "Thank you for your service. I'm going to appoint somebody else." You don't renew everybody in order to do it. But when you start putting those kind of term limits in, then you get number one, you get people who can't meet those particular nights. They get on the committee, they never show up. Then you need to add more people because you never get a quorum. So I think if we could go back and look at any of the ones and I I kind of agree with the bottom ones but any of the marginal ones and determine what are the lengths that where we have volunteers and then what night are they meeting on because there's a lot of people so I'd like to do I can't do Tuesday night or I I'd like to do that. Well that's and we've had people the treasurer and people on council get appointed and say well I'm I'm never in town on a Monday night. [laughter] Well that's not going to help you honey. So part of it is to determine then of the volunteers and of those people that we say that position on historic preservation or whatever is a four-year term. Then we don't have to change the charter or we get the terms all synced up that way. We could still go back and change the charter and just state non-elected the the term the the charter limit term limits are for elected officials only. Yeah. If you're not on the ballot to be elected, then it doesn't affect you and then you'd have that opportunity. That's what we had intended to try to move forward. I still like to talk to Mr. Young because it left that committee that it was not going to be the way it is.

Would it make sense maybe? Would it make sense to maybe do both because the charter? I think that's one way that you could tweak a lot of this. You can't do the charter this year. You have to do it on the ballot next year and you can only do it two or three items on the on the thing to even get people to vote for it. But I think what we could do is change the ordinance that controls the term and then look at the wording in the charter when it talks about the uh term limits and that reward if I were recommending the rewarding would be elected positions. So maybe then let's split this into two pieces because I agree and maybe that's just the second thing based on this part of that conversation. Does that make sense Tom? No, that makes sense. Okay.

Because you we'll pull somebody who's been in alternate, right? Then we put them on for a thing. Well, does that count as their years? I mean, I don't think we've ever been really clear on it. Yeah. And it's it's all self-inflicted. We've done this to ourselves. You got something? No, no, I'm good. Okay. Um Yes, sir. Can I do one more board of public safety? Sure.

I I've been on it several times. I still think that we're kind of missing the purpose, [snorts] what's in there, but I just kind of resent the fact that we think Metro West should be on it, but we don't bring Eureka and Monarch into it. They each have a third of the city and and I I think in all fairness, now again, I used to go to their board meetings and find out because they they will work with you, but uh one of our previous mayors did not want to work with them. And so then we kind of seen some of these challenges we've had. So if we are going to do this on the board of public safety maybe once every six months we have all three fire districts we have the police and then we have a safety focus meeting on updates what's going on or how to do that as another alternative but I just think and you know I just don't know the codes are so different between the three city the three fire districts and they're separate taxing districts. So I think that if we're going to do anything with it we ought to keep in mind that those other two districts uh represent a big portion of the city as well. So,

it's a good idea.

All right. Um, anybody else? Do you guys want me to read these the as needed definitions? Thought I had. Okay. Um, so five components. A formal referral or request is made by the city council or a standing council committee. The city administrator or relevant department director requests advisory input on a defined action, proposal, or deliverable. A statutory, contractual, grant related or regulatory milestone requires review or recommendation by the advisory body. A quorum of the advisory body submits a written request for a meeting specifically, I'm sorry, specifying the subject matter to be addressed uh or a project or initiative overseen by the advisory body reaches a defined phase requiring review, recommendation or closeout. So like I would suggest if we were to use like watershed as an example, we've passed the detention retention thing. So I don't know if it's necessary, but I would say the next meeting is just for us to go we've completed what we're supposed to do and now we're

um so those are those are the five ones I came up with. If there's other ones or different phrasing that you guys would suggest or like obviously we can have that conversation. Is that do those items make sense to you guys or is that too vague still? Could you send that to uh Amy? I think that I mean a lot of those actually made a lot of sense. The referral by council I I that would the department would request if we're going to go in that direction with those referrals we may request from the council too to be very specific with the referral and like hey here's when we wanted that meeting to happen etc. We'd still have a placeholder on the calendar. Yeah. at these.

I would say it's I mean I would almost apply you know kind of like we've done with the board action review like apply that same idea that like you know if for instance if Ed wants to have a board of public safety meeting he can certainly make that request and he's going to spell out why he wants like what is the item that we're talking about not just let's get together. Not that I think you would do that in but I'm just saying like no but but I think in all fairness we need to these purviews are there but we ought to be able to make sure the public knows if they want to come. I mean, we used to that for the public safety. People are lined up waiting to get in a meeting because they all want to stop sign in or subdivision, right? Kind of past that now. We got them all put up. It was a long time.

Um, yeah. So, I I mean, I've got I'm h I have a It's a long It's one of It's a long motion. I'm happy to read it if that makes sense. And if somebody wants to change it or make it, we can do that. But it sounds like we're kind of going in the right direction on this thing. So, the motion to there's two components of this, right? that there's one and just before we get into the longer motion one is to look at the term limits for these advisory bodies and standardize them if that's correct that'll be the second part of this okay just making sure we need to decide whether we think it should be four or threeyear I yes I think we should do that but I let's not do it right now we're going to do this part first I think

okay so here here is the full motion and assuming somebody likes it or whatever I'm happy to email it to whomever needs it uh all right I move that the city council adopt the following policy clarification regarding the meeting cadence of city boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and advisory groups. Number one, preservation of legally required bodies and meeting requirements. All boards, commissions, and committees whose existence, authority, composition, or meeting frequency is required by the city charter, Missouri state statute, or explicitly mandated by city code shall continue to meet in accordance with those legal requirements. Nothing in this motion is intended to alter, reduce, or wave any legally required meeting schedules, public notice requirements, or procedural obligations. Number two, authorization of as needed meeting cadence for discretionary advisory bodies. for advisory bodies, task forces, subcommittees, and working groups that are not subject to legally mandated meeting frequencies and whose functions are advisory, temporary, project specific, or episodic in nature. The default meeting cadence may be designated as as needed unless otherwise required by ordinance, resolution, or governing bylaws. That make sense?

Yeah. You good on that one so far? I'm good on that one. It it is uh yes, for right now, we might have to review it just to nail it down specifically because some might be a little more gray area if it if it falls within that category. But I I mean I'm not that I'm going to make this motion, but I would suggest that that would be anything that is outside of tier one. Yep. I would agree with that. And then yes, that's what I'm interpreting it as. And also the other thing is the other like about the motion is you are saying if it's legally required then this is kind of nullifying. Yeah. it doesn't apply. So, so just so if somebody were to make this just so you're clear like the the main the big ones

just stay the way they are with a couple because some of them are as needed basically already and then the it's sort of applying to the rest. Uh okay. So then definition of as needed for purposes of city operations as needed shall mean that a meeting is convened when one or more of the following conditions occur. One, a formal referral or request is made by the city council or a standing council committee. The city administrator or relevant department director requests advisory input on a def on a defined action proposal or deliverable. A statutory contractual grant related or regulatory milestone requires review or recommendation by the advisory body. A quorum of advisory body submits a written request for a meeting specifying the subject matter to be addressed or a project or initiative overseen by the advisory body reaches a defined phase requiring review, recommendation or closeout. Those are the ones we already went on. Last little piece here, uh, transparency and public notice. All meetings convened under an asneeded designation shall remain subject to all applicable public notice open meeting agenda and recordkeeping requirements under Missouri law and city policy and then administrative implementation and periodic review. The city administrator is directed to implement the cl the clarification consistently ac uh across applicable advisory bodies and to periodically review meeting activity to ensure that advisory functions are being fulfilled efficiently, transparently and in alignment with the city's governance framework. That's it. What does everybody think of that?

Just a comment as we look at these ones to make them more of ad hoc committees where they're there to be called for special meetings or special events. There's got to be some way that we don't have to make the committee so big that you can't get a quorum because whatever comes out of there is just going forward as a recommendation. So I I just question whether or not how important it is to have the task force with particular people serving on it if it's still going to require coming back to another subcommittee.

I ag I agree. So I think kind of like our idea or your idea of setting the the term limit and what that actually should be. I think we should just say unless this is mandated somewhere specifically like I appreciate the concept of getting everybody from each ward but that's a lot of wards and also you know not everybody in a ward has a specific you know either level of interest or understanding of what's going on. So I'm wondering if sometimes we're missing out on people. We we lucked out in that because with with watershed when we did our redistricting um Mr. Sturman had been in W three and he was our expert on where we were trying to get money from and he got moved into ward four and it just so happened that Carol who was our co-chair her husband got ill so she dropped off so he was able to stay but had that not occurred then it would have been a very weird scenario and we would have lost somebody that really did know what was going on

um and that's the only concern because if we kind of take away some of those big groups and quorums part of the struggle I think they have is not only the term limit thing but also getting enough people there. When they were adding all these people to historic preservations, I kept saying, why do you do that? [clears throat] Because now they can't get a quorum. And it's like, well, we we want to have a meeting and then you look at there's really not a whole lot to be on the meeting. So part of it has to be the fact that you you don't want to wear out the volunteers. At the same time, you don't want to ask somebody to volunteer and then four years they've never been called in, right? And it's like the board of ethics people been on there and never called to me. just because we're all so very ethical when we [clears throat] lose. Yeah.

Um, okay. I like those points as well. Um, I think we can move I think we can talk that on this next thing. I'm happy to make whatever changes or suggestions you guys might have or if somebody wants to make this very elaborate motion, I'm happy to send that over. However you guys want to proceed. I think it's going the right direction. All right. So, you want to make the motion. All right. Mr. Marshall will I just can't repeat it back right now. That part we can handle. Mr. Marshall will make the motion. Tracy, you want to second? All right, Tracy will second it. Any discussion on the motion? Discussion.

