City Council - Regular Meeting

They do get a potty break kind of stuff everyone and welcome to our work session for tonight, Monday, January 12th. It is 5:31. So, we're going to get started. Uh we'll start with the roll call.

Mayor Geritano present. Council member Farmer here. Council member Dodwell. Council member Nyan. Council member Utenberg here. Council member Traier here. Council member Mabberry here. Council member Rablooski here. Council member Preston here. Council member Marshall present. Council member McCutchen here. Council member McCutchen here. Council member Rambo here. Council member Bocker present via Zoom. Council member Crayons here. Council member Vanic here. Council member Alers here. Council member Galani

here.

Hey, great. Thank you everyone under mayor comments and announcements. The only thing I just want to say is I hope you all had a great holiday and are back here to start off the year for another productive year for us. So glad to have you all here. Uh we'll move on to the next item of the agenda which is for information. So as we usually do these items do have reports related to them and therefore this is an opportunity if you have any questions if you need any clarity but no action required on for information. So I'll look to see if anyone has any question related to these items and if there are we entertain them otherwise we proceed to the four action. Okay, Council Member McCoy.

Um, yeah. Um, my question is for Mr. Vich. The subd district lots that we've been talking about, are those part of what are the outlots for the some developments on 109 or are these totally different? Miss McCutchen, if you could reference the memorandum you're talking about, I I apologize. Um, I'm [clears throat] not quite sure where it is.

As you know, at the last city council meeting in December, the city council did pass legislation authorizing drive-thru facilities along certain properties on Route 109 and Route 100. All of those are first tier properties, meaning they have a direct frontage on either this two-state arterials. And for the most part, some do accommodate it already and others would have to be prezone, which was also part of the action the city council, excuse me, took in December. Okay. Thank you. You answered my question, but I was absent in December, so Okay. My apologies.

No problem. Thank you. Okay. Uh, anyone else? Council member Mabbury. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll get it by number four for information. Number F, planning parts number um, Mr. Bonich can probably help me. It's about a change request by the contractor of record for phase one. Yes, sir. Um, number five.

Number five. Thank you. There. Uh, it's for information, but is there an opportunity for action? move this thing along the road. This uh regarding the acceptance or the rejection or the continued concern about what looked to me is close to a lump sum change request. Give it to me because I'm asking for a type of a change request for the contractor for page one. Is there anything to be done with that or is it just some information? Well, as you are aware and others on city council, each month the department provides an update on the village green phase one. In this particular update, you have identified a change order. Change order. It has a sum over $350,000. The general contractor has identified the need for that change order based upon delays associated with the undergrounding of the electrical lines and other items. The planning and parks committee reviewed the change order and recommended no action.

Can the council recommend rejection summarily so that the contractor goes back and tries better to validate uh their case instead of having it just linger around like a chronic festering wound we have to just hear about every month. The um department of planning and parks did meet with the general contractor shortly after the submittal of the change order and the department explained that without background information and truly an assessment of real need that the department couldn't support anything along these lines. So I assume that the general contractor may be doing that. But in terms of a rejection, I would defer to the mayor and city attorney.

Thank you, director. Okay. Do we have anybody else that has anything otherwise we'll move on to action? All right. See no hands up. We'll move on to for action under the first item there. A one under administration and public works. Uh the first item is the review of the proposed council continuity and validation validated factual record policy. City administrator Lee.

Thank you. Uh, mayor, appreciate it. Um, at last week's uh, administration public works committee meeting um, there was a discussion about the creation of a validated factual record policy. What this is intended to do and what was included in the memorandum prepared uh, is to create a framework or a guiding set of facts or studies. Good example would be something like the USGS study that was done on Cox Creek that um once produced and given to the city council instead of having it just as a for information report where staff would do um a general description here's what the report said or even have presenters come in uh that information would be presented and actually accepted by the uh the council as part of the factual record if you will. What this would do is over time would be to create almost its own booklet of facts, data, information, other documents uh that the council wishes to include in its factual record to use in deliberations but also to serve as a basis point specifically for staff uh to communicate out to the public too when putting together public messaging. Um the department's available for questions tonight, but overall this is a little bit different in how we're looking at it from a staff perspective, how to implement how something would be accepted into the factual record would most likely need to be done through some type of resolution each time when we would get a report. Uh so that is being worked out and tonight uh the department is presenting what the committee had proposed which is to adopt this policy. Um that said, the department would like to have the attorney draft up the legislation for this if the council wishes to proceed forward. Uh the department has worked with the the legal team to put some pieces together here, but the hope would be to have this ready at the next council meeting if the council desires, but be able to answer any questions at this time. Well,

do we have any questions from the council at this time? Council member Dodwell. I think it might be appropriate at this time just to make the motion to have the attorney review it and then we'll wait to see what those results are before taking the next step. So, if you're okay with that and

you'll modify your your motion. Um, Colleen, do you have it or do you wish us to Okay, so is there a second? Council member Ottenberg, right? Any other discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Okay, seeing none, uh, all those in favor, please say I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Abstain. All right. Uh, did you say abstain, Council Member Cushion? Yes, abstain. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Second item under for action under admin and public works is number two, the review of proposed procurement integrity and role separation policy.

