Administration / Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

What's going to be here? Holy Spirit.

Can you hear us now?

Yes, I can hear you now. I don't know what's going

uh so we were just introducing um your you and General J the agreement that we have. So if there's anything um I didn't official hear but if there's anything you want to share with the group or add the time I know there are some folks who you have probably not even spoken to yet so you canuce yourself I I heard I heard a little bit of it um uh hello everyone uh Jake Silverman I I only see the uh the Wildwood screen so I I don't necessarily know who's um who I'm speaking in front of but um I'm Jake Silverman. I've been the legislative consultant for uh the city for now uh four four sessions. Um I am the uh proud principal owner of Olympus Capital Strategies. I've been a lobbyist now for um going on my eighth uh eighth or ninth session. And so I've been proud to represent uh the city for for these last four years. and uh I hope to uh continue my representation um for a city that I love. I grew up here um and I actually just moved back uh to Point Clayton subdivision where I grew up um since in 1988. So um uh I'm looking forward to next session. Um, last year we uh we were successful at getting the um our water erosion funding request into the budget, but um unfortunately due to some issues that Governor Kho had with um pretty much every single um municipal budget item, I guess you could say, not even just water, but roads, bridges, and things like that were were essentially cut and stripped from the uh final

budget bill. Unfortunately, um we uh we did some some work last year with Representative Ben Keithley from Chesterfield um on some bumpouts that the Missouri Department of Transportation um added to uh it was Chesterfield and Clarkson Valley, I believe. And so, um, I showed up and in to committee and and testified against, um, well, testified for Representative Keith Leley's bill that would force the Department of Transportation to work handinand with municipalities, um, before they make decisions like the bumpouts that they put in just um, randomly. And so, um, we, uh, with with Representative Keithley's work along with, um, our testimony and and other city's testimony, the department the Department of Transportation actually took those bumpouts out. Um, and so hopefully we won't have to deal with that again, but um, you know, you can't necessarily always trust the uh, the bureaucracy. Um and then uh last year um we also worked um and testified against a sales tax exemption on food um that was proposed by uh Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman. Um and so we were able to successfully stop that. Unfortunately, after just reviewing some of the bills that uh I that have been popping up in the last two days since pre-iling, that bill is coming back again um and has been introduced now by two senators, Mayor Elizabeth Coleman, uh Senator Patty Lewis, along with Representative Ben Keithley from Chesterfield. So, um there will be some more work to do on that front. Um does anyone have any questions about last session? I'd be happy to answer anything. Other cities do you represent?

Other cities that you represent? I I don't represent any other cities. Um I when I took on the uh took on the city of Wildwood, I I think I think I might have put it in the contract that I I would not represent any other cities. Hey, it's Cliff Alber. It's Jake. It's my second year on the council. I'm not sure who you're all um sort of accredited with, if that's the right word. Are are you the state reps in your uh in your zone? Sort of. I guess

do you mean who I who I represent uh client-wise or who I'm who I I guess you could say who I know in the in the local region, right? Justin Sparks, is he in your network if that's the right Yeah, absolutely. Um although Justin Spars just took a um a position with the Trump administration. So um that seat is open and from my understanding there will not be a um there will not be a special uh election. That seat will stay open until um the uh this next year's election, November election. Although

well that that's fine then. I I was my question was going to be I was going to ask you if you could get him to attend one of our Wildwood council meetings and tell him what he's doing for the city. I I I would be I would be happy to. Um however, uh like I said, he is uh he he has stepped down from his position. I don't he's not f fulfilling the rest of his term. So what I was that's where I was going. Yeah. Thank you. Uhhuh. Absolutely.

We could probably though and Jake could perhaps facilitate this. I mean, it wouldn't be I know that the staff and other and the mayor have reached out to um Senator Gregory to join us. So, if you want to do some lobbying to try to get him to come to the meeting, that would also be Sure. Yeah. I'm I'm very close with Senator Gregory. I've known him for a long time.

What's the excuse that they don't come to any local city? Are they just that busy? Well, if um I will say, you know, for a state senator, obviously they represent a a larger area of um of the of the St. Louis County. Um Senator Gregory represents uh all the way into uh I I believe even close to Kirkwood. Um and so he's got a pretty big district. I'm not saying that that is necessarily an excuse. He is a trial attorney, so I do know that he's also very busy with that. However, um, Representative Sparks, I I can't, you know, I can't necessarily pinpoint why uh why he would not show up to um a city council meeting. Um, you know, as a lobbyist, I I would like to see that from the legislature. as a as a resident of Wildwood myself, uh I too, you know, that's another thing that I would like to see, but um unfortunately it's it's that's their schedule and that's their decisions.

Just from an oldtimer standpoint, in the last 29 years, we've never had somebody as a state senator or as a state representative not come to these one. So, I mean, that's how sad it is because now we're twice the size we were, you know, 20 years ago. But unfortunately, there's no reason for them to bully you. And I mean, that's the way it used to be. The senators would come, the reps would come, if nothing more, just to always ask for encouragement, what they could do to help, whether they want a small business or municipality boards. They got a lot of accomplishments, but we hear nothing. And I just find that to be very incredible for some elected officials who believe that they're going to continue to do that for a long long time. And I think just my two uh Mr. Silverman, I just wanted to also I know we opened up the floor a little bit to last year's session, but I did want to kind of open up the books. One thing you did mention was that the sales tax exemption is back on the docket in 2026. Uh could you kind of give us your rough analysis of how far that could go? We're not going to hold you to it. And then the second component, is there anything else as of right now uh in refiling where we should be keeping a close eye out for it?

Yeah. Um yeah, first I'll definitely talk about the sales tax. Um, you know, usually I would say in the last two years with Mary Elizabeth Coleman um sponsoring it, I did not think that there was uh much of a chance. Um, however, now that there is a now that there's a senator from both Republican and Democrat sponsoring this, along with Representative Ben Keithley, who is arguably in in the Missouri legislature in the last two years, probably been the most successful at getting legislation to move. Um, I think that it probably has a uh a higher likelihood. Now, um I I will say that there's there's multiple reasons that senators and and reps do things like this. Uh one, it could be, you know, they're thinking of their their local government uh or their locality themselves. You know, Representative Keith Lee, he he represents Chesterfield. you know, a a a food sales tax with all the shopping that's available in Chesterfield wouldn't necessarily do I mean, it would do harm, but it wouldn't be uh the most detrimental thing to Chesterfield for the city of Wildwood. It would be very it would be very detrimental. So, um making sure that we have good relationships with uh with those legislature legislators is key. Um I'm very close with Representative Ben Keithley. Um I mean, I so much to say that he's a he's a true friend. And so, honestly, keeping those alliances and those friendships is extremely important. I think that'll be helpful to maybe slowing down the uh the possibility of a food sales tax exemption getting passed. Um, and so, you know, obviously my my role as a as a

lobbyist or legislative consultant, however you want to say it, is is to track these these bills. I have an app that tracks it, tells me when, uh, when a bill is up for committee, when a bill is getting, you know, ready for a vote. And so, um, I keep my, uh, I keep my eye very close to, uh, bills such as the sales tax exemption because I know how important it is to the city of Wildwood to make sure that that bill dies. Um, a couple other bills that and so far, 16 uh, 1,65 bills have been pre-filed and that's only been two days. And so, um, I have only, right now, I've only looked at the House bills, and there's already been 56 bills filed that have, uh, that pertain to something that a city would would care about. Um, sometimes, just to give you a heads up now, as the bill reports come through, you'll start to notice that some of those bills drop off the list uh, when I send my report out. That's because after a committee hearing or things like that, we just noticed that it doesn't necessarily pertain to the city of Wildwood or a city for that matter at all. Um, but there are two bill uh there's three bills that other than the sales tax exemption that I I think are very interesting and I guess I'll start with um with one that I'm not sure if we'll necessarily like or dislike. It's just one of those where uh I think it's important to uh to keep a eye on. It's House Bill 1720 uh sponsored by Representative Richard West. Um it it relates to governing bodies and the meetings that they hold such as the city of Wildwood um and the public comments that um are allowed and the rules governing those public comments. And um when I send my report out, you'll actually be able to see the bill. you'll be able to click a link that will send you to the state website that will um kind of let you see what

that bill specifically says, kind of dictates what um what the cities should require um and with regards to public comments, how long they should be um who should be, you know, what type of speech is allowed and things like that. So, it's important that not only does the the city council take a look at it, but honestly at this point, I think it'd be important that the city attorney look at it as well. Um, and then there's two other ones that I'm very interested in, and it's the first that I have seen um of the sponsorship from one of the representatives. It's a House Bill 1734 is a loan program to assist with erosion issues for um HOAs. It allows a uh a loan to the HOA that would be um that would be done by the state treasur. The state treasur would have uh a fund essentially that they would be able to invest similar to the investments that they currently make in the office and that loan would be able to be provided to HOAs. um those HOAs, from what I read, they need to be uh nonprofits, but I thought that that would be something that's very interesting to the city considering all the issues that we have with our creek erosion. Um another bill is House Bill 1736, similar to those lines, but this is a uh the sales tax that a county collects. They are allowed to use these things for parks um and and other things. uh this would open the uh the ability to use those sales tax for um erosion at like uh in metropolitan districts. So something that we might want to take a look at as well. And so those are those are four bills that I think um specifically pertain to the city uh especially those erosion

ones. Um that's the first time that those have ever been sponsored and uh I think it'd be really interesting. Uh it was done by Representative Colin Wellingamp and so I'd like to talk with him and see what direction he wants to go with it and if if it's something that would benefit the city of Wildwood. I'd love to help in any sort of fashion that I can.