Yes, sir. Shall we? I hadn't seen in there the component of requesting of the staff that they propose or recommend or suggest or insinuate uh any of these bodies which they just as soon because they really are a marginal value ad for the time invested not of the particular item but that the fact that the every single one of these particular items requires a certain number of man-hour to sustain, certain number of pieces of paper to always print off, certain number of placards to put on the desks of the people that have to be stewarding them. And that's that's a they'll know what value add and what's not for their staff's u time constraints. Give them that leeway to throw in their two cents worth.

So, we might be able to add something to the motion that would fix this. My worry, my concern, and I could be wrong. I don't want to speak for you guys, but you know, I I think our staff is is cognizant and appreciative of the people that have volunteered to do this, and so they don't probably want to be the people that are pulling the trigger on some of these. Um, but I do think if we were to shift these to this at needed thing and we put in an additional thing that just is a sunset clause that says, "Hey, if we aren't meeting at some level of efficiency, then this body just kind of naturally goes by the wayside and without a great deal of fanfare about it." Because I think I think what we might find not that we would necessarily we wouldn't be able to do it at the board of ethics that's like required but in theory that hasn't met for I don't know how long and so it might be not that we would do this but that would be one that would make sense that it just kind of

well technically it it should meet prior to every election once the filing is done they're supposed to review all anybody who's formed a committee they have to sit down and go through that or those who didn't we haven't had anybody run a competitive race that has a committee But unfortunately, that's another one of those issues where that's what they're there for is to review anything uh that was filed with if they were they had a committee or spend any money should have been done when they did the mayor's race. I don't know if that was done or not, but I mean that's just kind of that's how it all existed in order to do that. Take it. Um

can you let her know that this is what meeting this is? Mr. um one other comment in any of these that we say would be on an asne basis maybe we ought to be thinking of caveat that if it's not going to be made before the next meeting that it'll go to the council without or it'll go to the to one of the two subcommittees so that way you don't get in there well we can't get a date we can't get a date well it's going to go to the standing committee to move it forward without any recommendations u so that you're not locked down yeah say, "Well, we can't do that now. It'll be another month." I think that's part of the frustrating part.

Okay. Um, so, uh, tell me if this makes sense with your concern on eliminating some of these. So, we can add a new section six, which is any advisory body, task force, subcommittee, or working group that is designated to meet as an added basis and does not convene a meeting or produce a formal recommendation, report, or documented action within a period of 12 consecutive months shall be subject to administrative review. Following such review, the city administrator shall either one, confirm that the advisory body remains necessary and recommend its continuation. Two, recommend reassignment of its remaining duties to another advisory body, standing committee, or staff function. Or three, recommend that the advisory body be formally sunset, concluded, or dissolved subject to any required city council action. No advisory body established by the city charter, Missouri state statute, or explicitly required by city code shall be subject to sunset under this provision. Okay. Can I respond?

Sure. Immediately thought of Director Brown, Mr. Mr. Lee, you want to chew up another year of your staff um having to man the house, man the pumps, uh sit in the seat, uh for keeping keeping any of these tier 2, tier 3es open? Uh, is 12 months the best time or can you get this knocked out in the next fiscal quarter? Just just giving it from your motion if it's inactive for 12 months. Yeah. So, so if it's relevant,

but that's only that I think what he's talking about though is this is after this these changes are effectuated. If it's inactive for 12 months after that point, then that that if we were to switch it to as like if we were switch it to as needed right now because the whole idea was to try to free up the calendar anyways. That was our concept with this thing. So if we went to as needed, then the staff is not necessarily going to be doing those meetings outside of perhaps this next one once it gets passed to explain whatever change might go on. And then we would know from that point once that action takes place, then that 12-month period starts to kind of kick in.

I'm talking about the overhead to keep the lights on, to keep the lease up, and to keep the offices open, and to keep even a fraction of each one of your employees who are already overworked with multi hats all over. I I just keep getting the sense when I'm dealing with anyone here that uh they're sharing their time with me with five other responsibilities they're not able to attend because they're giving me 100%. And they got four other 100%s that now they got to catch up with. I just keep getting that every time I talk with anybody here and they're too pleasant to to level with me. Well, I can I can at least break it out this way that we have a lot of day-to-day responsibilities that have to be ass handled every day and we have current this is a good way to look at it. We have at max capacity about 26 employees one of those being part-time for the court. Uh of these committees all these committees here you see the reports research unless a consultant is being paid to do a report for us. uh all the reports, research minutes, uh actually exclusive minutes, but all the actual substance, the information that goes in these packets and a lot of the organization that goes in the formatting goes in in it. I would say about 10 individuals on staff are responsible for doing that. And of that, probably five of them do the majority of and it's it's a lot of director's work and there's help that comes down the pipe. Just for context, there's about 16 or so committees that we have and about five people are pushing out all the materials for all said committees while doing their day-to-day jobs.

Well, would it help I mean, I'm not asking you to necessarily start crossing these off at the moment, but I think to Mr. M's point, would it help you to do something like this and start to and just identify ones right now that you know I mean we know we know watershed is basically being closed up. Yep. So are there other ones that fall within that threshold where it's pretty clear that like yeah out of these 16 of these are not going to be anymore. I can point out a couple of tier threes for sure. The landscaping and planning subcommittee that one's practically resolved itself. It's more so just waiting for the final document to come out. Um DZRC had actually argued to keep No, that one I mean

MP 26 will be done I believe by uh latest June. We're hoping to be done by May. Uh building committee I think we've got a couple things we got to knock out first before we we tuck that one away. It's pretty Will it take a year? Yeah, that one probably is going to take a year. Okay. Then there's one that's going to take a year, but then the other one you said before that whatever it was the master plan will sunset itself. Um that'll be a master plan and we can put it to bed for 10 years.

Yep. and then all-inclusive playground. The fundraising component, the good news there is that we don't have as many meetings. It was really a lot of work on the front end getting the meetings to kind of assign out. We do check-ins and Melanie and a couple of the planning staff help with that. But originally that meeting group was a lot of the work on the front end because we had to kind of teach people here's what we need to do, here's what the goal is. But now it's kind of plugandplay. It's more so people hopefully making connections on the outside on behalf of the city saying, "Hey, you're teaching them about our project, getting them to the link, and then hopefully soliciting some donations." Um, so that that doesn't require any more meetings though, right?

It does only if there's like a a check-in. I know one discussion they were having was do we need to have like a we're going to have it for the opening of the Village Green, of course, like some type of donation mechanism there and maybe set it up where it's a you know, for donors, you can have a special viewing of it or something. I don't know. That's their thing. Um, but if there were to be like we're going to schedule a special fundraising event, then they would that idea would need to probably request a meeting and that's going to happen kind of how you've already been saying by having a couple folks or the chair reach out and say let's go ahead and do a meeting. But it's not that one's not meeting on a rolling schedule. Okay. So I I would say that one So if we went up to tier two then what what in there

tier two it gets a little bit more tricky. Uh but you know I think there could be some some changes made. think HPC has to somehow remain or need to be absorbed because of that the demolition provision and also the certification I think we would have to answer the question of uh how much we value that component uh economic development I think a lot of that how much do we value that I mean I'm not I think that's a fair question

but like what does that like you know like we're in a lead building that doesn't do anything for us I'm not saying that the historic preservation thing isn't important I don't know what it effectively does for Yeah, some like recent notable accomplishments would be uh you know kind of gearing up for the Route 66 celebration for uh 100th anniversary, but then like more recent like tangible item was the uh railroad to freedom grant that they were able to retrieve which then resulted in some Yeah. But like do you need the certification to get that? No, you it helps with the grants for sure. Sometimes you have to have a committee. So like there's if you're going to do it to try to get any of those grants, you're going to have to have an established year.

Yeah. But if we move it to as need, it's not like it goes away. It moves as as needed and it's just not needed every month or whatever. Clean up the terms. And I think the other thing too could be, you know, for that group, I mean, it could be something as simple as, you know, if there's a major milestone, but also if there's a demo permit that comes in, then hey, that's when it gets triggered. And that's an easy one to to trigger. That could be in the code anytime. And that might be where we have to look at the number of people because, you know, you might need to redo some of that. Yep. And we'll SK and maybe it's something where you submit that demo permit. We will schedule it within 30 days of receipt. Something like that. Uh I was on there for a year and I went out to four of those. Yeah. All four of those. They tore them down.

That and you know to have people in there tell you if it's your property, well, we'd really like you to keep that staircase. We'd really that's not ours. I mean, I just I just find it really frustrating to think and then these people turn around and tear it down anyway. I mean, it's just a whole lot of tracking through snow and into something that's not really safe to say, "Well, yeah, we we don't need to tear it down." So, I I agree, but I I understand why they're trying to do it.

But unfortunately, things like this building will be fall down way before those 150 year old buildings are, you know. So I mean I I'm unless there's some Tom that jumps out to you. I'm looking at the tier two. All of these I would say make sense that you could fall under that as needed and some of them are just needed more frequently than others. I mean

I would agree with that and I yeah there I'd agree with that. The one that I want to look at a little bit more closely just to make sure it's the ARB but I really don't think it's affectuating the land use code. At the same time, I still think some of those responsibilities could be absorbed by our planning and zoning commission. And I think we would, it would behoove us, say we were to change that. That one wouldn't really necessarily fit the as needed model. It could. Uh but I think the most important part about that committee is having a a real architect that's on there that is helping guide and is an architect that the council agrees with their style and with their their past. like getting a portfolio and saying that is what we want our city to look like and they obviously specialize in new urbanism.