Thank you, mayor. Appreciate it. This was also a uh policy that was reviewed and does tie u kind of ties into the next item on the agenda. Uh it was reviewed at the January 7th uh 2026 administration public works committee meeting. Um, and specifically the policy is somewhat of a it would most likely be drafted in a resolution form. It would almost be a modification to the city's current purchasing policy and how we handle procurements. Um, specifically the policy would be clarifying uh would be requiring a few extra things that we currently cover in a lesser sense. We do have them in our RFP process and usually what we publish, but this would be more so putting that upfront um and putting those requirements out and to the public for clear standards and expectations for both the public uh vendors that are interested in participating and then also uh staff and elected officials. Um the overview itself and what it's requiring is clarifying individuals and entities when they're transitioning from being an advocate for a specific item um to becoming a potential vendor. So in that case it could be you know someone that is complaining about for an example someone that would be complaining about a bridge that is maybe in a state of somewhat disrepair but not not all too bad but then um once the city decides to actually go out and repair the bridge then they would also come back and bid on the repair itself. So that is something that would need to still be reviewed by the city attorney as well. But that's an example of what this would do on top of what our current purchasing policy does. We did last year make a change to our purchasing policy which identified three different ways to go out and solicit bids when it was uh above the city administrator's purchasing authority. One um the standard bidding process for a good or service that go out um usually that's best price but you can obviously take into account the other portions of the RFP which is qualifications and experience. Um the secondary component would be request for proposals which provides a little bit more flexibility on the type and uh the experience itself and the software or uh service being

provided. Typically when something that is very niche uh those can become more handy. And last is request for qualifications which typically handle our consultant agreements for engineering firms and also just design etc. Uh that said this would be adding some additional qualifiers. So, first and foremost, the advocacy versus the prospective vendor portion. Um, requiring disclosure of that uh advocacy if you had done it within the last 12 months. Um, and then establishing some of those safeguards just to identify them up front. So, it' be almost included in a summary of the uh the report that would go forward and then also implicated in the in the actual proposal itself. Um, so tonight the department is once again asking for the council's feedback and available to answer any questions, but on top of that would like to have the city attorney review this and make sure everything's on the up and up and then bring it back uh to the city council for full consideration. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any questions or uh comments discussion at this time related to this matter here? All right. seeing none. Uh you want to clarify them what you're looking for here? Yes. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh it would be if the council obliges to have a motion to go ahead and forward this over to the city attorney's office, have them review it. Um come back and anything that you know isn't acceptable would obviously be identified. But if everything's good to go, then be able to uh bring this back to the full council. Okay.

Have a legal review. Uh similar to the first item then uh motion uh made by council member Utenberg and I see a second. Is that okay by council member Mabberry? So we'll have the motion on the floor. Any discussion or questions at this time? All those in favor please say I. I. Anyone or abstain? I. Okay. And we take that as an I. Council member McCutchen. So that passes as well. Uh number three, the review of the proposed procurement integrity override framework, administrative lead.

Thank you, mayor. Uh this also ties in with the last item as mentioned. Um kind of addresses some of those same issues of trying to really put um a very very uh spelled out structure for anyone who would like to be a vendor for the city. Uh potentially proposing services or goods uh but also going through our typical procurement process just adding some additional safeguards. What this would typically do is if there is an issue that comes up um that maybe it's a heightened uh scrutinized procurement such as something like we've done in the past like trash or uh going out to build a large road um one of our major projects. What this could do is allow the city administrator in con consultation with the city uh city attorney to present to the council that maybe we would treat this one a little bit different with this override policy which just adds an additional level of scrutiny when going through the overall procurement process. um what specifically would warrant it and potentially implement it would be if there's advocacy from you know two different groups of residents that are coming to the city city council meetings and asking one side and the other uh this could potentially be implemented. Um it also could uh be put in as well when there's a protest that's given for an individual that is bidding on it but also wants to uh wants to challenge maybe the one that was selected. anytime there is heightened scrutiny from either a vendor or the public um or it's just more of a high-profile uh procurement process that we're about to go through. Um this would be something that could be tapped at the front end or at any point in between when we're out to bid or going into the bidding process uh to be implemented and just have that heightened level of transparency and also uh review. But um the policy as presented tonight uh we'd like to have once again this one last one uh for the for the action items to be reviewed by the city attorney and brought back to the full city council. Uh the department's available for any questions

on this but more than happy to help where I can. Thank you. Any questions or comments or discussion from the council? Right. Seeing none, then again uh recommendation is recommendation to have the city attorney review and then bring back identify any changes if necessary and then bring that back to the full city council for review. Wishes to make a motion for that made by council member Alers. Is there a second on that? Council member Nyian. All those in favor? Uh well motion's on the floor. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor please say I. I. I.

Anyone oppose or abstain? All right. The motion passes. All right, moving on. Then number four, the request to draft resolution regarding the vacancy in Missouri House District 110, official notification to the governor, city administrator Lee.