Yeah. And that was actually Mr. Chair. Uh that was actually the the office uh I think the governor's office actually reached out to the city on that that exact legislation and could prove to be pretty beneficial. Uh, I guess real quick, two other things, Jake, and I just wanted to call this out. Uh, we had last year, uh, the state legislature passed pass a bill that pretty much makes the city on the hook for any roadway project. If we move, uh, we happen to have to move broadband infrastructure as part of our roadway project, then now we have to cover the cost. And this kind of ties into just a few years ago with the cable franchise fee being capped and then reduced down to 2.5%. Do we see or is there any bills that you're aware of to date that are going to also kind of keep going in this direction where internet service providers but also cable providers are that are going to impact. I think that's kind of the hot topic. It seems like a lot of bills tend to benefit those types of companies and we've the city's been kind of hit in a negative way now. those two very much so. So, I just wanted to see if there's anything in the works that may be pushing forward and also if the committee would agree if there is legislation that comes up that would, you know, either hurt our revenue or cause us more expenditure in the future when it comes to uh broadband infrastructure, you know, what what may be on the horizon there just because it seems like every year there's there's new things coming up under that umbrella.

Yeah, absolutely. That's a great question. Um, out of the 1,65 bills that have been pre-filed as of right now, I have not seen anything um that relates to the uh the rightway broadband infrastructure um issue that has gone on for since I've rep it's been every year since I've represented the city of Wildwood. Um so I haven't seen anything just yet. Um but it's always something that I keep an eye on. you know, I unfortunately we have seen uh the big special interests are able to push their way around and um from my understanding was a deal might have been cut last year um from the Missouri Municipal League. I don't know h uh uh I'm not sure exactly what deal was cut um or how that went about um but yeah so far I have not seen anything on the pre-filed bills but I'm happy to keep an eye on it any

uh yeah motion and then yeah is there wrap anybody questions I do Um Jake, were you involved when Dave Shhatz, former senator, pushed through this whole utility bill that cost the city now to move utilities? Were you involved when he was senator? And he has a company that does that. So he's very self-serving. Uh well, I yeah, I was I was a lobbyist when Dave Shatz was um was uh president of the Senate or president prom of the Senate. Um I I was not representing uh the the city of Wildwood at that time if I believe correctly. Yeah, I don't think I was repres representing the city of Wildwood at that time.

Thank you.

Um Jake, I just have I guess maybe two quick things. Um one is, you know, when it comes to the food tax issue, I I this is Joe Farmer that. But um so I was down there testifying. You got me set up in that room. One of the questions I had then which is still the question I have while I uh I understand the financial risk of the city and I certainly don't force them changing that policy if they were to change it especially because you know Mr. Keysley is from adjoining cities and so like my question is what is the alternative? If they want to take that away that's certainly okay but I mean even in that committee meeting the answer seemed to be that then this municipalities that were losing money can just create a city tax of their own and it doesn't have to come from the food tax which to me just seems like a different group of people taxing the same amount of money. So, I don't really understand the point. That would be

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I You go ahead.

No, go answer that one and then I got a second one. You're you're 100% right and I think that was brought up by almost every city and um I if I believe correctly Kirkwood uh the the mayor of Kirkwood brought that up specifically and yes it's you know if if you take away the the food sales tax I mean there's there's no other option for a city and at the same time you know while while we're they're telling us they're telling local governments to you know we're going to take away the the uh sales tax for food. At the same time, they're trying to pass legislation that makes it harder for cities to pass, you know, tax levies. And so I it's at some point, you know, and I I I think there's a lot of legislators, especially in rural Missouri, that understand that there's just no way that they could let this go through. And so sometimes I think it's political posturing. Um but no, I think it's a it's a great point. if you're going to take away uh sales tax for food, we're going to have to get it some other way. And so, you know, it's I think they understand that. I hope they understand that. Um and that's why sometimes I do think it is political posturing. So,

I mean, I guess being a politician, I understand they probably wouldn't answer it directly, but I am curious, you know, if you were to put that to um any of the sponsors of the bill. I mean certainly I would hope that they've come up with some idea how that money would be recouped from the city or their answer is it's just not going to be recouped from the city. I mean part of the conversation I got there many of them were saying you know cities work inefficiently and they could just make cuts and statement I made at the time was there is no more efficient city than Wildwood in terms of staffing and everything else. So there are no cuts that we can make. So where do we come up with that?

Well it Yeah. And and if I if I could just say it's interesting that if you look at the the legislators that have sponsored the these bills, Patty Lewis is from Kansas City. It's, you know, if they cut food sales tax, there's shop. I mean, she literally has the plaza in Kansas City. She will be just fine. Uh they can live. City of Chesterfield, I mean, yes, it would be very detrimental, but there's enough shopping and there's enough stuff going into uh Chesterfield that would that they would suffice. Um, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, she's from Jefferson County. She's from Arnold. If you drive through Arnold, there's plenty of places to go shopping and other ways to get SA, you know, sales tax. They don't Sometimes I think they're a little bit blinded. They have their their blinders on. They're just focusing on on their their cities. And so sometimes it's important to remind them uh that there are other cities out there that rely heavily on this type of tax and that if they want to do something like this, they're more than welcome to. They can just do a a carve out for themselves, you know. Um I don't know exactly how many people live in Chesterfield. I'm I would assume it's got to be over 50,000. We're at I think 35,000 or 37,000 or something like that. If you, you know, if if Representative Keithley cares that much about it, he can absolutely put in to the legislation that um a city no more than uh more than 50,000 uh more than 50,000 can can you know exempt from sales tax for food and just leave Wildwood alone.

And then the last thing I did joke a little bit about it earlier, but I I think is pretty widely understood that our former now representative Mr. parts was not perhaps well liked in Jefferson City. He had some dust with some folks there. So I I don't know that that necessarily hurt us in anything we were trying to do, but I'm willing to assume that it certainly didn't help us in any way. And so now that we are effectively I guess without representation for here, um what is your advice for us to do any of these things? Because I guess it's Mr. Gregory and that's about it.

Yeah. Well, so um obviously I think one of my favorite saying from in lobbying is is you know if if you're not at the table uh you're the meal and um it's unfortunate. So, I think it's, you know, obviously as the lobbyist for the city of Wildwood, I need to make sure that every I'm essentially right now I'm I guess I'm the representative uh in some sort of fashion just because um yeah, he he he's not going to be there. So, um obviously I'm just going to keep focusing on the legislation that impacts the city. Um I will keep working with the Missouri Municipal League to make sure that nothing passes that is is detrimental to our city. Um, I'm happy to be the the the spokesperson to to leadership to the governor's office um at at any point for anything that the city, you know, has, you know, concerns with um or wants to make comments about. So, um, you know, the city council can always rely on me. Um, Tom Tom Lee and I have had a great rapport um along with the mayor and so I'm happy to do that and I I hope I get the opportunity moving forward.

Anybody have anything else? Okay. You want a motion? Motion to bring this forth to the city council meeting at the next meeting and get ready session next year. All right. So, the written Yeah. Uh well, that this isn't the actual we'll have we'll have the consulting agreement on the agenda, but the scope is in there. Okay. The scope of the agreement. Uh would anybody care to make a motion to proceed with this council made by Mr. Avery? Amy, you got that one. Made by M. Second. Second by Miss N. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Is that for next Monday? Yep. Okay. Anyone opposed? Mr. Marshall is opposed. Any abstensions?