Real architects don't want to serve it. They don't. So that's where it's such a uh ego-driven group of people. I know a bunch of architects they just won't do it because they come in there and other architects well we can't we have to have hardy board. No it doesn't say that. Well we that's what we want and they override it to other say you know what I'm an architect all day long. I have no desire to do that for the city. I live in this city, but I'm not going to do that. Well, maybe maybe then. Well, that's where the consulting part. I know that's not something we want to necessarily

actually Forest Hills or or Clarkson Valley. There was a guy who used to serve on our board who was an architect, but when they had something going on occasionally in Clarkson Valley, they would hire him as a consultant and he was their architect, the city approved architect for a project that the department, they don't have a big department, but they want to do. I mean that we kicked that around a lot. Honest there's a lot of bad things that happened in my opinion in 30 years because of the architect review committee.

So maybe we are and now the department is much better. Before we didn't have anything when we were doing the town center all that stuff and we we made this grandiose ideas that everybody wanted ceiling to floor glass and then we can't figure out why nobody wants to build in here. But in that particular case, since we've gotten that far along and the staff, I think, has got a pretty good understanding, we've defined all the codes, do we really need it? Let the staff deal with it and then let the the architect if we have to bring a consultant in, do that instead of having the people that are on there now aren't architects. That that has been the biggest issue is finding a professional architect. There are some good ones, they're not going to do it.

Okay. So then maybe then I would suggest this if if this makes sense. Yeah, I think that the the general motion still makes sense. It sounds like ARB and ARB has a question on how we want to do that. So, I would say if we apply this to everything that's here with kind of special callouts for architecture review, I I'm I'm just thinking historic preservation, but only so we can just understand whatever this like I get it, but like just let's have a real definition of what that certification does for us. Great. um Wildwood Celebration Committee. I feel like they probably do this more or less already because some at some points they're going to need to have more frequent meetings than others.

They do and they they meet monthly, but they typically start stacking up a little bit as we get closer to Celebrate Wildwood. But overall, I mean, I think that one, you know, that one's a tricky one, too. I'm going to maybe what we say is this cuz we had this conversation I think you were well somebody was in there at economic development like the the question I had was if everything we do in here needs to go somewhere else before it can be decided on which is effectively what all of these are right then all of those maybe the maybe then a side motion of this is these ones that function in that way need to be reviewed to make sure if they are still necessary for that function

I can assist in a little been there for like at least three like economic development committee just so you re I think this is helpful context at least for the funding mechanism u I just think economic development that is a sub department if you will it's not even its own sub department but it's a subwing of the administration department which technically could be is overseen and has oversight by this committee right here right you know so that's one you know there's also probably it's in here too is there's a probably a planning component there too for economic development clearly so that could be almost like a standing item U but overall the funding mechanism comes from administration which then in theory would get its approvals from this committee right

same with HPC that is actually folded and gets its funding from the planning and park well planning budget planning and parks committee um while with celebration they technically approve a budget and the council then endorses it but at the same time it's just one of you know all the events whereas the planning and parks committee is the actual you know group that all the approves the money and also Alo approves all the funding. I mean proves all the actual other events that happen in the city. It's just it is a time intensive thing coming up with the logo and all. Yeah. I mean I'm with that saves the city time that committee does because they don't have to come up with logo. They don't have to come and because it is the big event for the city. I feel like it's including the residents and they're

and that makes sense that that is like that as a real fixed thing where some of the other ones are just kind of like I don't know we get around to it. Um, so getting back then, if we want to break this up in parts, certainly we can. It's probably easier that way. So, we have a motion right on the floor for your first reading. The first reading. Do you want Do you want to include the sunset clause in that as well? Oh, we can do that. I mean, I don't think there's a You made the motion, so you're cool that Okay, Trace, you good with that? Okay. After a year, right? After after Yeah. after. So, we'll do that and then we'll come back for the second thing with the rest of them in a second. So, everybody clear on the very large multi-point first part which I will email to Amy so she doesn't have to write it down. Everybody clear on that one?

Yes. Okay. All those in favor please say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. So, you got that? Now phase two is going to be uh a specific review I guess Tom by you as to specifically these tier 2 slashtier three ones that are I mean most of these tier three ones are going away but like DZRC [clears throat] is is tier three but probably is tier two kind of thing. So, so that would be a specific review as to the, you know, actual real purpose of these things and whether that is necessary. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay. Um, let me get let me think how to do this here. Give me one second. And just to confirm, part of that too is also the standardization of term too, right? Okay. Yep. Perfect. Have any discussion ever about setting up a foundation for donations to the park?

So for this park or for parks in general? Oh, parks are the playground. The playground currently the we're not a 501c3. I know. So they they get to I guess if we were a lot more corporations would donate. Yeah. I don't understand. I mean I just know how hard it is to do it. I've sat on two other boards where we are and it takes a lot additional reporting but corporations look at you and they can't write it off unless it is they for our for the playground they do get to write this one off because they technically send the payment through online to the uh unlimited play unlimited play then has it in that account for this project. So they are able to give them the tax credit

but they're not are they able to tie that back to Wildwood? A lot of the corporations have to want to do it in an area where they do business and that kind of stuff. Yes. I don't think you're communicating that very well in your brochures and stuff, but I I've sat on two boards. We would never give donations that weren't going to a a 503C. I just we don't do it. We can do we can definitely do a push to make sure it's easily communicated that they're they do get the tax write off. I think and by law right up there says that if they're not then there's no you don't donate money to those organizations. You could, a business could write it off as a business expense, but it's not a taxdeductible one. So, okay, I've got another slightly long motion just to give you clarity here. Tom, are you ready? See what you guys think of this one. Just gave you time.

I move that the city council direct the city administrator to conduct a comprehensive review of tier 2 and tier three boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and advisory groups for the purpose of evaluating their continued necessity, clarity of mission, and alignment with the city's current governance and operational needs. The review shall only apply to advisory bodies classified as tier 2 or tier three and shall exclude any boards, commissions, or committees whose existence, authority, or structure is required by the city charter, Missouri state statute, or explicitly mandated city code. For each applicable advisory body, the city administrator shall assess whether the body's stated purpose and mission remain clear, current, and necessary. whether its responsibilities materially overlap with those of another advisory body, standing council, committee, or staff function. Whether its advisory role is distinct, additive, and aligned with the city's present operational and policy priorities, and whether the body's workload, output, and meeting activity reasonably justify the continued existence as a standing entity. As part of this review, the city administrator shall evaluate the term lengths, term limits, and appointment structure of tier 2 and tier three advisory bodies with the objective with the objective of identifying opportunities to standardize member term lengths where legally permissible. Improve consistency across board bodies to support predictable rotation continuity and institutional knowledge and reduce administrative complexity associated with staggered, inconsistent or legacy term structures. Following completion of this review, the city administrator shall present a written report to the city council. It summarizes findings for each tier 2 and tier three advisory body, identifies any recommended clarifications, consolidations, reassignments of duties or structural changes, identifies any recommended standard term lengths or appointment frameworks, and distinguishes between recommendations that may be implemented administratively and those that would require city council action, ordinance, amendment, or charter considerations. This motion directs review and recommendation only. No advisory body shall be eliminated, consolidated, or materially altered as a

result of this motion without subsequent city council action in accordance with applicable law. Yes, sir. adding that city administrator shall also provide a timeline for most efficacious, if that's a word, wind down and and most most uh most cost value effective redistribution of assets were reusable. That makes sense. I can add that into that makes anybody want to change that make that suggest anything? I don't think it's worth changing, but I think we all agree that the development and zoning review committee is a keeper. Oh, yeah.

So, I don't know if you want to move it back up to to at a higher level so that we don't spend time coming up with ways to eliminate it. I would just say like no, I think that falls into the thing where he's going to go it is tier whether regardless if it's tier two or tier three, it stays. That's just the finding. It's more so based off the the thing is, you know, per the benefits of it the staff it staff time it actually saves. Uh it's actually a tier one in our mind, but it's because we had to create this the the rules and the classifications per the classifications. It's kind of difficult and honestly there are some awards that have never had anything

in four years come through. So you know you don't really know the experience of that unless you have development coming through uh in order to do it. So I think that's uh it is typically word one or eight who gets them all sometimes. Oh, does your AI come up with all that right now or did you pre That's just Joe's bra. Yeah, I built I It's a It's a specialized thing, but I as you guys talk I I build these things out. So it's not just making it up. I I'm I'm sort of like how can Ed come up with all that that fast? You know, I can see him typing this stuff out longhand. It's his medication. Yeah. Right. It's all these antibiotics that got me on for this call. So I think that that's So you want to get a motion on that?

Yeah. I I mean if I think if we can get if somebody wants to make that motion, I think that unless time unless you think that that is is that too specific or is that not specific enough? No, it's not. It's it's fine. The only thing I would mention is just the reallocation of resources. I'm assuming if the allocation resource if one of these were to be eliminated or reduced significantly, we're probably going to just tuck that time back into making better reports for the committees that still exist and then also go back to you know some of the other like permit review. Yeah. I mean basically this is because you know we have a r I would say you guys came up with a range for what these things take. Yeah.

So like I like if for instance you find that well you know waterershed's a great example of this. So wershed's work as a task force is done. You would now suggest this needs to be reallocate these responsibilities or whatever now get reallocated here. So it would be here and there for these two things. Yes. And now that's done. And and any of those volunteers could go to some other committee if they'd like to continue to stay involved. That's right. Run for office.

There we go. Yeah. Um so yeah. Uh wind down. So [clears throat] Bob, do your thing. uh where the city administrator determines that a tier 2 or tier three advisory body has fulfilled its original purpose, has become inactive or redundant, or no longer provides distinct or necessary advisory value. The city administrator is directed to recommend an orderly windown which may include completion of any remaining defined tasks or deliverables, formal documentation of conclusions, findings, and recommendations if applicable and reassignment of any remaining advisory responsibilities to an appropriate standing committee or staff function. That work? All right, good.