All right, thank you, mayor. Uh, so this one uh should be pretty quick, but this is to cover a potential resolution and get direction from the council tonight as to whether the city uh city staff should draft said resolution. But back in December of 2025, we had as a city found out that our state representative um House District 110 had resigned from their post to take a position in the federal government. Uh from there uh we had a discussion about potentially lacking representation at the state level for the entire legislative session. Um after a little bit of research during that discussion, we had found that there is this provision in state law that says if you if the governor gets notice of the resignation um that the individual governor himself has to do a rid of election promptly uh and at no delay. So the city originally thought that we would if we could send this letter in a resolution form, we could actually serve as that notification and potentially speed up the process of having a special election for that position. Um that said, the department did recommend that we go ahead and do a little research on that just to make sure that we would serve as the official notification to the governor. After uh a little bit of review there, we did find that in there's two different instances where the the actual notice is presented. One, if it's out of session, which in this case it was, uh if the individual resigns, then that person must let the governor know themselves in writing. Um and then if it's during the session itself then the speaker or the head of the senate would go in and provide that notice to the governor. From there the governor does contact and write a rid of election to the um governing authority the election authority that Wildwood in this case is encompassed in. So it'd be St. Louis County and then the next general election is when they're defined to have that special election. So when after doing some research, we found that the special election originally was hoping possibly to be able to be on the April election um it ended up having to

be in the November election anyways. So this November we'll actually see a special election at the same time as a general election for that position. Uh it's an unfortunate truth that we will have uh lack of representation in the district 110, but the committee did still discuss this as we would like to have our position known and the idea tonight would be a request from the council to draft the resolution um notifying the governor of this uh this absence um the resignation itself and then just bring up some of the items that are going to be on the docket for the state legislature this year and then just pointing out the concern of the city council that the city will not have that representation considering district 110. and is mostly Wildwood and does include Clarkson Valley, but 85% of voters are in Wildwood. Thank you.

Thank you. Any discussion, questions, comments from the council? Council member Anberg. So, I guess I just have a general question and I don't really have an answer to this question and it's um do we really want to be um approving a resolution requesting the governor to do something that he can't really do anyway in terms of getting us a um a new state representative sooner than a general election in November? So, it's just kind of a general question. I don't necessarily feel strongly about this one way or the other. I'd be interested in any um input from any of my council member counterparts.

And this is something too where we could have one of we could kind of have one or two or both. U if we would like uh if the council wants to put together a resolution that more so just expresses the you know the concern of not having the state representative spot filled. um that could be something we have and that would be obviously something that's you know public record searchable by uh any resident that would like to see it and also just get a you know shared perspective from the council. The other side of that would be having that transmitted to them to the governor. That said, we have determined that it will not affect the actual timeline for the special election. So we could make that decision now if we just want to draft the resolution more as a position statement. I think that'd be acceptable too. Um it is I think it is worthwhile to at least let the governor know but in an official capacity just so you more the logistics when we do this typically when this letter does get sent out typically you will get a response um and if we identify possibly in that resolution that we we know it might not impact the timeline maybe this is something where we look at um can that timeline be changed within the state legislature maybe that's something we can work with our state rep our legislative consultant on something like that. Council member Marshall,

I think [clears throat] since the the new governor changed the rules to do it this way. I'm not saying it's a bad way to do it, but I just think that he didn't hesitate to call us when he was running for election to see if we'd all come out and support him. I don't think we should hesitate in sending a letter saying, "Hey, we don't feel we're being represented. Maybe he'll change his his direction down the road and decide that you can't go a whole year without that." that. So, I think by just being on the record, I don't know that he'll change that, but he did change the point that they don't appoint somebody to it now without going through the primary and then to go to the regular election. So, I I don't think it could hurt us any. If anything, I think it's fair that we let them know that we feel we're not being represented. Council member Mabberry and then Rambo.

I'm uh looking at more of a productive slant that I took that whatever date the resigned individual notified, I take it that we can show that they did it in writing at some point. So whatever the date was that this individual elected to put it in writing that they had resigned, could the governor acting with all forthright expediency um provided under his own changed rules the opportunity to make a productive change so that we could get representation for this year where whatever the decision was for the person who resigned and the combined decision for the governor to change the rules has now effectively locked us out. Did that make sense? Did that make sense?

Could you could you repeat that again, Mr. Mayberry? Sorry. I just want to not the same way. It was pretty con Well, I see by the by the actions of the person who resigned and the date that they decided to dane privilege everyone else with the fact that they were in officially going to resign and then the governor having changed the rules. Um if either that individual had put it in writing sooner and or if the governor even changing the rules had acted sooner, could we have representation for the city of Wildwood during 2026 where we're not going to get any now?

That makes sense. Okay. So I can answer that. So there is the timeline of when they would have had to give that notice would have been last year. And the thing that has to be followed as well is that you have to meet the filing deadline as well. So, if we were, let's just think about it in general terms, before the general election um of 2025 in November, if it was, if the resignation was filed before u the filing deadline, then it could have been done if the mayor uh not the mayor, the governor was given the due the due notice and then called that rid of election. That said, since it was past that timeline, I think it was early December when it was decided. um even if it was, you know, in December, I mean, uh in early November, you still couldn't have done it because it has to be on a general election. So, no matter what, anytime you're filling a vacancy of the state house um or state senate, you're going to see that special election take place in November rather than the um the traditional date of uh April or or the primary date,

then I agree with the city administrator that it's an effective position letter. Yeah, I uh I don't see any other hands up. Uh, Council Member Rambo, go ahead.