All right. We'll move this to Monday. Thanks for joining us this evening, Mr. Silverman. You'll hear more from us, I guess, next week. Thank you, Joe. Who's the rep down in Southwest Missouri that's always saying Wildwoods to affluent? What's the guy? I can't think it. State senator. It was a senator. Somebody out of Springfield or something. I could look it up, but Okay. I

There is. And that that is something I I've noticed at least secondhand. not there at the whole time, but it does seem like there is this misconception down at the state capital that since the median household income in Wildwood, but also in some of our neighboring cities or municipalities, uh that since the median household income is high, that automatically translates to a high amount of revenue for that city. But they're not really taking into account that a lot of cities don't charge property tax. It's not as many as quite a few cities do in St. county and if it was tied to property tax that medium household value could make sense but they're not considering that leads to some of the issues. I mean at the end of the day you know I I I keep bringing this up I sound like a broken record but the change like the the things that really are damning because in the sense uh you have something like this the exemption on the food tax that's going to be back up that gets a ton of attention. that's going to be covered in the news and that is something that obviously the city would lose a ton of revenue from. Some of the more sneaky and more painful things are like the cable franchise fee which kind of slipped in something that wasn't necessarily widely broadcast but was just approved and then that capped our gross receipts over time and now we're stuck uh at 3.5%. Uh and then also I mean last year and this is where the broken record comes in that change of having to cover the relocation of any uh non rate regulated uh utility providers. I mean that's if you have just for instance if you had three different internet service providers that had installed infrastructure along just say a section of Shreker road scratch but um that could cost this that could almost you know increase the price of the project by 25% depending on the cost. I mean, I've seen pretty crazy amounts depending on the the what the technology is they're using there and it

it can range to a couple thousand to tens of thousands per uh you know per linear foot to relocate that stuff. So, it's it it is damning and just looking at you know our our first phase of the pro uh internet uh project we 6.75 million to get to 2,000 houses. So I mean that and that was seen as the city getting a really good deal with spectrum covering 15 million of supposedly 15 million of the investment. So it it it is a significant cost to underground uh specifically fiber and that is what's going into under the ground these days and I just think that that is something that Mr. Silverman did bring to our attention last year which I appreciate did speak on our behalf in those meetings. But uh those are the things that don't get as much attention but are really really troublesome if they keep approving things like that for any capital costs.

I just look is Lincoln how H O okay because he he was kind of the proponent of uh the watershed. He goes

a couple times you know saying they they don't need the money. They got too much up there basically. Okay. Um, this might just be something we might get and I don't know that there's anything we can do about it, but it might be worth asking John. We may be slightly unique because when they redistricted, it's just us talking to the Clarks Valley. And so in I would say in many other places if a representative steps out, we still have somebody else there. I mean, without anybody for Europe, that seems legally not feasible. What's the process on replacing? That's exactly how Justin I mean I assume that they would either committee

I think that's how it's done. I think it's the local committee that assigns it in that particular case. So I don't think we'll wait that long. I think they will come back and appoint him. I I think they have not done that. There's another So we can't build ours without and then you know like I said

yeah but we had a person who we represented in theory half of the city who was some I would maybe just ask I mean I'm sure there's nothing to do but if there is maybe we should ask we could definitely run that by the city attorney. Um, and that said, I mean, I think that they're going to be doing a special election. They have another motive there. I I do want to kind of understand at least how how we fit into that. Is there a way to kind of pose the question or call? Yeah, look into that.

Okay. Um, up next, uh, proposed amendments to city council rule of Thank you, chair. And this is a one of the revisits something that was discussed back all the way in 2018. It's been it's been a while, but we've had a couple instances at council where uh there was discussion and and this doesn't necessarily come up all too often. It really does make more of a difference when an ordinance is being considered. Uh so the idea tonight and I'll explain it with an example here in a second is to look at our current rules of procedures where it two sides. one very specific component that we know is inconsistent with Robert's rules of order that is currently on the books within the Wildwood Municipal Code. Uh it's not anything too crazy, but it is it has a lasting impact when operationalized. And then the other side of it would be potentially just reviewing the current rules of order and where it doesn't defer to Robert's rules or just standard parliamentary procedure having a potential review to make sure that we're as aligned as possible while also keeping some of the things that keep wild unique u in line with Robert's rules. I mean there's a lot of uh positive uh studies that show that when using Robert's rules and not deviating it does help produce better discussions and it does seem to get more people to integrate into the discussion. Uh that said, where we're really looking at more specifically tonight is specific language within uh the difference between the majority and prevailing side. That is something that was discussed back in 2018 and it just never it did not get passed. Uh but that is different than what Robert Robert's rules would call for. It would call for the prevailing side of any motion or a vote on an ordinance um versus the majority. And the reason for that is Let's just say you have we've got a 16 council member body and you've got 12 folks that show up or you have let's just say you have four individuals that

didn't show up for that meeting and you have an ordinance that needs nine votes uh in order to pass. Let's just say that you have uh eight people vote in favor of an ordinance and then you have the remaining four that voted against it. uh you didn't get the nine to pass the ordinance and under the normal Robert's rules it would say the prevailing side has the ability to do a motion to reconsider. So that would say when you're thinking prevailing in that case you would say it'd be the individual that lost uh the uh the vote that not not lost uh the individual the eight that voted for the uh thing to pass. If it was the majority uh sorry I'm yeah the other way around. Sorry I I was going on a tangent there. Uh that said, the way it is now is that the individual from actually technically the minority position where has a lesser group of council members u can call that question back for reconsideration which leads to some situations where you're you're potentially calling motions to reconsider 15 times. it. We haven't had that as of late, but it is something where if it was set back to the prevailing side, I mean the the majority side how it was uh how it is in most other cities, it would almost stop this discussion in its tracks. So, in the future, there would not be an ability for somebody to keep calling a an ordinance vote backup. U I I don't know, Mr. I actually did want to ask Mr.

I was going to say where I think we have a real challenge. It used to be and again you would see something failing. You vote to let it fail and then right away consider reconsideration and jump on the next meeting. It's over a month before we have the next meeting. So unfortunately um voting for something to be able to reconsider it is a mood issue since 2018 when it got really cloudy. Uh and I I've never seen it done that way. I mean it's either it goes or it doesn't go. And it goes. Anybody who voted yes to Denver has to be able to be the person to move. It could have been your proposal and it went down to you can't ask but somebody else that voted for it has the right to bring that up. the way it was for years up until this 2018. I'm surprised that

well it it so it was that way before 18 brought it up to fix it. I I would say I think that there was a group of people that felt it was very important that this trigger enable them to basically just keep this thing rolling until they got what they want. Yeah, I don't think it was it was not it doesn't seem to have been at the very beginning like it seems at a point I would suggest after Mr. Marshall was and before I think before Mr. was there. This arrived and then at least from what I was reading uh there was an attempt in 2018 to go back to the way that it should be. Uh and maybe some of those same people thought that that isn't what should happen. came back to this committee and effectively is now being brought up to be corrected again

at least per the I'm Sorry. Pretty easy. All right. So, here are the two things that were proposed. So, the first part was to approve the updated reconsideration procedure. So, basically, this is just taking off of this product in 2018 and taking it to full counsel to determine whether or not we want to have this the way that there should be versus this strange call out. So the draft ordinance based on 2018 language and reviewed by staff and returning include only formatting updates and is ready to be forwarded to the full city council for consideration. So that is your

All right. So do you want these in a couple parts or do you want this all? Uh let's go ahead if if you don't mind chair if we could have this be broken up into two motions. one specifically focused in on recommendation for this change and then the other being

so Mr. make that motion anybody care to second we'll have Mr. At this point, all those in favor of moving this language to city council Monday night, please say I. I. And oppose. Any extensions? Okay. And then the next one are kind of two parts. One is to uh basically request the staff and the attorney to double check all of our things and make sure there's none of these weird provisions in it. Um so and and this goes along with what we've talked about. So direct the city of the trainer and city attorney to compile a list of procedure areas where practice does not match Robert's rules practice differs from charter or ordinance intent or long-standing customs have evolved without formal touch all the things that we do think we're doing we are and we're not all those so they're going to make the list for us and then the last part is to establish a follow-up process request that the compiled list be presented to the committee at the January meeting at which time the committee can determine If any items should be clarified, authorized that Mr. Marshall make it second. All those in favor, please say I. Anyone opposed? Any obstensions? Okay, we got those two. Nice. Uh, next up is our preliminary evaluation of city board commission.