That was a lot. Uh, if anybody cares to make that motion or change it or whatever, we can maybe stop talking about boards and commissions. That would be pretty motion. All right, Mr. Mayberry is going to make the very long secondary motion. Anybody care to second it? Mr. Vanic will second it. Any further discussion? Amy, I will email it to you so you don't have to worry too much. Uh all those in favor of our directions here on giving Thompson some scope on this board and advisories in tier two and three, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. And I think [clears throat] second that Mr. Vanic did. Okay. And then I think that's got your term limits in there. Um Tom, do you want to do you want to look into the term limit thing or do you need any advice from us on whether we think three or four is

that would be helpful. We can get the the three or four from you all. It's I think legally either would work for appointed officials. It's not going to be

I guess part of it there's a massive study somewhere this building or stories. We went back to trying to look at terms on two-year terms on council and the consensus really came down that if we had to do all over again you could figure out how to do 16 seats. three years is almost perfect because you get a year or so to learn how to do it, another year to do it, and then you can kind of decide what you want to do. And I just thought after we did all of that that it kind of makes more sense. But we we drop people into four-year terms. We don't do it for council. I mean, the mayor is the only ones four-year terms, but like again on planning and zoning, that's quite a commitment to ask somebody for four years of, you know, it used to be two nights a month and um in order to do that. I don't know if there's any studies out there that say three or four year, but if you're going to look at changing them, the logic might be there is a study that says three years is better than four years. More people be willing to commit to three years than they are at four. And then you do two years, it' be six terms and or if you back and change it, you could go to three. What whatever. I just thought that at one point we were so close trying to figure out how do you get away from an election every year with two people all people running on the council. We did the study and said, you know, hindsight being perfect, three years appears to be an a better and there are a lot of cities, I think, that do a three-year term versus two-year. But I don't want us to spend hundreds of thousand dollar study. And I just think it's interesting. Are there people who be like to serve but don't want to commit to four-year term? I'm on one board on five years. It's a long time. And and you get to a point that like, wow, every month for five years, you get to go to a meeting.

We could we could definitely research that. that there. I think we probably did it when we had the charter review too. So, we'll look at some of the documentation we have on file back with at least from our what we can find for recommendation, but it would be I think you're right though with the four that that could potentially turn off some casual folks that

I know it has. I mean, I I remember trying to get people on planning and zoning and he said, "Look, I I got kids. I can't I just can't commit to four years and I don't want to drop off in the middle of it." And uh same thing with with council. Two years was hard enough to get somebody to do that. According to Google, Missouri and other like comparably sized cities, it's three years is the kind of the sweet spot and then some cities have four years for more of the quasi judicial side of things, but that usually limits the amount of people that are willing to give that might. We didn't have Google when we did that study, Joe. No. So, I mean I mean I'm not saying we had a high level. Could you fog a mirror?

Here we go. I I mean I'm not saying that we should just default to this, but I mean I think if if your memory serves that three years made sense this I think this is kind of I mean that makes sense to me. Um the only and I don't I'm only thinking of this just based on how we do it and I and you're you're the only one in the room that's been the mayor so you can answer this. What I don't what I'm I guess it wouldn't matter if people are staggered anyways, but I you what you probably don't want to have is a mayor appoint all new people to serve for three years and then appoint new people in year four and then phase out just how we had to build I mean I all of these ones we we had to add people because we couldn't get a quorum. Yeah.

And and so we put people on there. We had to drop the qualifications. you know, you weren't a practicing architect or or whatever and then you get people just arguing over but I just know that planning and zoning you was was four years but then when we put the term limits in there's a whole other interpretation that well it really they if they hadn't been served that point or or whatever. So, I mean, it's been a hard one to kind of explain to, but I just I think maybe we're limiting more volunteers for some of those, and I might be totally wrong, but um maybe we if unless you guys disagree, I would say this. Does that you can do some research, you got some guidance on this, you can advise us,

right? Okay. Okay. Uh I think that checks everything off on boards and commissions. Anybody got anything else they want to add on that? Great job though for the staff. Thank you. Yes, this was a lot of work. Thanks, guys. Um, okay. I guess that brings us to you, Mr. Brown. Public works. Thankfully, staff's report on city improvement projects.

Members, um, Chair Farmer, um, provided a report, an update on our current improvement projects. Um, not going to go through it in detail, but, uh, we'll retain any questions you may have if you have them about any of the specific projects on the report. any specific start date for the uh shared use path? Well, we are having a pre-construction meeting on Friday of this week. So, we will know more. They will present the schedule to us at that point. At least that's the expectation. So, we should have a little more information coming out at that point. Anything else?

I'm sorry. That's I'm sorry. That brings us to contractor bids for concrete street replacement project. Former committee members, um I think as you know we have traditionally had a annual concrete street replacement project. Um we have 1.3 million budgeted for that purpose this year in 2026. We advertised our annual project in January. Open bids on the 26th. We had some very good participation and had six contractors submit bids for the project this year. And the lowest bid was received from Kelp Contracting at 1,175,080 and the second lowest was from T- Hill Construction at about uh I want to say it's about 9,000 above that one. So we had two really good bids there out of the six. So tonight, uh, department is making a recommendation to move forward with an agreement contracting to do our 2026 concrete street replacement project. And we'd like to actually work up towards our budgeted amount of 1.3 million. So the request would be to uh move forward with the agreement with kelp at an [clears throat] amount of $1,250,000 and then we have an additional 50,000 set aside for construction inspection and materials testing services to be done by another entity. So that is the recommendation tonight.

All right. Any questions, concerns? Anybody care to make a motion? Actually, Matt, you know, had that request that we separate out the uh everything but Turnberry, please place, right? So, I mean, I can make a motion to do that or Mr. Mayberry, that's your ward, whatever. I'm stand on ceremony if you But, uh, I mean, talking too much, then we can have it, but I'll take it, too.

I'd like to know why. Um, it's it's deemed the the argument that Matt's made is that it's deemed that we're we're we're shoveling in projects that are based on purely unit prices and then we're also adding in um one that's criteria based on plans and specs and a scope work with technical provisions basically. and all the others above it um are in a big bucket that will all be scheduled, executed. They're already bid on unit prices. So, there's no quibbling on prices,

but that's not every project that the city will do. I mean, there'll be other projects come throughout the year that'll fall under that uh concrete repair replacement bid. So typically it's like we'll go in and we'll replace multiple slabs on a street that I mean R scouts a better understanding where we're going but they're we would go in and replace large sections of streets throughout the really it's the neighborhood streets a lot of the times. So they're projects in and of themselves they're just not defined as easily as

correct. Well but that's what I'm saying. So I just don't understand. We've talked about doing turnberry all this time. We didn't do it this last year because we it was so late in the year we've already took care of the contract. You could have dropped that in without even isolating it there and none of us would would have questioned that.

Well, the the whole point I think that Matt was making was that while yes, it's it's a it's a contract. So, the project's in the can, uh, it cannot be a not project, but what we've been able to do is cleave it. its its schedule, its execution, its management completely separate from this mass of other street repair, street replacement projects. And it's a standalone. It'll be judged on its own merit, on its own schedule, uh its own timeline, um where it can't be used as an excuse for not accomplishing and executing all the other required work that's separate. So it's it's just basically u two council approval actions on the same uh contract because it does happen that e that just doing simple math uh it turns out that kelp is low bid whether they take on both projects individually are both projects accumulatively because there's no combination where teill could come out being low on one and win one if they were separated from each other. So, it's it's it's really a um the way I saw it, it's more a means of cleaner and clearer accounting and management, project management. Mr. Vanic.

Yeah. I think one of Matt's concerns is that uh there's been such a vocal and a rather large um outpouring of interest by the Turnberry residents that uh that if this has to go to the city council to get approved correct or is this approved right here? No, this is well the budget I mean we we would send the bid or we would send the approval of this to the city council.

Okay. So, this gets sent in to the city council and we have a huge turnout by Turnberry residents trying to uh plead with us not to pass this expenditure.

Okay. And I don't know what the vote was previously, but there were some nays, you know, there were some uh people on the council who who voted on behalf of Turnberry Presidents. And I guess the concern perhaps is that they could, [clears throat] you know, flip a couple other votes and then this whole thing go down with loops. And then we don't, you know, that that would I think that's one of his concerns that this this whole this whole expenditure does not get approved because of the advocacy of Turnberry residents. That's that's one of the I represented for 28 years and I've never voted that way. It's really not a unit.

Yeah. Pricing issue. Yeah. Versus a project altogether issue. It's project in general and not like you're afraid like to have Turnberry not done. Yeah. I'm I'm just saying that perhaps the Turnberry residents can get a couple extra votes. the this whole expenditure gets voted down at the city council level and then we have to go through but still the city's already agreed that Turnberry is going to be open. Yeah, true. So I mean unfortunately Yeah,

those people are going to be unhappy. There's a reason those trustees aren't coming in. So I so I would I would just say this and you know I I look at it this way and this is a to me this is kind of a this is more and this is what I said to I sent Matt a note because he messaged me like I didn't know about this really until I kind of walked in here. So neither

whether we're arguing that this is a unit cost versus not, which is the statement, it would appear that that is not the actual reason that we're arguing for this. And so when we have the staff, and by the way, we've had lengthy conversations about this topic for months and months. So when we have the staff go out and prepare a bid package that states this and I would suggest that the reason that it is called out in such a way is because it is somewhat unique in what they're doing rather than other maintenance and repair things. It's not like we're just filling in a pothole or what whatever cracks and or whatever that whatever they're doing. So I think it's important one it's it's a fine conversation to have. It's today is just not the day to have that conversation. And I would suggest that if the concern is that if this goes to the city council as it is and therefore it might fail and then no city streets would be repaved, I would imagine the rest of the residents in the city would be somewhat upset about that. And so while I appreciate as we have frequently on a lot of issues citizens coming in and advocating their positions and there are whether it's a vocal majority or a vocal minority or whatever, it doesn't really matter. There are in almost every case an additional tens of thousands of people that live in our city that just want their road done. This is an this is it doesn't mean it's not important to this group of people. It is. But we have set an ordinance that says we don't have these things anymore. We've reviewed it. The city staff has looked at the review. They appealed it. They held up the appeal. the the whole process that we're doing, all these efficiencies in my opinion that we're trying to build in whether it's with boards and commissions or anything else is to make it like make this process clear so that somebody can't just come in here and yell about whatever and then we make decisions that adversely affect other parts of the

city. So, I mean, I am happy to we can vote on the motion. We see what happens. If it passes, it passes and we can have that conversation. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But to me, like this is a great conversation to have had four months ago or whenever it was that we started this. But an hour to fix it. Yeah. An hour before the meeting is is not the time to be doing that. That's going to create problems.