Shame on you. Um, yeah, I agree with Ed that this is a two-way street between the governor's office and and and Wildwood and um even if uh even if that effort to point that out uh fails, my understanding is that we can explicitly state the hot button issues before that that Wildwood would like to see addressed in the coming term cuz frankly in from my op in my opinion, we didn't get much out of the representation anyway. way nothing, you know, we were on the short, we drew the short straw on everything, every issue that was up before um the state legislature. And so just letting the governor know, hey, your constituents out here have A, B, and C issues that we're really interested in. And I think that might be helpful. So I I I wholeheartedly endorse this with that, you know, taking that perspective if if we can. Yeah. Council member Dodwell.

No, I think the consensus Yeah. Oh, yeah. No, unfortunately not. Um, it seems like the consensus, and I would agree with it, is obviously we're going to send a communication. So, I'm sure the governor gets a lot of communication. So, you know, we are going to get a few seconds uh in front of the governor when they read that letter or staff members. So, I would say, you know, it's a concern. We know it's not going to change anything at this point given that, you know, it's going to be the regular election date, but this would be an opportunity to state the um bills that are of concern for our city. Um because the more I think we and other cities can continue to repeat the message that there are bills that are of concern that affect local municipalities, that'll certainly be a good use of the time when we send that letter. But yeah, I would say that it's it's more just for the record as was stated here. uh because later on this year when there are some bills that might affect city especially if it's negatively um it's good to say that we were on the record as you know not having that representation. So okay with the consensus here that we have um then in that case uh we have a motion for this. Oh we do? Yeah, we we had discussion. I just want to make sure. Colleen, who made the motion?

I don't. Oh, we don't have it. Okay, great. That's why I asked. So, Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Marshall. Uh, looks like we've had a bit of discussion. Anything else before we vote? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? All right, that motion passes. We'll move on to the next section B, Planning and Parks Committee, storm water management. Number one, next steps.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of city council, at the last planning and parks committee meeting, a discussion was held about the next steps for our storm water erosion efforts. And those next steps uh included the following. A storm water management master plan, a set of projects, and the basin retrofits. As you'll recall, the city council endorsed the basin retrofits as part of fiscal year 2026 2026's budget. To that end, as part of the discussion at the December meeting, the committee members came up with three actions that the that they would like city council to consider. The first is to forestall any further action on the management plan acknowledging that it is something that needs to be considered in the future but not in 2026. Secondly to issue a request for qualifications relative to the basin retrofits. As you know Mr. Wagner, the engineer that has been doing the analysis of the basin retrofits, did not prepare engineered plans for permitting purposes and authorizations. The committee authorized the um recommendation for the request for qualifications. And then finally, the committee authorized the departments to begin the contacts and negotiations with the homeowners associations where the basins are located, getting an understanding of their willingness. We know in past they have been, but it's been months since we've talked with them and begin laying the framework for that next step. So tonight, the committee is presenting to the city council for endorsement the three actions that have been described and identified on page three its letter.

Mr. Mayor, the department would like a a motion and second to proceed forward. Okay, hearing that, uh, anyone that wishes to go ahead and make that motion, uh, Council Member Dodwell and Council Member Farmer, uh, with the motion there and we have discussion. So, anyone have any questions? Council member CR, [clears throat] what's our budget on this, Joe?

U, the fiscal year 2026 capital improvements program has $500,000. As was described in the letter from the committee as well as in previous discussions, the engineering work and the permitting will probably take most of 2026. So we have adequate funds to do that that component. And then this year also we will receive our first aotment of the $300,000 that come that is um earmarked from Proposition S that the Metropolitan St. Louis Sew District and that's in addition to the 500. Yes, sir. And how many basins are we going to do?

Actually, the committee recommended that we do all of them. So, seven in total. Seven in total. And um you got to guess on when work would start. Well, again, we've got to do a question. Yeah. I think under the best case scenario, we're looking at 2027. Okay. Great. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. Anyone else have any other questions? Otherwise, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone? Right. The motion passes. Next item number two, accessible wrap repairs playground structure at Community Park.

Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of the city council, as you may recall, this past year, the planning and parks committee brought forward to city council a resolution to have repairs made to the accessible ramp at the playground in Community Park. The assessment was done in conjunction with our parks contractor and a decking company that act had done the original installation. Those repairs were being completed and an assessment was done of a portion of the ramp that was not necessarily thought to be problematic. Well, of course, it is and the company identified the problem. It was verified again by one of the parks contractors and a department of planning and parks requested in a proposal. That proposal is part of the letter that's been submitted by the committee for tonight's consideration by city council. That amount is approximately $11,000 taken in conjunction with the previous work that exceeds the contract that was part of the resolution authorized by city council. The committee endorsed proceeding forward knowing that the accessible ramp has not been in use now for approximately um 7 months and it is the intent to have the ramp accessible by the start of the spring season. So tonight, the department is respectfully requesting via the committee that it authorize the preparation of an amended ordinance to accommodate the work by California deck systems on the accessible ramp at Community Park. Thank you.

All right. Uh Council Member Rambo, is that a motion or do you Yes, I would be happy to make that motion.

Thanks. Is there a second on the motion made by Council Member Dodwell? We have discussion on the floor. Any questions? Council member Mabry. whatever classifications I think. Well, as you know, in terms of the hierarchy, the city administrator has an has authority to sign contracts up to $10,000. Between $10,000 and $25,000, the council has the authority to approve expenditures uh by resolution. When taken in combination, it's the same project, an accessible ramp that serves the twotory slide. We're at 17,000 with the original. The 11,000 takes us to almost $28,000. So that's why an ordinance is necessary and an amended contract.