All right, chair. And uh this is something that's stemming out of the planning and park committee meeting and there's a decent chunk of it more of a legal basis and the purpose of these different commissions, advisory boards and committees uh that were distributed to the the group last week. Uh we do have now the uh we just got we had a team meeting today where we were able to get the staff time. We had to go through and find out every individual's u contribution to each meeting, what that agenda time looked like and then also go back and check the average time. We used the last six months of meetings to limit the time it takes for each meeting. So getting those numbers were a little bit more tricky. Uh that said, what's being provided tonight is to start the conversation to review all the existing boards, commissions, committees that exist uh that are current and active that have folks appointed to them um as we speak. and then start looking at you know what is the legal basis for having them what if there are any changes that you know the planning and parks committee wanted to review to ensure that we are having meetings that are appropriate with the priorities of the council so the idea would be to look at each one of our meetings to see if it's still in alignment with our priorities and if so do we need to increase the frequency of meetings do we need to u change the the term limit question I know that has a charter provision that's something that we've run into some issues with on some of the advisory committee's finding enough folks to fill the spots. Um so the idea would be to review each of the groups and kind of go through them one at a time. Tonight we provided all of these different groups and the legal basis for them purpose and the function that's either sten we cite the code where possible. If not we try to site an ordinance or a memorandum minutes that authorized it. U but we want to try to show when it was established how it was established. uh the purpose, function or mission. Those can be three different things that are mentioned in the code. Uh the meeting frequency is more of a summary, but it really comes from the composition requirements which shows how who makes

up the committee or commissioner board and the requirements is more so how often are they required to meet? U there any other small tangible things that are required for that specific committee that make it makes it different. Uh the term limits and terms have to call this out because it it's chart term limits. So we have um in our charter which we have to be approved by the voters present uh if you're a resident that is appointed to serve on a board uh you can serve on that committee board commission for two full terms uh but after that uh you can't serve. So the idea behind that is it is the idea of it is nice but I will say what we've seen at least with like the architecture review board where we've had to make some modifications and also just some of our other committees that have these large structures and large bodies. Uh we've seen it become more and more difficult to find folks that are fully engaged. I was talking to Chair Farmer before the meeting and we had approximately 39 folks that have signed up to be potential appointees. Uh we do hope that folks that are interested in local government can can reach out and fill that out so we have a better repertoire more to choose from. But the idea we're about to be talking about the 2026 calendar and while we were doing that we wanted to look at basis for all the meetings we do have and also determine if there's any changes that need to be done especially given that we uh made changes to the frequency of the city council meeting and we didn't necessarily make any changes to the committees that support them. So, uh, tonight the department pretty much provided a background. I know this is a four action item, but I would almost say this. We re the department recommend this be a preliminary review, uh, of those items, answer any questions, get some direction on the process that we're moving forward to now and the columns that may not be completed just yet, but will be completed and could be completed by the December 8th meeting when we're also going to be reviewing the meeting calendar. The other side of it would be we're going to produce a meeting calendar for 2026

meeting that is consistent with past practice and consistent with code. Uh the idea would be we need to have that that filled in because that's you just can't without a meeting calendar for the code. But this would be more so the long-term solution of reviewing our meeting calendar and going through almost step by step to see if there's any changes that need to be made or if there's any other committees that need to be created out of this or something can be adopted or taken up by one of the committees that already exists. Uh department's available to answer any questions. I know it was a four action item. I would just like to to request that we would bring this back. Uh we'll have the full uh the full report done for the council meeting on Monday, but I almost think this could be something that could be discussed into January.

Anybody have any questions or concerns on? Yes, sir. So So would we the process be like uh looking to maybe eliminate some combine some? I mean I I look at this and I I said why put economic development under parks and planning? put uh put watershed erosion under this group, you know, and that's just briefly looking at it here for five minutes. And there's a lot that can be done that way. And you know, the idea so um and I had a had a a pretty long conversation about this and and and I start talking about this.

The the sort of general suggestion and Tom and I have talked a lot about this is to almost look at this in a similar way that we did the capital budget which is like hey we have all of these things and they're great volunteers but sort of maybe fully thought through the thing is you have people that actually are really interested in going to that are now able to do that and um you know I've had a number of conversations with the mayor where it is difficult to find enough people that are able to meet the right whatever. And then the other side of that is um and economic development is a good example of this. Scott and I talked about it where if 80% of your agenda is just talking about the thing that you talked about the last agenda and probably don't really need to have a meeting that then requires the staff to prepare the agenda, show up to the meeting, take minutes, recount all these things. So it's kind of leaning back and forth on them to say this is what's legally required. this is sort of the opinion of the staff that hey you know while yes this one maybe isn't as moving forward as you know I think it is important for these reasons and then also looking at you know who and serve on them and for how long we are rapidly approaching a case where um there is going to be a very a very very large base that is sub because they're just not even just for the record I believe I also of charter is not for the charter uh of that the charter was talking about it's for elected positions the interpretation that ended up was it's everybody that's the biggest mistake you can make but I wasn't but as chair of that committee you tried to explain to him we don't see what you're doing here and that at the same

time it does not mean and as the mayor that was tough taking people and you can't be on this board anymore because you disagree with everybody or you argue over but that's what you have to do and there's a mayor overund and something for your term but the other thing that I don't I've had this with our mayor now is there there are a lot of people in city like to get involved and there's a lot of council people who know people like involved but the mayor is really busy and then when you don't know what night nothing's more frustrating to get somebody say I think they like to do that but I can never do a Wednesday night okay so I mean a lot of it This is self-economic development, right?

Years ago, we had five subs. When you were on council, you were on two of those subs. Then we did away with that and went through the two standing comm. And then in 2016 or 17, they decided we need an economic development committee, but people didn't want to serve on it because they knew what it was 15 years before and we don't we don't have anything to give. You know, we're not like so it does become me. let's just go and talk about it and see what we could do in promise. So I think there's a lot of those overlapping but this is and I think this is really fantastic but I think what we we need to do is to look at what is required under the state guidelines. We can do the municipal code, but we can't change that. The charter then becomes one of those things that need to be changed, but honestly, I don't think it's as restrictive as we all tended to believe it to be. I mean, there are some very basic things there that we don't do a very good job of looking at, but I just think if you could look at what the state requires us to do and then have staff look at where those things be, it would not be the first time that the architectural board agency combined on different topics the board of ethics I mean all these different pieces have another place safety there's all kind of places where but you can't just say it's going to report back to admin and not make it a permanent monthly report on that I think that's where we've got so much knowledge meetings that don't have a good chance to get into the up how can we help the whole person who's who's helping the city administrator on how to move things forward because you guys are very to do that. But I think that a lot of it personal lookups also but I think there are ways in some of that could be corrected but I would

suggest we start with the things that are mandated by the state that kind of works but you know what that just that's good by us.

Yeah I mean this this perfect so what Tom I think is asking for tonight is ideas just like that. How do we just like we did with the improvement thing where we're like we're going to turn red, red, and yellow and we're going to put here whatever we're going to do like doing this and setting these things forward so we just know that this is a conversation we need to have and maybe some meetings like I'm economic development we have it but maybe we only need to have it every month or whatever it is because it's not like if something comes up we can't recall people to have a meeting but when it's set in a in a schedule like the amount of times my wife comes to me and goes you have that meeting for that right and I'm like No. She's like, "Why is it on the calendar?" I'm like, "I don't know. It's on the city." So, I think if we can kind of clear that up and also understand that um you know, if we can do things maybe and I haven't read the reality of this yet, but you know, structurally getting you know, some of these committees are pretty large. I don't know that they go that large. And so, that also kind of you're already failing. That's right. Do the math. Um, so, okay. So, does anybody else have any other thoughts or questions or concerns on additions to this that they'd like to see uh coming back? I guess would be Monday, right?