Thing to add there, chair, if you don't mind, when we the reason why this was bid the way it was uh with these uh projects was back in during the budget discussions in October, there was direction from this committee to we didn't have it originally listed. There was a direction from the committee to incorporate u the turnberry removal in 2026 since originally wasn't planned and to do it with the other planned concrete maintenance work to make it as cheap as possible. So for efficiency and then staff obviously looking at when we other what other time of the year are we doing a lot of concrete work bidding it with this project most likely to lower that cost which you could somewhat see. I mean there's other items we bid on but it actually did lower than the 335 that was originally bid. So overall, I think we got what we wanted in the sense of having it cheaper, but this was a this was a result from a direct motion from this committee and the council by approving.

I agree. I just think that we approve the kelp contract and it includes what all you put in it. I don't know that making turnberry a standout issue is important. I'd just I'd leave it in the way it is and go forward. And you know the good thing about having 16 people on council, two people in that word can vote against it and the city will still go forward with the right stuff to do. So,

well, I never uh I'll just offer that I never ever fathom that that uh if there'd be successful enough outcry on a project that's already in the can and it's already budgeted that enough protest from Turnberry residents would effectively have enough council members I can't comprehend how enough council members could flip um to threaten and compromise the entire slab project. So, in that case, um I' I'd be voting along with it together if that's a concern, if that could have ever been a concern because I can't fathom how that

I've never tuned it down either, but I've seen so many repeat instances and they're regrettable too, Ed, that the council representative will vote no because they think they're the only no vote. [laughter] Well, and I just you have your own constituents and and you know those are the people that that vote for you. So that and that's why I said I mean I honestly think over the years that's kind of one of the good things of 16 people. Two people, four people can vote against it and the fortunately the other council members will move it forward which I just think that's that's one of the things that you have 16 people. Yeah,

I I I think I mean I just know from my own you know I will say like a lot of these things don't these types of issues don't happen a tremendous amount at least they haven't in the time I've been on the council but you know I know we had a a lot of lengthy discussion when we did the several years ago and you know that really affected you know my ward and your word basically Lauren and Donna's at the time and you know those residents I I I genuinely did feel for the residents whose property were affected by that. But I also have to look at all of the other residents that are in my ward around that space. And so, you know, I think like I appreciate um Council Member Trier putting this together. I think it's a well thoughtout concept. I think from a process standpoint, this is probably not the right time. But we have a motion. We've got a second. I'm happy to unless you guys want to rescue your motions or whatever. I'm happy to have a vote. We'll see how it goes. I mean, I I know I know how I'm I know how I'm going to vote, but you know, I am but one one person. And I think everybody should I think everybody should when you're sitting up on the council, you should vote the way you think is right. And you and that's, you know, for different people, that's different reasons.

Regardless how other people vote. Yeah. I've been in no vote a lot of times by just myself. Yeah. I just don't think it's right. And I mean that's hopefully you aren't in a position like that. I get it though. But [clears throat] I also, you know, can appreciate the fact that we just keep making it more and more difficult to get things done.

I I hadn't I'm in a position of withdrawing my uh my motion because I hadn't I hadn't in my uh reading the email that was sent and even in a discussion with uh with Matt, I hadn't garnered that facet of the degree of concern or threat, but that is a threat. So, um, by separating these out, having that proceed, I can't I can't support that. Well, I'm I'm perfectly okay with that. You know, that's your that's your ward. So yeah, if if you don't want to second it, I'll I'll remove my Well, I made the motion, but um

first now we're left with the now we're left with uh the the motion as we're left with the action to well procedurally. I guess if you guys decide you want to withdraw that that motion, that's fine. Then we can go if anybody would like to make a motion to accept the department's recommendation and pass that along, we can do that. Um or we can I'll offer that. Let me and I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'll

by by my realizing that the project has been in the can since the budget was approved. So, it's a project. It's not a something that some bunch of people can come in and argue and plead and we're we're going to injure their kids and and all that goes with it. Um this this project is to the degree of engineering that I had not appreciated was already complete enough. I thought we had an entire uh design, engineering, scope, specs, technical provisions, quoting award, and then all the follows. And then being able to try and shove this into fiscal year 26 was a was a cramp. That's why I had initially thought that it would be smart logistically to cleave this from the rest of it.

Sure. But uh I'm talk about coming into the meeting to find out new information. uh uh there's no there's no statistical there's no mathematical reason to keep these apart. The motion would normally would logically be to follow the um the staff's recommendation to approve the project and get kelp on board and get them going. All right. I make that motion. Uh you want you want to bow out or you want Yeah, I'll bow out if you're bowing out. Well, no. I'm going to make the motion to accept the Oh, to accept recommendation recommendation. Oh, uh, as is. Correct.

Okay. So, uh, I won't second it, but I'm sure somebody else will. Okay. The 1,175,80 is what we're approving for the concrete replacement stuff. Happens to have the term in there, but I don't think that should be a surprise to anybody. No. Uh but I certainly think that that's what the direction of this the staff is and honestly you save $10,000 by doing it this way. Yeah.

So I mean last year if we would have just gone up there and immediately tore it out it would cost us $10,000 more. So this is exactly what we thought we were going to build it into. And I guess the issue is by isolating it like that and and I hate it. I represented those people for years. I just think that the bigger issue is we have a contract for 1,100 and we're going to support that recommendation. The decision was already made on Turnberry several months ago. Right. So, all right. Well, so Mr. Mayor's making the motion. Anybody care to second the department's recommendation? Seconded by Mr. Marshall. Any further discussion on the item? All right. All those in favor? We'll try a voice vote or we can do roll call. You want me to do roll call? Roll call.

We'll do a roll call vote. All right. Roll call vote. Council member Mabberry. I. Council member Nyian. Yes. Council member Farmer. Yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Council member He's not here. Council member Vanic. Yes. Council member Alers. Yes. All right. Rick looks like he get to lay down some concrete again. It's an exciting day. That is good. Uh, okay. First landscape maintenance. Mr. Walsh, do we get to hear from you now or is it still Rick? Well, I would Oh, yeah. introducing the two and yeah, I'm not worried about it. Okay. In fact, I was going to suggest maybe we consider taking the next two items together. Sure, that works for me to save time because they are somewhat related.

Yep. So, if that's okay, I'll go ahead. Anybody have an issue with us taking these two together? Nope. I think that's a good way to do it. That's okay. We're going to take the We're going to take the landscape maintenance. Yeah. CD together. Okay. Yeah. CD. Yep.

Take it away, Rick. The next two items um council members pertain to uh proposed contracts for maintenance of of landscaping and and storm water management areas. Um three years ago in 2026, we kind of split these two um maintenance requirements out as separate projects because they entailed more specialty work. And uh we felt that our existing contractors that were doing work for us really didn't have the the skill set that was necessary. So we split them out and we put proposals out at that time um for the work. So one is for uh maintenance and of of landscape beds that we have throughout the city. We have, as you know, I think um over the years have beautified Strucker Road with uh islands that are landscaped. Route 109, of course, the roundabouts, the median islands, Route 100, we have landscaping as well as to a lesser degree maybe on Manchester Road, but um so those areas are split out as one potential project. Um it's it's essentially landscape maintenance. And then the other one is the storm water management areas and that pertains to there's five areas on Route 109 that were constructed with the improvements to Route 109 uh over the last uh 10 to 15 years now. Um there's the two areas near Pongover Parkway, one on the east side, one on the west side. It includes the wet basin that's there. And then south of 100, there's three dry bio retention areas that are maintained as well. So those five areas are one package and then the other are the landscaping along Streker, Route 109, 100 and Manchester Road. So those were bid out in 2023 is essentially three-year uh packages um because they expire at the end of March. We put out an RFP, one for each um to get proposals from contractors to continue that work

starting on April 1. So, um, Mike helped put that together and, um, we opened or received proposals on both of those and got one response which was from Go Green. The good part of that was Go Green, which is our current provider, did provide us a response um, for both projects, but that was the only one that we received. Now, Go Green's proposal was actually a reduction, a slight reduction in cost in both cases. So, um, that was the other good side of it. Liked to have had more competition, but we only received the one proposal from Go Green. I would say in both cases, in the prior 2023 solicitation, we did get multiple biders for both projects and Go Green was significantly lower when we bid them before. So, I have every reason to believe that their pricing is pretty competitive. Um I just don't have any bids other than go green at this point to demonstrate that directly. Um but clearly they they did provide pricing that for both projects reduce our costs for the next three years. So from that perspective um and the perspective that we have worked with go green we have been satisfied with their work and they are very well committed to Wildwood. in fact so much that he's wanting to build a maintenance facility in town center. Um felt like this was a solid proposal and I think in the city's best interest to move forward with it. So the department is recommending moving forward with a contract city contract agreement with go green for both projects. Um the cost of the landscape maintenance would be essentially a little under 100,000 per year or total. Um what I'm asking for is a authorization to go up up to $330,000

over the three-year term of the agreement. Then the stormwater management area contract would be for an annual amount of $17,700. Um a total authorization about $58,410 over the three years. So that is the recommendation tonight to the committee. Mike came u because he's the one who supervises go green grain in this work helped put the proposal together. He is here tonight as well as you obviously know and can help address any questions that you may have um going forward. Uh I guess that's that's the recommendation is move forward with city contract hearings for both of these projects tonight.