You're welcome, sir. Any other questions, discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. I oppose or abstain. All right, that motion passes. Thank you. Move on to miscellaneous. Anyone have anything on miscellaneous? Council member Farm. Yeah, I think I'm gonna enlist Mr. Young's help on this one. This is the correct time, John. Is that right? All right. Uh, so John, do you want to do you want me to try to explain what we're going to do or do you want to try to explain what we're going to do or what I would like to do? I will let you take the lead and I'll provide guidance where needed.

Okay. Um, so, uh, generally speaking, I would like to I think it's make a motion to reconsider an issue that we talked about last month. um specifically the uh ordinance for the White Buffalo contract. Um we've got we had a couple members that weren't able to be here. Um Miss McCutchen was in the hospital and Mr. Galani was also out and so from a procedural standpoint um you know there I think that's the right move or we were talking about a different this is one of those complicated rules things that are a little difficult on ramp,

right? Yeah. So the the issue we discussed is that the reconsideration would not have the same meaning because the contract would not be able to be considered in its current state just from a practical perspective. So a motion to prepare and present at the next meeting a new contract would be a more appropriate action. Okay. So then that is what we would that is what I would like to do. Now is that be I don't believe it's not on the agenda though. So would that be it is not it's not a substantive motion. It's a procedural motion for substantive action at a subsequent meeting. Okay. So, what's that then? Then, uh, if the council chooses, what is that motion?

So, the mo the motion would be effectively, I guess, and tell me if I'm getting this off track on this, John. So the motion would be basically to have ostensibly a new contract to different contract language drawn up that would then return in February for theoretically the full council's consideration. So an adjust so not really I mean obviously we can't do anything with the original one because we've missed our window but I think um I know I've gotten a lot of questions [snorts] and concerns and phone calls about this specific issue and there's been a whole lot of confusion. So um I think that's not to say that we obviously aren't going to continue to have the conversations we're having with uh incorporating bow hunters and things like that. Um, but I think it's important with the amount of money and everything else that we've invested and and I think it's important because we had members who weren't able to vote on an issue that affects the entire city um that that's probably the best way to do it. So my my assumption would be if we can uh reach out to the folks at White Buffalo and say, "Hey, is there is there a hybrid version that we can do here? I don't think it's probably realistic that we can get the calling program back in where it was supposed to be. Um, but I do think we can probably continue our work so we aren't losing the several hundred,000 worth of work in progress that we've made.

Okay. So therefore, according to city attorney, you can make that motion on the miscellaneous. Now, is that like a reconsideration? Is there a voting requirement for that or is that just a majority? This isn't a reconsideration. It would be a new contract. Oh, it would be a new one. I see. Okay. So then, um, if that's uh what you wish to do, then are you making that motion now? Yep. Okay. And then do you have a second, Council Member Dodwell?

Yep. Uh, yeah, we have the motion on the floor. So, we can have discussion at this time. Council member Dodwell to involves your butt. Now, I do have a question because would this motion be in conflict with the

motion that uh did pass at the last council meeting referring to the admin and public works committee. There was a referral to consider bow hunting as an option. Uh so it's in future endeavors. Uh so I don't see it as conflict. It's similar but not in conflict. All right. Um, Council Member Rambo CR and Marshall.

Yeah. First, just a terminology correction. Um, White Buffalo does culling. They don't hunt. And I know you I know you know that. I'm just putting it out there for for everyone else. Um the um the season the archery season ends January 15th and because there's a clear bright line between culling and hunting um there can't be any further activity by any bow hunters after the 15th of January but there can be um there can be white buffalo culling because they do it at night. they have complete permission to do it at their discretion, but they can't they they wouldn't go past March 1st. And if we want to do something with them, it would be my understanding of your proposal is maintenance. Um the the maintenance in the two u areas that have already been partially culled down to our interim target. Um that's what they would concentrate on. So it'd be a fraction of the cash outlay. Uh but it wouldn't we wouldn't lose any ground, but we certainly wouldn't gain any ground. And so, um, it's evidently we need a new contract, but the problem is if we vote on this in February, even if we do two votes, they would have to be queued up because they're in demand. And so, I don't know if the time would work out for them to come in and do the maintenance work. And so, it sounds as though we can't rework the existing contract. Um, and so we have to do a new one, but I'm not sure how practical it's going to be to try to do that. So I guess the question is between Mr. Farmer and um and Mr. Young.

Yeah. I mean I I would look at it this way like I I think that whatever we can do if we can try not to lose ground, I think that's great. Absolutely. I I also think it's important that, you know, while we're certainly going to address this uh utilizing bow hunters in the future, I mean, having having been here when we did this the first time,

it it took us several years to get this thing figured out. So, I don't know that it's realistic that we're going to be able to number one, I don't know that it's realistic at all to just have bow hunters handle this for us just based on the logistics of the city and things like that. But, that's what we're looking into. Um, but I think in the in the meantime if we can do some [cough] excuse me, some base level maintenance on the areas that we've already worked on and I don't know, maybe even look into um getting the new areas that we were looking at trying to do better tied down so that we can be more prepared on this and we're not, you know, kind of constantly behind the eightball trying to figure this out at the last minute. I I think that would be a good thing. I also think it's an important thing to be able to get some level of understanding because we, you know, we had our distance surveys done the last couple years. Then we obviously spent, you know, money to do this drone survey which ostensibly confirm the distance study meth. Um, so as we go through this process, I think as you know, as we all know, like the it's not like the deers are going to sit around and wait for us to figure this thing out. They're going to keep doing what they do. And so, you know, we we probably need to get an an understanding of what that growth looks like. So, a sec, you know, another distance study, things like that that can help us manage through as we go is important because whether we wind up continuing with White Buffalo down the road or we have a bow hunter partner or there's some other person or whatever the case may be, we're we're going to have to have an understanding of the numbers and where they're at. And so, right now, we are kind of just sitting here not figuring out anything. And that's not good for anybody.