Yep. Uh, we can have we can have this chart updated by Monday for sure. U, and then the other side of it, we will we can go back and have almost like an some kind of uh way to denominate that this this board commission committee is a statemandated group. We can do that too. we'll have some way of identifying it instead of adding another column. I know we're get pretty large with our Well, one I mean one thought that Tom mentioned about is maybe what we do while Monday I would prefer to do this and fast. So if we have to like we're legally obligated to set the calendar

and then we can change it you know in February you can have election in April by people. So that's the first three months. There are some that are going to the ones that and we can go through it now. We have it all listed out. There are some that are going to say must meet every month and until that code's changed. It's on the calendar, but there's other committee. Yeah, some of these aren't even on the calendar. But, you know, you know, you're going to do the city, but a lot of the others We can work on that. We can bring that back. This will be on the agenda.

We We're getting pretty close. I know the Department of Planning and Parks actually nice hours. The hours were the tough thing. We're tracking down like average times. U now that we have that we're we're trucking along. We can have I would say it almost will be need to get the calendar given this also is that

we've got a draft calendar ready to rock and it is compliant with code everything's good on that front I would almost the recommendation for the department would be to proceed with the calendar um with that but maybe some of them are required we just for first we just add them for the first three months but then the secondary component would be to have this come forth as anformational item at the council meeting and then bring this back in January both planning and parks and admin PW to have the full length discussion that I think it deserves. I think that gives us plenty of time to be necessary. Not that I think we should do that, but we would miss any charter changes this year that is an option. But some of those changes simply could be put on and then I think you could do that but it wouldn't be done.

All right. Anybody have anything else on this? Uh not not tonight. if I got collected the feedback. No motions.

Um so this this item and I also point out these are good examples of you know taking into account um some of your concern Mr. Marshall about you know one meeting and we get a lot of piling things like that. So, we're actually trying to find an item that we can come at together from two different directions so that when we get to the work session, it's not like half of us are worrying about first classes. Um, so you'll probably see a few more things as we go forward. Okay, next up, looks like you messed around. Update on uh improvement projects. We get into that basically googling and they have changed the regulations of being able to replace that person. The governor has to be asked to fill district position a special election. So I think when we research that quickly and get a letter to the governor saying hey here we are our city and say look we'd like to have a special election because they cut it off and it's right there the governor has he's the one and it even says that he's hesitant to do it because what

he's constitutionally required to call for a special election without delay. So I think we as a city need to bring that up and do a formal request to the governor that we get representation if you almost you want to tie that into a motion to if legally possible that a resolution be a resolution be drafted for the council meeting I don't know anybody if legally possible we can have that prepared with if you if the coun the committ administration I think we should do I mean, I'll make that motion, but I think as a committee otherwise, it's going to set there.

I agree. All right. So, Mr. Marshall, you're going to make the motion to formally govern a special

second. All those in favor, please say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Any extension? All right. Okay. Uh then moving on to public works status report on city projects just as chair farmer council members had provided the monthly update. Brendan helps put this together every month. Um not a lot of changes at this point. Most of the projects that were identified for construction this year have been completed. Um, I did want to point out at least the thought would be moving forward. We can prevent we can present this to you as a monthly item. If you prefer to keep it on the agenda, um, with the change over to 2026, uh, we probably obviously remove the completed work and then there might be a few projects we could add to this door. Obviously, we'll update it as we move forward. So,

um, any questions or comments relative to this? Yes, sir. 100% more.

Um, Brendan's offered to speak to this, so I'll let you. There's a couple minor corrections of pavement marking that are Just kidding.

If you have a particular area, yeah, let us know. Let us know and we can we can forward that. But um I think we noticed a few um areas that were lacking some striping blue tail. corrections that are going to be done. I think they also stated that because of the time of year when they did the striping, it was considered what they called temporary striping. It's it's waterborne paint. So, they'll come back in the spring and restripe it with higher quality painting material that will last longer. So, that that you'll see next springtime when the weather breaks. I'm

sure. He said, "Well, no, that's only temporary paint that'll come off in the spring." The line, the thing that they heat seal with the bumpouts for they had torches heating that that's permanent. All of the other striking you said um I don't know if this comes under procedures or past practices but when a project like rail over on hold state comes in under budget um but has been approved by east west gateway Right. You know, pull them out obviously. Can one of the two of the big concerns in my ward were that um all the trees which are very beautiful. uh they all get mowed down and there's a huge um shock and the appearance the whole state and uh you know can the excess funds since the state and federal government is providing 80% of that cost. Can those funds be used for larger trees? Can they be used for solar power lighting which was another consideration for the trail that cuts from old state uh through the property and back into Lake Chester? Can that money be accessed and used or how how does all that the short answer is no? Essentially we've applied for a project we've identified the scope of that project and that's what they're funded.

We can't just take any overage money and use it to spend it somewhere else or add to the scope or change the scope. We can use it for approved change orders that mod approves um as necessary to construct the project. Um so there might be some availability there to to do to to tap into those funds if we have change orders. again like to be approved through MODS. Um, as I said before, I think there might be some limited opportunities for landscaping. However, you know, we disturb the minimum necessary to build the project and address the storm water issues that MSD required us to address. So, there's not a lot of areas that we have easements that we have rights to go into landscape. Quite frankly, um, the property owners did not bring that up as a request when we designed it. We acquired easements by and large. If they were to say that that was a desire, I'm sure we would listen and talk with them and potentially consider something um as we get through construction of the project. So if there's an area that makes a lot of sense that's not inconsistent with what we've done elsewhere, frankly, we don't have a lot of money. That's that one would need to be addressed. I'm sure Joe would agree with that as well as far as other trails. We've certainly done landscaping It's not inconsistent what we most um I don't know if it's probably maybe a snow cloud thing. Somebody went looks like they made a left where they're not supposed to go on 100 road and just really tore up whatever new dirt and grass and things they put in there. I don't know if that meeting or what happened, but it is a huge we might want to know. I don't know

what to do any now, but it's certainly going to be ugly in the spring. And then are you asking for next year if we want to keep this as a monthly item or do you want to change it maybe like actual like new things or bring stuff up like we don't have to do this whole thing?

I was basically asking for feedback if you wanted to see as a recurring item certainly. do that as you start a project. I mean I don't think memory can carry up but I think it's really helpful. I know we could see it here then we see it but that takes away anybody asking at least like I don't think we need to keep old things on do you think it's better I kind of like the information in general but is it better as an item in here or would that maybe what if we try to do something similar we're doing like the coding work stuff in that in the administrator report which is like this is the stuff what's going on.

We typically keep for all our big capital projects, I keep that even if it doesn't change, I I've been consistent keeping that pretty similar. Um even if there's and then you'll notice that even a small change like oh that that submitt was completed and it's currently under review by MDOT then you'll notice you know it might be two weeks where it's still in that phase doesn't mean nothing's happening. check in with MDOT, working with our consultants, but then you know that next week it's not necessarily a big celebration, but you'll see, hey, you know, ODOT's approved that design and now we're we're ready to get the project once a month here, but I don't I just think it is good information.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I I mean, I would say um well, I think you guys do a very nice job of of writing this all It's that there's a lot that's going into this thing a lot of the time. So like you know I think if you can simplify and make this like a more efficient while in progress.

Yeah. And then then we know like you know you could say hey like now we all know that the striping on 100 is there but not as great as it could be. It'll be redone in the spring. So if somebody asks us we go yep it's happening in the springtime or whatever it is. So yeah I mean I I think um I think The information is good. I think if you can find a simpler way to convey it, I'm all I'm excited to be with that. Anybody else have any thoughts or questions or concerns on any of the projects we got going on or or thoughts on this as we move into the next year starting freshman? And then uh sorry, but where was the location of the

where they put the where they put like a left you made a left off of westbound 100 on the pond? Yes. Somebody made a left off of eastbound 100 pond and I don't know if it was because it was a snowstorm or they didn't know the thing was there but whatever it was was they drove Did they drive over that track immediately? They went through the like they like Oh, okay. the grass, the dirt, the hay, it's all So that entire Yeah, that was kind of my thought. I didn't know if it was a salt truck or whatever. And it's at the intersection of pond.

So that that crosssection um I will I will say this um I I do want to say um I think our contractors and you guys did a great job with these storms. Um, it was a I kept having to explain to my kids that the roads in Wildwood are great. The roads everywhere else are not and that it is a big thing. So, those guys did a great job. I saw different equipment out doing different stuff this time. So, um, good job on all that. that was very happy.