Yes sir. Hey Rick, how many people did you request getting bids from? Just out of curiosity.

So we what we typically do is we advertise it on our website and then we have a a a bidding website that we upload it to and we advertise it um in that manner as well. So we don't directly send it out. It is also it is also set up in the local county and newspaper. Um so it's available there as well. And um generally we do find that and that's what we do consistently for all projects. So uh we didn't do anything differently here. Um probably the last time we did it, we reached out and tried to generate interest. And what we tend to find is when we do that, we might get extra bids, but they don't usually are very competitive. They're contractors that if they're not looking to do the work, they'll give us a price, but it's usually not very competitive because they're doing it because they don't want to do it,

right? Um, so that doesn't always provide fruitful bids, quite frankly. Um, okay. [clears throat] Do do we have anything that requires that we should get more than one bid for project? Not through an official RF process. the the key word there. Um, and this goes for going to the official like publishing of bids. Okay. And also, if it's just something that's under my purchasing authority and I can go out and solicit bid, it's the solicitation. So,

when you do it that way, as long as you go out to the public, you do the public notice requirements and you do try to attempt contact. Um, if you get a bid, you can proceed. But under my purchasing authority, it's soliciting three bids. So, you would have to at least reach out to three, but you don't have to actually get three responses. We don't we don't we normally don't see this happen very often.

Not very often. This is I will say I don't know [clears throat] pointed this out. This is the first year that we've uh we've been really this is this is actually I wanted to give kudos to the Department of Public Works as a whole because they've been doing a great job at doing this exact thing. taking our um hourly contract positions and breaking them up as a unit for unit pricing. Instead of having it where we have a contractor just give us an hourly rate to maintain the landscape bed. Now we can tell them here's the exact amount of landscaping that you're going to have to do this year. Give us an overall price for the entire year. Uh that helps us with budgeting and forecasting so much more than having an hourly rate because you just don't know what's going to hit us. I think that may be what most likely is throwing some of the contractors off, I have to assume, because they're not just throwing an hourly rate at it where they'd figure it out later. It's more so they have to really know their numbers and stuff and also quite frankly be familiar with some of our landscaped areas to know what goes into actually maintaining them.

Um, that said, uh, I I mean, Rick, do you think that has some some way on this too? the way we we the way we proposed to bid in the first place.

Well, I I think you know, as I we've talked through this, we've talked to it great deal. I we don't have biders calling us asking us for work. They're not knocking on our door. They really aren't out there actively looking for work. So, I think in this line, it seems that a lot of these contractors are strictly focused first as pertaining the contracts they have with the clients they have. I don't see a lot of them coming and knocking on our door. Um, again, when we solicit to them, we go out and reach Well, we we went through this with the mowing contract last year, frankly. Um, we reached out, Mike reached out to a number of local [clears throat] contractors that he was aware of and asked for bids, and we got a couple maybe lined up, but I don't recall that any ones that we really knocked on their door had competitive bids because Go Green won that one, too.

Yeah. And I I believe I went to at least 10 different um grass cutting companies in the I went as far as Valley Park and just locally and I think only one of them actually bid and they were I want to say three times higher than Go Green for that particular RFP. Question and we only had three bids for the mowing. Right, Mr. Mayor?

Yes. When I went through and read um and I saw that there had been only one response bidder, only one bidder, I was very impressed by the um what I would call the stringent um requirements for training and safety for landscaping contractors. um that the OSHA 10-hour that a stipulation of cruise above certain size would require certain defined um requirements with wage standards of above certain employee base. Um that seemed to me to be um frightful, scary things for most landscaping style contractors to contend with where they go after lawnmowing and they go after what they can get away with. So, I wondered if that's had that been something that the city had started or thought was necessary for this

uh scope of work type instead of hourly rate type bidding. Um or is this

the idea was lower costs and have more I it was a lower cost. We had access to the the database that the tool GIS to be able to start making some of these maps to visualize it and then quantify it. But more importantly, it's just way easier for projecting costs over the course of a year because especially for like mowing and landscaping quite frankly. It's just you have an uptick in the spring. You've got we have enough data to know kind of when we're having an uptick when in the summer you don't necessarily need to cut every week. And this allows us to at least have them tell us here's the number of cuts or here's the amount of land landscape we needed done for that year. you know, as long as we don't get complaints about it and it looks good, you know, and you maintain it, honestly, it's just you inspecting it. It's almost delegating a little bit more to the contractor versus us having to watch them like a hawk on make sure scope creep doesn't occur, which contractors are always constantly trying to do.

Anybody else? Yes, sir.

I think the the whole bidding thing is excellent. The thing that always scares me when you do contract services is what happens if go green disappears tomorrow? who do you go to and not getting people to bid on it. I It's great because it's reduction and all that, but the fear always is when something happens to them, who do we go find to to fill in on that and then at what price that uh you know that works out to be. But I I do think it's a good job and I think that fact is um they know what they have to do and they can reduce their cost. other people come in and they're like, it's a lot of small stuff as well as the big stuff. And if you can do the big stuff, you can't do the small stuff or you don't want to do the small stuff. So, I think that's part of where I I just know there years ago when they were trying to do that whole meeting watching a guy on a 48 inch mower mow something 12 foot gang mowers would take care of kind of made didn't make a lot of sense. But if they don't want to bid on it, then you're going to have to go with the guy's going to make three times the trips and right,

you can you can pay it that way. I thought it was well written. Biggest fear would be is if we don't let them build their building. No, if they [clears throat] decide they don't want to do business with us, then we've got a situation where you got to try to find out. But that's just part of how do you get more people to bid? And we'd had that over the years with concrete and asphalt and other stuff and only two people bid. Well, that's really not bidding a million dollars. You know, you got to watch it. So,

I was going to point out, I mean, the end of the day, we we've had this recently and he still does some work for us, but Glen Gaye that did a ton of the maintenance work and his bids were always very [clears throat] competitive, but he's also just very good at what he did. Um, Go Green's kind of filled a lot of those voids. But I think knocking them down with this uh an exact cost at the front end is great. But also, you know, I think anytime you have a contractor that's kind of becoming or has been a mainstay for the city, it it it would sting when they leave because everyone else, like you said, they don't have the resources that are perfectly planned or they're going to have to hire people or get people on board. It just it's kind of getting to a point too with the one some of the one-off jobs like the trash emptying things like that gets handled by them too with these in these contracts. Um and it just it it does warrant more discussion more review because some of these things may

blessings and take it. There we go. Count your blessings and take it but could eventually be something to review. All right. Anybody care to make a motion to accept the contract as presented made by Mr. Marshall? Put both of them together. Yep. Yep. Uh seconded by Miss Nan. All right. Any discussion? All those in [clears throat] favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Cool. I I would also I I may be wrong on this. I think you mentioned Tom, like I feel like we got a lot more bids on the concrete stuff than we have in the past. Probably because some of those Modoc projects are starting to close out.

You know, maybe this landscaping thing. I know we're having that issue in with I've had a lot of conversations with subdivisions where they're having trouble getting bids to cut their common ground because the service providers are just very specific on who they're dealing with now and they don't really have the capacity to expand too much. So get the help they had, right? Uh okay. Uh let's see. Asht tree program up next. Um thank you chair. Um I'm I'll probably let Mike talk a little more. um on this one if you don't mind I wouldn't mind starting it off real quick and um

just because of the background. So the ashtree program we come to you pretty much every year since probably 2020 or more ash trees and um we have treated ashtre and made the decision in 2020 to start treating our best quality highv value ash trees and at that time we started off treating almost 400 trees with a company called um arbor masters continued that work all the way up until 2025 essentially we've treated half the trees every other And um over the years they've diminished. We have fewer that are still viable that have been deemed viable enough to retreat. But um nonetheless, we still have I think at this point 203 trees according to Mike. So this year um we wanted to come back and have this discussion with you all about ash trees again and what we want to do with our treated ash trees. And I think last year when we got the approval to treat uh through the tree service, it was around 87 ash trees. There was discussion at city council relative to whether we wanted to continue or not. And I think the overall sentiment was leaning towards not going forward with the program. So wanted to bring Mike in and have a little discussion about this. And I asked Mike to kind of review it and come up with his recommendation. Now he was very kind to do that and he put a little report together and essentially he suggested we should consider moving forward with treatment of just our grand ash trees those that would be considered grand trees under our city code which would reduce the number we're treating quite a bit overall to about 68 trees over the next two years. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct.

Um grand trees would be those that would be at least 24 inch diameter at breast height. Mhm. So, they're goodiz trees. Um, these are the trees that people probably would most would appreciate having them in front of their house, I would think. Um, they'll have the most impact if they don't treat them and they die and need to be removed. So, um, I thought that was a good idea. Maybe that recommendation is ultimately we want to bring to you is to consider just moving forward with treatment of the grand ash trees that we have. These are just the straight trees. um about 68 of them that we believe and there would be 56 to be treated in 26 12 in 2027 total cost of about 17,000 uh is what was the number 17 something,000 to treat those uh 68 trees if I recall and um obviously to remove them is a lot more money and if we don't treat them we're going to have a lot quicker impact to the budget obviously than if we treat them frankly. Um so there are pros and cons. Um obviously there's concerns about the safety of the chemical and the impact on um pollinators out there. So I think I'm going to let Mike talk a little bit further about it, but um in general we wanted to kind of bring that recommendation to the committee and see what your thoughts are on moving forward. And I think the thought was depending on the action here, we might take it to the work session or the overall council to decide before we went forward. It really depends on what you all decide tonight frankly, but u because I don't have a formal agreement or contract to present to you tonight. It was just the general discussion about the program moving forward. So why don't you anything?