So, how can we have a contract in February? I'm I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just try as a practical matter. I would love to see, you know, see us not lose ground because we spent a lot of money and so on and so forth. I'm not sure we can make that happen if we don't even start voting on it until February. And so I don't know what that contract that you're suggesting would look like other than counting with some accepted methodologies that that we've already done um to see how much ground they're losing or

I would suggest and I could be wrong Mr. Lee, you can probably correct me on this, but you know when we were going to approve when we had the vote to approve the contract last month, we had a plan in place, places that these guys were looking to go and and utilize and things like that. All of that is still available to us. And so I don't I mean I don't know that they can do this. I don't know that they can't. I would like to give them the opportunity to try to figure it out. And I would like to have us on a on a forward-leaning trajectory than just sitting back and waiting. If they come back and they go, "Hey, there's nothing we can do this year." Then great. It doesn't cost us any money. But if they can do something, I think that's great, too. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, okay. Thank you.

Okay. And and I just want to make sure everyone keeps in mind. So discussion is really just about the next me bringing this to the next meeting. Don't want us to get into debate into you know about the pros and cons because it's not an uh an item on the agenda and and certainly there is a lot of sensitivity to that item. So therefore just about the motion on the floor. Yeah.

Council member Grants. I'm not here to debate it, but I don't I don't want this council to circumvent what we did last meeting when we voted down the contract with White Buffalo. Now, I'm confused legally uh what we're trying to do here. Uh a reconsideration, you say it's not a reconsideration, but on the other hand, we're bringing this back up. Uh wouldn't that be under the definition of a reconsideration? Now reconsideration would be the exact same bill that had previously been acted upon which was rejected and Okay. Yeah. Then what are we doing here?

This would be a different contract out of necessity. Are we putting another ordinance together? That would be the case. Yes, sir. So that's what we're going to do. And how is that going to differ from the first one? The agreement will differ. You mean the date? the date some of the terms because as a practical matter the agreement so isn't that a reconsideration it's not the same contract it's a I understand it's a distinction it's it's a minor distinction but it is a distinction okay uh the only people that could do a reconsideration I'm because uh you're ambiguous is a people that voted no on the issue last Not.

No. Cuz I voted yes. Cannot vote on a reconsideration. No, sir. Okay. So, where's the line drawn here? Line drawn on a motion for reconsideration is a motion for reconsideration under the current iteration of the city code is by anyone who is in the majority. The majority is not the same as the prevailing side. So, the majority were no were the yes votes, but the prevailing side was the no votes. Right. The city code says majority, not prevailing side. Well, years ago when I was on the council, it was always the uh uh the group of that did not win the the bill, the ordinance, and that's what's consistent with Robert's rules of order.

So, are you are the rules changing now for this? We've been consistent with the application of this rule and have actually applied this rule in this manner twice in the last. So, are you saying that the yes votes can make a motion for reconsideration? Yes, sir. Well, so if you make a motion for reconsideration, your yes vote should be a no vote then, right? If you're going to change your vote, I'm I'm I'm sorry. I'm confused. Well, if I'm going to make a reconsideration vote, I'm going to say the opposite. I want a new vote. I I voted wrong. I want to change my vote. Right. Not necessarily. Well, that's how it's always worked. Forget it. I'm confused. We'll come back to that. This

does not make sense to me. I'm going to come back to that in a second. Let's let council member Marshall um speak. That was changed by Mayor Bolan and this council. So the way it is done by Robert's rules of order no longer is done that way based Robert rules. They the city adopted a new set. So, okay. What else?

My my question is the fact that if it's going to be done and it is one of these few things that's on a timely basis, another suggestion would be that the city administrator contact them, tighten up the dates, tighten up the money. There' be a lot less money and then have a uh contract come back. They call special meeting. So, you're you're not waiting a month. And you know that that's pretty easy to do especially when you have something that's time bearing. I mean you're given uh put four to five weeks in there. It's not going to help or process any and nor help them try to do it. But that would be another option uh to look at is to have it prepared with the right dollar amounts, the right dates and what can be done and then be in a position to instead of waiting until February just call special meeting. We've done that over the years many many times. Thank you. Well, uh, we have Council Member Attenburg and Council Member Mry.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, question for the city administrator. What's the earliest possible date in your estimation where we could actually execute a contract with White Buffalo? We'd have to contact White Buffalo to get to affirm the the availability, but in theory it would I I would say if we wait till the February 9th meeting, um that would most likely get us outside the window considering there's a twoe baiting period that's needed. The one thing that just thinking out loud here that the if you focus in on we because we sent them home after the last meeting. We sent them home and did not were not able to do site visits in the southeast one area where we are going to be expanding in 2026. That said, we do have uh repeat property owners that were in the any one and any two regions that um did sign up that could be a possibility that have already been, you know, visited and made sure that they're they're safe. Um, but I think it's going to be dependent on the the consultant on whether or not they can actually carry out the work.