We'll say that, you know, kudos to the entire the entire department of public works because we we got quite a few compliments from residents that called in today with other items of concern. Specifically mentioned that difference between state maintain roads and county roads when driving home. They were pretty much the white knuckling was the thing I heard multiple times, but once I got on the once I got on the valley, once I got on the Allen, it was it was all smooth sailing from there. So, said this morning that they flew in late last night took a cab airport back out here and said the cab driver who what's going on here the whole way out the interstate

and we did have it was interesting there was uh supposedly the National Weather Service thought that yesterday was they underestimated it too so it's we're we're good learning experience for them and also that's what if you notice if you were stuck in traffic that's what led us to that traffic interesting stuff but happened with our partners good job department um all right uh that brings us to an update on MSD

council members chair farmer um wanted to provide this information to you MSD has been having a um fairly regular local leaders lunchon um it's available and I I I don't know how far that invite goes out but you're certainly welcome to attend it if you're interested. Um they provide a lunch if you want to call it that with the meeting. Um otherwise it's its intent is very good to provide information invite and ask questions. From our perspective, the meeting that they had last month, primarily the information that was most relevant was pertaining to the new municipal storm water grant program and um there wasn't a lot of new information there, but they did provide an update to us and I did provide an overall copy of the PowerPoint that was presented. Um the municipal stormwater grant program is going to start and we're working on an application process we should see this quarter. Um essentially we will be able to apply for $300,000 annually storm water uh funds that we can use within MSD's jurisdictional area. So not outside that not west of 49 generally speaking um because it only is applicable to MSD's area but we can use that for planning purposes for design or for construction of storm water projects. So it has fairly wide plability for use um and certainly a lot of the stuff that we're contemplating relative to wershed erosion is certainly right up at um program's perview. So, something we need to be keeping in mind going forward. Um, they did provide us with their new grant administrator and I got to meet her. Marcy is her name. I think it's Mutton

or Motton is her last name. Um, so they have someone who's been appointed to serve as their grant administrator. She is certainly available to meet with us necessary if we'd like to do that. So that was the main um part of the lunchon I think that is most relevant was the start of the storm water grant program that we should be hearing something first quarter relative to uh the potential to submit an application to use the funding. We do not have to use it. There's no deadline on it. Obviously we want to use it but it does not go away. if it's going to hold it and we can use it in a future year if we don't use it calendar year. So you can bank it, you can let it build up then tap into it for a large project if that's desire is of the city. Um so it won't it won't go away. It'll still be there. It's just that um when we want to use it, we've got to submit a formal application to MSD for their review and approve.

All right. Anybody have any questions on that? Mr. Vich, just out of curiosity, do we bank it or do they hold it and bank it? Do they collect interest and do they get the interest that they acrew during the whole period? They get the interest. I got a guess on that. I don't think anybody asked the specific question, Joe, but we don't hold the money. They hold it anytime soon. Um,

we have projects listed that you Yeah, I mean something and this will kind of lead into our next item too, but something that we have to consider as a city is really most areas west of 109 don't won't this county won't be able to use that's outside of their service. So, um, but we do have projects. They've got a couple things that they sort of already earmarked that

Yeah. that they want to do. Um, and so, yes, we do have long list of things that need some attention. Um, but that's going to be this. Great. Um, all right. Anybody have anything else on Yeah, Rick, you need anything else? That's just Okay. Um, next up is the proposed firmware based retro kit and Mr. All right, Mr. Brown, take it away.

Yeah, or it's fine. Um, this is the next item that's relative to um, MSD and storm water in the city of Wildwood. Um, what we have for you tonight is aation that provided to the planning of parks committee. This originated in the watershed erosion task force. Um, Mr. Dr. Todd Wagner with Wagner Associates has completed his report on the feasibility and recommendations to um modify existing storm water detention basins and portions of the Cox Creek wershed. And the the idea here is to to modify the potentially five storm water basins that are in existence, four different subdivisions. One of them is and one of them is right out here on the east southeast side of city hall. Um modify these existing storm water detention bases so that essentially they're more effective and they hold back more storm water and lessen downstream impacts effectively lessen potential for erosion downstream and flooding as well. Um so this is a very proven technique to reduce flow in the watershed and the idea is if we can work and do modifications to existing basins we can reduce flow downstream reduce the potential for erosion downstream and the potential for flooding downstream. So Mr. Wagner looked at particular five storm water basins in four subdivisions. Um there's essentially two in the west branch of Cox Creek, two in the eastern branch of Cox Creek, the upper portions of the wershed. Um and effectively Mr. Wagner's recommendation was that we should move forward with two modification projects either in the west branch or the east branch, but also

look at he's identified a number of areas where we could install new regional storm water basins. So, it's kind of a two-pronged approach. One, we look at modifying existing basins and existing subdivisions. And then two, we look at new basins potentially in some subdivisions that are out there right now for additional storm water uh detention, new new basins, and new subdivisions for regional detention. So, those two two facets hand in hand can cumulatively have an impact downstream and address this problem. maybe not in its entirety but certainly have a meaningful impact in stream back erosion as well as flooding um downstream. So again the recommendation to planning and parks was to move forward with essentially modifications for two basins and look at regional basins as well. The motion that planning and parks approved was to move forward with all five basins. And that recognition I believe is going to go to the full city council. So tonight I think the thought was would this committee to also effectively consider a motion to support moving forward that's the desired work together. Yeah. So um this this comes from a very long amount of time energy effort and um the USGS study went a very long way with this and so Mr. Wagner has done an incredible job of digging through all this stuff and Basically what he said was, you know, if you can, his suggestion was basically if you're going to pick if you can only pick two, pick two in one place or the other place. If you can do all of them, that's a better way to go. And if we can get all this stuff work together, that being retrofit the existing ones and we're able down the road here short term to add in relatively inexpensively compared to the other stuff this additional

things. The USGF study, Mr. correct me if I'm wrong. I mean they said if we their thought was if we can get all these things done that reduces the flow something like 50 to 75% in these very high flow events that we're having and so we talked about it in talking to the other members a number of members on the watershed task force we can use this as proof of concept so then we can apply it to other parts of the city because we have done the most studying and everything else in these places And because these are generally in the most densely populated parts of the city, they're also causing the most amount of damage. So we should be able to make the most impact. So um I mean my suggestion as the chair of the water task is I would agree with parks and planning that's something we should look at. The other thing that this does, I think from a city perspective is one of the biggest challenges we've had as a task force is it's a really weird thing when we have public areas and private areas and who does who is responsible for what. It's MSD, it's like all these different things that we got to get the Army Corps of Engineers to approve stuff. And so from a city standpoint, we control what happens in these basins. we can make these adjustments and then you know if we have an extra three or5 million to fix the triple meander great but if we've done what we can do and the triple meander punch through that's really an MSD or state problem fix that's not going to be ours certainly hope that's not the case um but it will help us to kind of get a little bit over this hurdle of you know you have a in some ways you have an HOA and you have like four homeowners how do we balance that out so um I we've looked at this a lot. This is the very best way I think and the most appropriate way to keep this go and hopefully it works as well as

Yes sir.

Thank Mr. Brown and Mr. Farmer have done an excellent job explaining almost five years of work of the watershed erosion task force. Everybody that we've engaged, whether it's an engineer, a geomorphologist, a hydraologist, have all said that you've got to address the cause instead of always fixing the problems. And so that's the key component here. We can certainly go in and dump rip wrap, stabilize an unstable area, but we know there's going to be a storm that's going to eventually remove all of that, waste the money we've spent, and end up adding to the problem. And the basin retrofits seem to be the best approach because many of the basins that have been identified by Mr. Wagner and other consultants were done many many years ago at a less than desirable standard and we can address that. One of the things that came up and Rick and I were laughing about it the day after the planning and parks committee and we talked about it today, Mr. Lee, Mr. Brown and I is actually creating those regional facilities and drainage tributaries by just blocking them with the appropriate amount of material based upon the best engineering. There was a thought today instead of maybe doing the gambit of basins that have been identified maybe setting aside a little money to do engineering on that future proposal. Tom used the word provoc provocative and it is it seems so simple then it can it really work but if it did work I think the number Tom was what two two million cubic feet of additional storm water storage that's a that's a massive number so the thought might be is maybe just

the motion a little so as we do the basins but if we have additional funing available funding maybe to do a little bit of exploratory engineering project and see if it would really work. Yeah. I mean I I took the motion and I could be wrong but I took the motion from parks and planning to do all of that. Okay. Not just the basis but like if we're going to do it let's do it because the problem is if you do half of it and it kind of works then you got to wait a bunch more years to do the rest. So, um, so anyways, I go with the Mr. Farmer's memory. He's much.