Yeah. What thanks Rick. What I'd like to add is, you know, the the 68 trees that I suggested to retreat is more or less a compromise to delay the inevitable removal of all of them. Um, we have 303 ash trees left as street trees and wildwood. Uh, since emerald ashbor was found here, there's about a hundred of those trees that were never treated. And so those trees are still being removed as they deteriorate and die. Some of them surprisingly have shown some resistance to the boar, but inevitably they'll probably succumb to it at some point. So those 100 trees set aside need to be removed in the next year, two years, three years. And we've been removing ash trees every year since I've been here. We removed uh 32 and 24, 33 and 25. So we reduced the population there. Of those 200 or so trees that are being treated, if we discontinue treatments of those, all of them across the board, I think we'll have a pretty good hit to the budget when they all start to die and decline. So, if we could kind of

spread it out a little more by saving some of the bigger ones, some of the ones that would be most noticeable if removed. Um although they're the more expensive ones to treat, they're also the more expensive ones to remove. I just an estimate from Omni on what it would cost to remove one grand ash tree, and I just used 25 in in diameter. We have some that are up to 32 in. It's about $2,400 just to remove the tree. leave the stump, don't replant. So, you know, that's a if I think about removing 68 grand trees, that's a big a big cost, which I think could be spread out over time. But, um, I also look at just the impact to some of the streets. You know, if we just removed all of the ash trees. Right now, a street like Gunnison Gorge off Clayton Road has 21 ash trees remaining. Some of those are being treated, some of them are not. But if we went through and just removed all the esties, it would be a significant hit to the street because many of them are all the way past medicine bow all the way towards the end of the street and you'd in a sense be eliminating most of the trees on that street. And the next species that's on that street, the most of them, it's sweet gum. So [laughter] if you go through and got all the ash trees and leave the sweet gum, some residents might ask, "Who told you to do this?" you know, so I just I'm trying to find a good uh transition to to not just pulling the plug on all the est trees, uh retreating some and maybe these next two treatment cycles would be the the last for these 68 trees. You know, if we retreat this year, that treatment is expected to last at least two years. So, we wouldn't have the discussion about those 56 trees again until two years from now. and you know the the 12 other ones but and the rest of the ashes I think we just need

to start removing even some of the treated trees have been dying and uh a lot of other communities around here have removed most or all of their ash trees some are saving these legacy trees um some even have residents adopt the trees and pay for the treatments but it's Uh, I think we've come a long way. Even prior to me being here with the city, you know, 1300 trees were removed prior to myself being here. So, the ironic thing is when he came on board, he found more trees for us. He did. [clears throat] Nice. I'm not sure how that worked exactly, but either we weren't doing our job. Special, too.

Okay. Uh, all right, Mr. Marshall. So, the third the line above reasons for recommendation says 50. Is it $50 or 50,000 for ash free replacement? We have 50,000. I'm sorry. You need a paper there. 50,000. Correct. Yeah. Supposed to be. So I think what Mike just explained, put one more paragraph in here. Just explain $2,400 to take it down. Uh, and what was the treatment? Well, for all those trees 68, it's $17,400.

I know that. So, take the 68 trees, whatever that is, divide it. You're not talking $2,400. I mean, I just think to make it so simple to say, we're going to try to pro, you know, provide some of this to to cut this down. So, that you're really saving money by trying to do this. And I think that's the part that's missing. And yet I Dr. Rambo is going to vote no, but that's okay. Yeah, I think but when you look at that the overall plan and and you did an excellent job explaining it that just needs to be put in there to say here's how many we have and and and but make it just that simple to show the dollars. That's just a suggestion but I think that would be great and I think we should do what you're recommending. That makes sense.

Anybody else? Do the um residents who have the ash trees u in their front yard uh are they aware of this adoption program where they can we don't have an adoption program yet. I don't even know. Many residents probably aren't even aware that the trees get treated. There's like a little silver bench that's on it and unless you know what that is or were there. But I mean so we don't have that program. I mean do we want that program? I'll defer, but that's the staff time put into overseeing a program like that I assume would outpace the benefits of having

So the city of Depair adopted that program. They had 12 residents uh adopt the trees. And as far as I know in the city of Wildwood, there's only been one tree and one resident that has opted to have their own tree in their tree lawn treated when they found out the city was no longer going to treat it. And that tree was deemed untreatable by Davey in 2022 because of it was it's probably one of the ugliest ash trees in wild. But we'll put a picture of that test out there. Yeah. But it's still it the the resident has been paying to treat it and but it might have special meaning. There you go.

It does. Well, I mean, we could set out I mean, in theory, we could send when we get to removing all these, we can set out one last little notice like if you want to treat the this tree, then you're we'll just we'll let you do it. We'll just leave it alone and we'll note it in treeeper and call it a day. But if not, then it's we're going to do what we got to do. Yeah. Uh I think that that's not a bad idea if they especially for the big and if it's viable to be treated, you know, even whether these trees have been treated or untreated,

I go through every year and look at these ash trees, as I would most any tree driving by in the in the in the street trees, but uh specifically the ash trees, if they're set to be retreated, I'll go out there after the trees leaf out, which is later for ash trees, and if there's a certain percentage of canopy or this tree does not look good. There's decay at the base. Any reason I could find to where we shouldn't be saving this tree? Um, it gets removed from the treatment list. And

yeah, so does an ash tree get to a certain point where it can't be used to make bats and sticks and different things like that? as long as there's not uh presence of decay in the in the base of the tree and you could visually see that decay and ash trees are pretty resistant to decay. So a dead tree can a dead tree can no longer produce any viable okay timber of any kind especially ash trees one of the issues is when they die you know an oak tree might stand for 10 20 years and be a good source of fire we're down the road but when ash trees die they become brittle and in two to three years they deteriorate. Thanks.

And good point. But if there's a tornado, how much wood do you think we dispose of? Maybe we could offer some firewood program you could. But one of the ways ash trees emerg got to Missouri was moving firewood. Oh, that's yeah. If

you have any other questions next turn. Um, so I'll ask for a motion here, but I I do want to say and I think that this is Thank you for coming this evening, Mike. I I I will say we spent a long time as a council trying to get an arborist on staff because for a long time we were just sort of trying to figure all this out on our own and Rick did a great job of trying to help us understand this to best of our ability. But I think that having a person on staff that can really look at this and assess the issue and be able to tell us, look, it'sund, we'll go take the trees out tomorrow. It's $160,000 or we can do this in a more paced way where the residents aren't quite as impacted. Everything else, I mean, certainly there's drawbacks to the treatments, but um I think this is a smart way to do it.

10 times more expensive to take it out than is to treat it, right? I mean, I just honestly think that's just from a dollar standpoint. Not even the fact that like 10 times more, you know, that 20 2400 versus 255 bucks. Y I I kind of think that answers a whole lot of All right. Would anybody care to make a motion to accept uh Mr. Walsh's recommendation? Are you wanting it amended? Dad, no. Put that in there. I just think we put in your write up that Rick said we can do just Okay. Is to make it that simple. It's 10 times more expensive. Okay, that's fine. Take it out.

Yes. Mr. Alers will make the motion. Anybody care to second? Mr. Vanic will second it. Uh, all those in favor of proceeding with the Emerald Ashbore recommendation, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, that motion passes. Uh, very nice. Um, looks like the last item this evening is the MSD storm water grant agreement.

Chair, farmer, council members. Um just a final comment on the ash. We won't have it for the next coming. It'll be the March meeting of the city council probably just because the schedules don't permit it. Um this next item uh is a agreement with MSD. Uh as I think we've talked here in maybe recent months, we're going to start receiving an allocation of funds from MSD that we can utilize for storm water management purposes in the city in MSD's jurisdictional area. So to allow us to participate in the uh in the program in the storm water grant program, we are required to submit or sign this uh participation agreement that MSD has forwarded to our attention. So um there is no cost to the city to enter into the agreement but we are required to do it if we want to utilize those funds directly for projects that we are able to oversee and um direct. So it is a requirement to move forward with the execution of this agreement. So tonight we are recommending that the city move forward with the uh execution of the agreement with MSD tonight and that is the recommendation. If there's any specific questions, I'll be glad to do my best to address them at this time.

Any questions, concerns, discussion, or anybody care to make a motion? Gives us my money. Mr. May will make the motion to approve the department's recommendation and prepare the contract. I guess is that a contract or just an It'd be an intergovernmental agree interment with MSD and and we'll get that at the next council meeting. I just Okay. Uh Mr. May will make that any Mr. Alers will second it. Any discussion? All right.

We want to note something too just real quick. I know it's late. Uh just this will be on the next agenda but the uh discussion down at the state I we did get approached by uh the state senator that represents Wildwood and he is wanting to pick up the mantle for the erosion funding. So sorry somebody wants to just as an FYI confused I'm sure I that would be a first I wanted to give a just a heads up there but it it wouldn't require all too much from staff other than just giving pretty much a one sheet on the basin project. So great we'll bring it back just to double down and confirm from the council on the request. Can we just tell you to accept his

well day we can't imagine we would be against the money. So that said we the plan will be to just just let everyone know that we are putting together a quick one sheeter that shows really the basins affecting what we were told is try to make this a regional issue. it. If we're putting the basins back together and storing more water, it actually helps if it does store more water, helps Clarkson Valley, helps uh Chesterfield in helps the city of Wild. Hope is that can now be somewhat interpreted as oh it's a St. Louis County issue versus a wild. How about you should date here? Go to Louisiana. They still water goes that way anyway.