All right. Um, what would be the end date on the contract? It definitely before March. I mean, it it would probably go midFebruary if any. I It would be It definitely won't be the same amount of time because we had 27 days scheduled before and there's just not enough time for that. So, what what in your estimation would be maybe the length of time on this contract, number of days? I I don't have that number available to me. I would say with two weeks of baiting, I mean I it's hard to say based on it'll be dependent on what they're able to do. Okay. If they're able to do anything.

Now, so there's a certain amount of costs that are incurred regardless of how long this contract is. So if we're doing a very short form contract, we still end up bearing the same setup cost as if we had a longer contract. So, this becomes a less coste effective contract because it's shorter in nature. Is that a fair statement?

That'd be fair. I would say that the just the way it's broken out because they're a nonprofit, you are paying you're paying the pretty much their hourly rate that in each individual's paid. Um, you're paying for the flight. That's where the big expenditures are going to come in. You're going to be paying for the flight. You're going to be paying for the um the hotel or the the lodging and the pdium to feed them while they're here. But other than that, the other expenditures come from the actual payment of their hourly work which is done you know if there's less days you'll see that decrease. Uh the main return the main efficiency here inefficiency would be just that flight and the overall lodging depending on if they have to book a hotel um that's at an astronomical rate and book a flight this late in the day because usually it's planned out months in advance.

All right. Very good. And then I guess the other question is just to sort of clarify uh this um reconsideration motion. Um the city attorney I think explained it well that currently the way we have it in our code it's the majority vote that is able to um make a motion for reconsideration. But aren't we looking at legislation that would change that so that it becomes the prevailing majority which is what uh Mr. CR alluded to? That is my understanding. Yes. Yeah, we do have a All right. Very good. Okay. Um, that's the only question I have for right now. Questions, I should say.

Uh, Council Member Mabberry, do you have anything? It was really just following accidentally exactly in line with council member Marshall and that it they the critical nature of of not losing an entire year and in effect u having uh having a victory of losing ground if that's considered a victory by some uh I don't but taking any steps possible to keep from wasting the valuable one month. That was wondering if there's any means to be able to call what's apparently called a special session uh that we would recover some of the damage that's been caused by uh influences outside of this council in being able to salvage some of the that term that gets used for the multiplication of of the young each year. I can't remember the name. Starts with an A, I think. Um, of having all the dos that are going to be um born this season compared to what we could salvage in culling this year. That's all.

Councilman Brown. Yeah. Uh, just one more quick question. So with a shortened contract, which appears to be less cost effective than a typical longer contract that we were looking at before in that time period, is there any way for us to calculate the actual number of deer that would be taken or potentially taken?

I would assume if they're able to do it, then they're they'll give you an estimate of what what is possible. But as of right now, depend it'll depend on how many days they can be out here and what the property access looks like. Um, that would be a big consideration here because even if you have them out here, if you don't have the property access, then you won't be able to carry out the operation. But that said, there are people that have submitted forms who would there's a lot of question marks, but that said, we can get that information. So, it is potentially possible we could end up having a minimal number of deer taken because of the shortened nature of this contract. Most definitely less than what we were originally scheduling, but we'd have to figure that out. All right. Thank you. And council member Dodd.

So I'm going to speak louder. Um the let's get information back from the vendor themselves who are the professionals at doing this rather than making assumptions on what could or couldn't be reduced in total cost time required etc. So um I'd rather be working with a a real number uh at a special meeting. Do we need to adjust our um request to include having a special meeting via Zoom if that's more convenient for everyone?

Don't believe that necessary. I mean, the council could call a special meeting, but um I I think based on what you said here, I mean, I feel like there's some unknowns. I'm not a fan of kind of last minute or at least I didn't hear about this till this got brought up. So, whenever in my years of being on council, somebody kind of puts something out there without having the ability to think through it, it I've always realized sometimes bad decisions get made. Um, so I think it's important to get as much facts, as much information, um, and then there would be a full discussion by the council as to what's in front of them. So, uh, that

does that mean we can't have a special meeting and so therefore we would have to wait until February.

I don't know when we'll have that information. So, I think that the city administrator has to do some work there and then that meeting could be called. I think if we made a date right now, I don't know that we would be able to u meet that date. Uh, do you know for sure? And you know I think the city administrator may find out if they are committed to other projects for example and they say they're not able to do anything then it may not be necessary to have that discussion. So I think it's important that um we get the facts the information and then the council can have a full debate or discussion around the item there. and um and we owe it to the citizens too given the interest that we've seen.

Okay. So then um you uh what's that? Uh no nothing. I'll say um once we get it, we can distribute to the council if there's anything there. All right. Um any anybody have anything else? So we have a motion on the floor. Okay. Everyone clear on the motion? Is there a second on the motion? I believe we did. Yes. Any other motion? Uh, any other discussion? All right. Read the motion. All right. Colleen, can you go ahead and read the motion? The motion I have is to prepare a new contract for the next meeting for council's consideration with White Buffalo.