So, if anybody has any questions or concerns, obviously, we can answer those. If anybody cares to make a motion, I guess, to even just support what parks and planning has already done. We'll see it again. Question is the option for not $200,000. try to go back to do that four or five years from now would be five or $600,000 you had construction equipment in there would be an advantage to to get out of so I I have heard I I'm not arguing with Mr. Wagger who is an engineer I am just Mr. Buddha and I have had this conversation a lot. I don't know how you don't take two feet of dirt out of the bottom of the pond and hold water. But that what they tell us. I I kind of think that's one of those things where if you go through the pictures like there are certain places where like I I think it's sort of a no-brainer that just needs to be done. Um but it may not need to be done everywhere. So I would sort of I would say again the parks and planning is like let's do what needs to get done. And so if we need to spend $200,000 to do it, great. There's a found that is at uh Dreker and Kurs Mill where they did this and they basically have like a giant water bag thing for a while full of just so I mean there's a lot that goes in doing that too. It may not be necessarily particularly possible to do it. Um but from everything I've seen and the designs and things and and obviously you have to reach out to certain and stuff to get final sign up on this community. I would think the equipment that it's going to take to put that inside the banks. Might as well go ahead and scoop out. Yeah, I know. I remember when building Cherry Hill came out, guys. The dump truck and all the mud just came out over and that was all hazard. You know, it's way bigger than that. It just seems logical. I

mean, they're tearing it up. Can you take more dirt out to allow that maybe another few years? Mr. farmer. Remember when we met with the homeowners associations, the trustees, one of the carrots they gave to us is, "Sure, we'll let you in and we'll let you do this and we'll even keep maintaining it, but can you get this can you get the out of the bottom of our basin,

make it operate better?" And and he did this writer did say that I mean, while there may not be any like technical benefit to doing it, there is a structural benefit in that the pond functions better. you're not going to have fish eye off very expensive and they don't get algae blooms and things like that. So I think that there are certainly reasons to do it and I mean the the concept from parks and planning anyways was is this is one of our top priorities like this might be a thing if it's a two or three million dollar project that we look at going to the reserve to go hey we're doing this this proof of concept then we will figure this out. So, um, so yeah, I think doing it and doing it the right way is all right.

Great. All right. Motion made by Mr. President to I guess support the parks and plan motion. Anybody care to second that? Second by Mr. Bcker. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any extensions? Right. Guess that passes. We'll see you Monday. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks everybody. Force is going to be excited.

Yes, sir. I would say no. U right now we've got $500,000 budgeted for storm water management projects in 2025 and that's more than enough. We haven't even completed the the full engineering scope of the engineering necessary to do u projects that are retrofits. So, I'd say we'd be fine if we'd be able to do a mid-year adjustment by that time. If everything came off, we feel as if it's it's all coming together. That's what we have. I we just don't have the exact number just yet.

We're pretty good shape. We've got plenty of money to be able to proceed with the planning. So, Are you saying like some way to Are you trying to say some way to earmark the funds for this purpose even though we might not have a tangible physical thing to say let's go dig right now? Yeah.

That I mean we've done that in the past. It's I don't Yeah, we did that with the deer. I I wouldn't recommend it for most things. This is one of those top priorities of for the council. This would be one of the very few times that could be necessary. The one thing I'd advise against though is that there's most likely going to be a caveat. I don't know for sure. Mr. Brown may be able to answer this more direct, but I believe when we get these funds from MSD, I think they're going to be requesting that we create some special fund that we would use to to utilize utilize the funding once we get it. So, we would show them and they would be able to access ours for that fun. So I'd almost say if we're going to do it, we should take advantage of that time just to have one. Well, you might want to separate those two. Yeah, that's so that well yeah we can we could

maybe what we do and maybe what we can do is if we approving the half we already have but then now because everybody both communities have basically supported this anyways then it's just saying hey we're here marking x up to x amount you know from this place but even to say like we're not going to still have budget money that comes in 2027 2028 plus complicated right so I I so I do think kind of having a call out of some kind

we could do that the five year and it would be more projection but that said I mean I would say once we have the final numbers the thing is you know say we were to get back we're done with the engineering we we're paid up in full on the engineering itself but now it's time to start digging and we get the bids back and it's let's just throw it in property 1.5 million to do the council at any point of the year and in theory pass an ordinance that would authorize an agreement for 1.5 million. We would just at the same exact time amend the budget to accommodate it. The department's going to advise that this is the change in the balance that you're causing with that change. But the council has the authority to do that at any time. There's nothing in the code for sure. Yeah, you can you as long as the council

the main charter provision is just your expenditures don't exceed your uh budgeted revenues plus account balance. There is a caveat 3.9 the capital but there's another budget. Yes.

If you don't present a balance budget then there's a way you have to work around it. What's the work? There's a lot of stuff. It's about the city administrator's responsibility for submitting budget for council and we don't have agreed to. We used to have meetings quite a bit. We don't have an active budget restrain to last year's there's a lot of things in there. I know there's a clause talks about balance budget spending over that doesn't mean we can't spend a month. We could do that. It's just in theory we could. I mean we have a balanced it's it's cutting deep in the pockets but the we the first budget we presented version A was balanced so in theory we could have that

I I personally man I think we should reserve years but we don't and then we get we say we wonder why that is well that's the provision we're in there every we can check that for sure and then the other thing is we could have that budget pretty much set up so that if needed that could be adopted if for consistency sake

that can be Bob talked about you can set that now I'm going to mon for that but I think that's the way around it I just hate to see I know the charter is very specific about spending more all right anything else on the storm or on the basis okay that brings us to the supplemental trail agreement.

Farmer council members. U moving forward, this next item is relative to an existing pedestrian tunnel that the city worked with mod to construct um around or following 2010 um under Highway 109 uh near Woods Avenue. Um, at that time, uh, the tunnel that was constructed connects the Hamilton car trail to Rockwood's Reservation and provides a nice safe way for folks to get under Route 109, either pedestrians or cyclists. The original agreement with MODOT, the license agreement that was executed, expires at the end of December. So, it had an original 15-year term on it. So what I've contacted the department and suggested that we should execute a new agreement and extend that license agreement by another 10 years. So tonight we are bringing that recommendation to execute that agreement to the committee and I'm sure uh Mr. Vunish would concur. Both departments of public works and parks would like to move forward with this supplemental uh license agreement and that's the recommendation to you tonight. Uh if you approve the recommendation, we'll forward it to the city council. motion by Mr. Marsh say I Mr. Preston all those in favor please say I opposed

any pass I said why would we not I don't see any reason at this point in time why we look into I mean would it make more sense to do it longer that might be the only question is why don't we do it longer but um I mean like what would happen if we didn't fall apart let We are responsible for maintaining it. I'm just saying like I don't know why we wouldn't say it's maint.

Uh so this next item hopefully is correct in front of you. Um we are um have been contacted by East West Gateway um annually they solic federal funding applications for municipalities and the annual round is out. Uh applications are due by February 6th of 2026. There's about $15 million available for the Missouri Council region for this round of funding which is about typical. Um there's three separate funding programs that are available. So after giving this a little bit of thought for this year, um one of the areas that we thought would be a good project for consideration is the what we call structure 3107 on Wild Horse Creek Road. That is currently a deficient 11 foot by 7 foot stone box cover that um some of you may recall we actually did some work on a couple years ago to improve its condition and essentially extend its life a bit. So with that um work that was done to repair it, we also started the design of a replacement structure at that time. So that replacement structure has been designed and we essentially have it on the shelf at the moment and the replacement is in our capital improvements program I think comes in 2028. So, if we decided to move forward um and we're successful, we can hopefully get the federal government to pay for 80% of the cost to construct this project. Um we've been successful in the past. Brendan's reached out already to be sure that it is eligible. We believe that it should be. If not, we'll certainly report back if we learn anything to the contrary. Um, we did get an updated cost from our consultant to place the structure and uh, actually the cost was lower than I was envisioning.

The actual cost estimate they gave us today was about $800,000. So, what I put in the memo may be on the high side, but I think um, in the past we've tended to undersshoot the cost and so I want to make sure we're on the high side this time. But if you approve the recommendation to you tonight, which is to start the process of the application, uh we can bring it back to you next month with a a a more form more firm number for cost and then allow you to have a final approval of it and then we'll need a resolution by the city of the council. So I guess tonight we're asking for a motion to approve moving forward at least the tenative application process and then we can bring it back to you and Jenny.