It does. Well, the creek, not the you can tend to say the Army Corps of Engineers, everybody else along that road. Yeah, I mean, I would think any of the any of the feeder communities [clears throat] around us for sure. And is this Mr. Gregory, I assume? Yes. Yes. Mr. Gregory is good question. Uh, about how much money do you think this MSD thing is a year? About 300 if I'm correct. That's what they're saying. Um, yeah. The the only question I had, Rick, and I there's really not a lot we can do about it anyways. I'm just curious like I know there was some back and forth about whether like we are going to get the $300,000 to do these things or they're we have to give them projects or it's their projects. Did we ever get a

It's like almost like a trust if I and correct me if I'm wrong on any of this Rick but it's almost like a trust if you think about it. There is payments going in. MSD is handling that money which means they're probably investing that money making the money off the money but at the end of the day they are offering this program where it's the city's money. we just have to meet certain criterion to then have that money released to us to do X project. Y um that said over time each year that money in that bank account will accumulate and continue to build there won't ever be a time where if you you don't use it you lose it type deal. um whereas that was a a at least a a worry on the front end, but it does seem like the city would not be able to secure those funds without having a direct project to to use them on. I'm wrong on that.

It's got to be in essence in our MSD area. It can't be outside that. Yeah. So, I mean, I think I you know, I'm excited to finally get this and get it going. But, you know, that is a unfortunate reality in our city, which is basically probably most things west of 109 aren't going to qualify for this. But, you know, that doesn't change the fact that what we can get. That's right. Uh, all right. So, if anybody would care to make a motion uh to accept this and get this proposal ready to go for the next council meeting. Oh, we did. Did we vote? I forgot. All in favor? All in favor? Please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Uh clearly it's starting to get a little bit late. Okay. Um [clears throat] any miscellaneous items anybody wants to bring up before we press on? Yes sir. I I would just like to question the fact of doing a review services.

Okay. I uh 10 years ago uh so being the old guy here I've been around for every 10 years when we change our legal counsel and I just think we're coming up on 10 years and in all fairness pricing expected coverage that type of stuff. I know that I've been involved with it the last couple times. So, there is a process. There's probably some backup documentation of how we go about the process, but I know that in uh six, 16, and 26 would be, you know, 10 years each of just reviewing again, putting it out there, see what our needs are and and again, uh used to a lot of that was just in clerical typing up ordinances stuff. Now, I think most of that's automated. So it'd be interesting to see if we put it on our agenda to I just think we should be looking at those kind of costs on at least 10 years. I mean to do the charter and everything else.

Um how long I guess are we are we going to have a discussion or do you want to have like put an actual like have Tom or whoever put like a this is what we're looking to do. Well, I think to go out for that only because we do it every 10 years. Um I don't know that it has to does it have to come from the full council recommendation to do it? It's a an appointed position. It that that's I'll have to do a little research into that whether it definitely will need some type of RFQ provision. I know last time we did like interviews with the council and the the relevant candidates. So it it's almost like an interview.

Yeah. Because we have well for the we were talking about legal services, right? And finding a consult attorney to do that. Yes. We have to because at the end of the day, you have to then appoint if there would be a change, appoint an individual to take up the mand. It's an official position. I could actually send you the announcement that Mayor Bolan sent out in May 2016 appointing John Young as the new city attorney. Um, yeah, we can bring that. We can. So, I mean, I just that's been it's been so it's been 10 years. So, that had to be done and he didn't go in until April. Okay. Well, that's a good time. So start that process. Yes, sir.

Would you uh was wasn't the subject of looking for a new lobbyist put out there? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so while we so we approved Jake's contract, but I do think, you know, as we move through this, you know, it makes sense to me that if we're, you know, some of these similar I mean, it's a little different obviously, but you know, I think we should look at what we want and and also probably have a conversation to communicate to Jake what what from an expectation standpoint what we would really look for. You know, they come once a year, but throughout the year, I've never heard a report saying what this was done or he accomplished this by doing that or whatever. You know,

he he typically sends out I mean, we do get an email. I will say we do get an email about like all of the things that are moving forward. I think it would probably be a little bit more useful if we had some context around it because you know some some things like we've talked a lot about the grocery you know tax issue that that's something I think most people are aware of now but there's other things that might kind of pop up out of nowhere pop up today on the utilities that's that coming out of committee so that's a pretty serious that's coming quick u that said I mean if there's anything that catches their your eye in that bill list if if we get a motion or if any any of our committee me committee meetings are at council there's a and we're keeping an eye on it too. His job is to kind of keep an ear to the ground and tell us like this is a

you know big flashing red light u then we look at it we'll you all we can do is really testify and whatnot. Uh but if you have anything on that bill list that is of specific interest and please feel free to bring it back up to the committee and if we're all in you know the committee's all in agreement we can definitely have him go. Just take the one that came out this afternoon for the municipal aid. What are we as a city doing about it? Well, he's supposedly working with lawmakers uh meeting with are they talking about the utility piece? Yeah. Yeah. So, he's talking with the people that passed the bill last year for the telecommunications line and he's working with that's what actually we heard from David Gregory uh office because of that exact thing. So, there was that was in my CA report a week and a half ago.

And then today it came out though it's out of committee. So, I mean that's moving forward pretty fast. It is. Now, are they planning on what's the position? So if in effect the city, you know, that's that's something the council could do is testify. That's the really the only thing we can do other than have that person talk with other people down at Jefferson City. And if the council I mean quite frankly if we want to do that right now, that would be something that we can have on the council agenda at least as a quick action item.

I just think part of the the thing is kind of scary is we we don't have a state rep. We have our senator who for one reason now in two years has decided he wants to talk to us but we don't have anybody really representing our interest. And you know we've gone through this over the years and it's kind of like with the whole data thing. At one point we fought the lawsuits to get the utility rights of the easements and the state took it away from us. We did the cell towers and then the state takes it away from us. So somehow someway we ought to try to they're pretty quick when they want people to support them. get some kind of communication out there. And I'm I I just don't know Jake well enough, but I was very disappointed in his answers about his accomplishments last year for Chesterfield and and Clarkson Valley. That has nothing to do with us and we spent $27,000. So, I just think that we need to really kind of look at it and if we don't want anybody, I get it. But then we have nobody to complain to. But I also know that lobbyists don't control everything down there. But I just thought it's kind of interesting and I know Dave Shatz owns a company that did that. So I mean how naive of us to think that you know we have a shot at it but that's a lot of money to the cities.

Yeah. I I think I mean but that would be devastating. I

I would I would just suggest like some of those things we probably as a city need to start communicating out a little bit better not even just to the council but to the general community. But then I would I would suggest I mean I think it was last year I went I filled in for Mayor Geritano uh and did and testified about the grocery thing. I I think that I don't know it probably didn't help at all. Um but I think it is important for especially because we don't have a representative currently for us to get every opportunity we have to go down there and talk to whomever. So, if Jake knows that there's a committee hearing that, you know, is worth us going to, it would be great for him to let us know that like maybe before the morning that it is happening, [laughter] which is kind of how I remember that last time happening, which was

Well, that's unfortunate. That's how fast it moves. It comes out of committee. They're going to have more hearings Monday probably. Yep. And then they'll they'll be out next Thursday. Again, it's just one of those things. It's so difficult to try to figure out what the role is that we should be playing on it, but yet it ends up affecting everybody who who lives in the city.

Yeah, very true. Um, all right. Anything else? Um, I just have one quick thing and uh next at the next meeting we're going to have a conversation about just reviewing the police contract because we probably need to get ahead on that. Um, so I just want to be very clear like we're all very happy and excited about the police services that you guys provide and and are appreciative of it, but we do need to look at it from a budgetary standpoint and things like that. So, um, I just want to get everybody kind of in the mindset of thinking about those things as we go forward. And then I'm sure you'll hear about it if you haven't, Rick, there was a one car accident on Westland Farms over the weekend [clears throat] and somebody took out the no left turn sign in front of Bank of Houston. Um, and it is currently laying in a heap on the sidewalk. So, I don't know how we go about replacing that. I'm sure after the snow melts or whatever, but um,

we can take care of it. There's a lot of stuff happening over in that neck of the woods the last few weeks. And I would [clears throat] sure like it if it was because that liquor store. You know, I was worried about that. If I had to guess, because I happened to be uh taking my daughter some places, so I happened to buy it a few times. If I had to guess, it was either a kid who didn't really know what they were doing or I think it was maybe in a medical emergency. They were up on the side of the road way up before they finally hit something. Um, but when they hit that sign, they really did a good job on their car. So, those signs are in there solidly. That is for sure. Amy, did Rockwood say anything about picking up the deer? Um, I I'm guessing that did they pick

I haven't walked back down. I um I did call and she said we will let maintenance know that they need to get out there to make a deer on West Glenn came out of ward four jumped over into W five and the car got it. Mhm. And it's bigger than I the county before we incorporate. I called one time they said we just put it in a trash bag like you would a squirrel. That's 150 lb squirrel. But it was laying in rockwoods in the reservation off the sidewalk. But if the kids were walking school, the kids would have been all over the thing. Yeah. But it was a pretty large dough laying dead in the on Rockwood's property behind Green Pines. It was nice to be to drag it over to their property before we got I had to do I went back put a mask on. Get those extra steps in.

I was going to get it out on the street, but no, it was not on the city sidewalk, but it was in the woods and I just remember when my kids were little the deer along Valley Road to get killed and every kid in the neighborhood had to go down and take a poke at it, you know. [laughter] So, but thank you. Uh, all right. Any other questions, concerns, or anybody care to make a motion to adjurnn? Made by Miss Nan, seconded by Mr. Vanic. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Thank you everybody. We will see you. Our next meeting is Tuesday, March 3rd, uh, at 5:30 and we'll see you in council meeting.

Will you send me the what came out of this art taxes? Oh, yeah. You clean up everything, too.