Just so I'm clear on this is that um bridge right there that connects down one lane, right? Yes. And that is circle around a corner. I'm going to drive it around that corner and don't even know that.

Yeah. But I mean honestly I think that that's been a real concern for probably a lot years. I mean that's the one bridge on the back side of that really is not that it was I mean the repairs never but it is that obviously my work. take on it, but we can get subsidiz.

Just a quick question, but I'm having trouble visualizing this. Somebody pull it up. And I apologize. I meant to mention it is on horse. It's about 410 of a mile south of Centaur Road. Can Can we pull it up on Yep. screen? We're working on it. Also will point I made a mistake in my memo when I said that we needed a minimum local match of 80%. It's a 20% local match. 80% the amount we

our portion our match would be 20% of whatever we request which would be on the order of probably closer to 1.2 million at this point one to 1.2. So I'll finalize that number and bring that back to you in January. So we're talking

exactly what what are we going to what are we going to do with this? So the replacement structure is a single span bridge. It's about 60 feet in length. Um the two foot excuse me two lanes in width. So it'll match essentially the width of the current roadway, but it does grow from a box cover structure to a short single span bridge. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion to proceed. Anybody care to second? Seconded by Mr. Albert. All those in favor of proceeding with the department's recommendation on the replacement bridge.

Any opposed? All right. Uh, next up is a contract bid for the for council members chair farmer. Um, this next item I apologize we were a little bit with the holiday slow to get it posted and I apologize for not having this information to you previously. Um, I did I think attach it to the uh agenda there. So my updated memorandum that's attached to the me to the uh to the meeting agenda reflects the information today that we received when we opened the bids for this project. So in several years ago on Manchester Road we uh resurfaced Manchester Road from the um Taylor Road uh over to Shnooks the west driveway. We that same time we installed three rapid flashing beacons at three crosswalks and um as years have gone by we've had some issues with maintenance of those flashing beacons and then more recently we've had a couple car incidents where we've had two of the poles at two separate crosswalks knocked over. So, um, with the issues we're having with the operations of those crosswalks, uh, we've got a number of, um, issues that that aren't currently functioning right now. To address all those concerns, we've put together the project of in bids and open bids today. So, the cost of low bid, the lowest responsive bid um that we received today was for just over $77,000 to uh basically rehab and renovate the three pedestrian crosswalks, the flashing beacons at those locations and address the two pole removals that need to address that were struck by cars.

So, uh, we had three biders that submitted bids. Um, Authorize Electric, Mayor Electric, and also Gersner Electric. All three companies we've worked with before. Um, I did want to be um upfront and note to you that authorized, for whatever reason, didn't submit what we considered a response bid. Unfortunately, they were the lowest bid. They were about $4,000 lower than the second, which was Mayor electric. So, um, authorized didn't submit on the bid documents that were required through the RFP. I'm not really sure what their mindset was, but I feel like they don't typically do construction bidding, do a lot of our maintenance work for us. We specifically sent this bid to them and asked them to consider it. Um, but my sense is they don't do a lot of contracting, hard construction bidding, and maybe they or maybe They just felt obligated to give us a number, but they really didn't want to go through the practice of bidding it. I I'm not really sure. We didn't have time to follow up with. So again, the recommendation tonight was to go with the second lowest bid quite frankly, which was when elected um at just over $77,000 for the work. So that is the recommendation to you tonight as the committee is to move forward with agreement with the mayor do the project. Um I would construction deferred until next year at this point all three of them.

Yes. on top of them. Yeah, I was gonna ask if we do this, does that mean people are going to stop driving into them or this is the one next time be 100,000?

Um, could they be hit? Yes, they could be hit. Um, we've had that it's it's ironic that that I shouldn't say ironic. We we do see a fair amount of crashes in this stretch of Manchester. I'm not really sure I can finger on it. We've speculated that um some of these are resulting from the establishment up the street. Um and there may be some truth to that frankly find.

So when we get so just keep in mind too when we do get crash reports um the police if there's an insurance company involved we do move to collect um cost to repair these through the insurance. So, we do oftentimes get reimbursement through the insurance process. Um, not every time, but a lot of times, even this most recent one, um, while the precinct was able to track down the offender through using the uh the uh the license plate camera that we have down the road. So, they did a little bit of detective work and we were able to locate the offender and have to follow up with that. So we are able frequently to collect through the insurance process when when these things are struck. So then there is that. But uh I can't guarantee it won't happen again. Um I don't you may be thinking of mod with their transit signals. They have a very large concrete base that they mount and um

you think it's safety issue but they do put it on your intersection and foot. It's absolutely yeah it's like three foot high and and if you hit one of the vehicle it's not a good it's not good for the occupants of the vehicle. I I won't crosswalk.

So, no, we're not mounting it on a base that's designed to to handle an impact from a a vehicle. That's not typically how it's done. We can research that a little bit, but it it would go back on the face, the footing that is basically flush with the sidewalk or the road. So, It's still will break.

Yeah, I was going to make a motion that we look at something more preventative like Tracy is suggesting instead of putting something up that's just going to hit again, you know. Do you want to does it make sense to do that? But also, if we find that there isn't something that is better, we can go with what we've got. I don't know how you guys say it or not. I hear we were going to redo it. We would have to redo the whole

Well, frankly, if and I'm not real confident there is anything out there, but um yeah, if we did find something, we we'd probably have to reject it and reid it. So, I think the best course of action would be would be just to move forward. If you'd like us to research that or do a little more um investigation and report back, we're happy to do that. Um as you if we can find anything that might be more suitable in the future. Have all three of them been hit. It just doesn't seem to put seem right to put the same thing out.

I I think maybe if we need to take more time, I would take the time and do it right. I mean, it is kind of weird. Three and I I think the logical thing to do it would be to remove the the polls or the post from the median islands first. Um I believe the one materials metas in the median has probably been hit twice. So that'd be my first suggestion would be or maybe maybe just eliminate that one in the meeting and that would reduce the long-term potential for vehicle strikes. Um the ones in the median island are strictly optional. They're not required. Don't know that we've had the one old fair struck at this point in the meeting.

The other one was on the outside. Um, so it was more of a I think more of a oneoff frankly. Yeah, I'm trying I'm trying to think there's the ones that

I want to say it's in the median there too, but it's it's at the roundabout. Yeah. So, the the island and the you know the splitter island is right there at the intersection. So, it's not I wouldn't call it a similar installation necessarily. So, these bids these bids would be included putting something in a t not Like are we just replacing what's we take out the middle part because that's what's getting hit.

So we're replacing the median post at Cherry Hills Meadow. So that one got struck. So this would replace that one. Um the other one that got struck was at Shnooks and it was on the south side of the road. So that one's right now. So, we could look to just not replace the one in the meeting at Cherry Hills Meadows. That would save a little bit of money if you'd like to go that route. I would not be opposed to that. That's what you'd like. Maybe that would be the easiest way to kind of respond to that issue.

What do you guys think? I just don't know some way to improve that say something right or just I mean one's hit more than once up the street are

I mean I guess I hear what you're saying but I also know that things get hit and that's just the nature of it and you want have safe crosswalks. That's why we put these out there is to make the crosswalk safe because we know there's cars out. So, it's just an inherent danger. I think I don't think you're ever going to have a situation where it's totally risky, right? Are there have I seen them with crosswalks with lights embedded into the So, I mean, you know, so they start flashing. You won't be able to see them during snow condition, but they only I think they only flash when he hits the button.

Right. Exactly. But you they would be in the road versus I think I've seen those, but not sure. But the the one at the Meadows, that's clearly the most uh one that's most dangerous, you know. Yeah. At risk. Do we I don't know if we want to eliminate the saying there even I mean I just think there is a better way to do it

maybe since we wouldn't be doing it in I mean probably obviously till next year maybe I assume springtime maybe what we do is we you know the motion can be something like we have these in hand and that's great we can assess whether this is the options perfect and then we'll go This is the best way to do it. Then that's

second by Mr. Alers. Amy on that one. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed?

Any abstensions? All right, we'll see that one again. Uh, that brings us to anybody tonight. If not then our next meeting is scheduled for January 7. So I will take motion by second by I. All those in favor please say I. Any opposions? Okay. Thank you everybody for else. Thank you.