Okay. So, the motion has been read and there's uh it's been made. Um, so we've had discussion and we're approaching the time again. uh that would be coming up at the next meeting. So all those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. There. Anyone that opposes? Opposed. Opposed. Given that we have uh several mixed uh votes here, why don't we do a roll call? Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan. Council member Attenburg, no. Council member Tier, no. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Rablooski, no. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes.

Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bocker, no. Council member Crayons, no. Council member Vanic, no. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, yes. What's the total? 10. Yes. Six. No. All right. So then that motion passes. Um, anything else under miscellaneous. All right. Can we get a motion to adjourn the work session? Made by council member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Attenburg. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. The work session is adjourned. It is currently 6:31. So we do have our regular council meeting. and I will ask if we could just take a few minutes uh to allow council members to stretch. Uh so we'll start up at about let's see yeah 6:37. Thank you. They could have timed that better or worse or whatever.

All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to our city council meeting for Monday, January 12th. It is now 6:37. We'll get started. So, Colleen, can you please do the role? Mayor Geritano, present. Council member Farmer here. Council member Dodwell. Council member Nyan. Council member Utenberg here. Council member Tradier here. Council member Mabberry here. Council member Rablooski here. Council member Preston here. Council member Marshall present. Council member McCutchen

here. Council member Rambo here. Council member Bockart present. Via Zoom. Council member Crayons here. Council member Vanic here. Council member Alers here. Council member Galani. Okay, great. Thank you. If you can please stand, if you can join me with for the pledge of allegiance. Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for it stands one indivisible and for

All right. Thank you. Uh I do not have any uh mayor's announcements for this evening. Uh we'll move on. Approval of minutes will be part of the consent agenda. And now we'll proceed with public participation. So, if you wish to speak, please make sure you fill out a speaker card and give it to our city clerk. When your name is called, please come forward, state your name and your ward number. If you do not know your ward, please state your address. Uh we do ask that you uh please follow the guidelines and limit your speech to 5 minutes or less. And we will let you know as you approach that time limit. And if you have any questions for a member of the council, just identify the official that you would like to respond. The official will make note of it. And at the conclusion of public participation, any official who chooses to respond will have three minutes to do so. They may also choose to respond to your questions after tonight's meeting. Uh please be respectful in making your remarks, interrupting others, and using profane or abusive language are prohibited. And we want to thank you in advance for following these guidelines. And we have the first speaker, please.

Tom Mitchell wants to speak on deer management.

Hi, I'm Tom Mitchell. I think you all know who I am in Ward 3, the best ward. Look, uh, obviously you just made that vote. We're not too happy about it. We're extremely disappointed, especially Mr. Farmer for making the motion. You have a group of people here who are dedicated to saving this city millions of dollars in unnecessary spending with a group of qualified bow hunters that multiply that times 10. They're willing to do this for the city. I'm extremely disappointed, Mr. Mayor. I really like you a lot, but ultimately this will be on you and I'm just letting you know that we understand we're in the first quarter of an early football game and we know how to keep pressure on and keep composure in the pocket to make the right passes. And if need be, we will get this on a ballot so that White Buffalo never sets foot on Wildwood soil again. It's irresponsible for this council to take on a vote like that. You can use the procedures and blink your eyes and give me that body language all you want, Mr. Farmer, but it's wrong and it's irresponsible. Another irresponsible thing is after the vote in December, Councilman Rambo is drinking with white buffalo in a bar. unacceptable. What were you discussing? Who bought the drinks? Are you that close to White Buffalo that you can do that? It angers us. It's not right. In the meantime, I have a plan that I presented to the council on December 19th that we presented to the council. We uploaded it to your website. We've asked for a meeting. We asked for it to be put on the agenda. you ignored it and instead come in this council and then immediately try to invite white buffalo back. It's wrong. It's just simply wrong and we the people are not going to stand

for it. So our mission is very simple. We will selectively reduce and manage wildwoods deer herd through safe, ethical, lawful hunting practices for free. We'll promote ecological balance. will protect property, will reduce the deer vehicle collisions, which your program has not done, and will maintain a sustainable, healthy deer herd for this generation and for generations to come. What are the methods? archery, crossbow, firearms where they're currently permitted, and the use of mineral assault stations, which draws deer into good effective bow range. For 2026, we want to focus our targeted energies on all the sections outside of any one and any two. Who are the key leaders? Number one, the city. Number two, the Wildwood Conservation Alliance. Number three, Certified Bow Hunters of St. Louis County will manage team leaders comprised of bow hunters. 40 to 60 bow hunters ready. Each bow hunter will have full identification, contact information and occupation, hunting experience in their kill records in the past. We will require certain types of equipment, certain practice protocols. We will interview them with the right persona so they have the right disposition to handle any conflict. And they'll have references of which we have provided to you at least four or five references of every surrounding community that has a hunting program that doesn't spend millions of dollars

of taxpayer money or money you receive for internet access to take care of this deer problem. It's not complicated. We have one minute left.

Thank you. Criminal background checks, liability insurance, mandatory reporting of hunts and kills. These are all the requirements we'll have. Limited shot distances, elevated tree stands or saddle, and they're always lined up to a tree for their safety. All carcasses will be discreetly removed and no remains left behind just like Lieutenant Colonel Mike Sherman does in Bowwin, Sunset Hills, Eureka, and the other surrounding communities that don't spend millions of dollars. We're committing to kill 330 deer this year. 330. We're committing to kill 280 deer in 2027. What are the requirements from the city? the same thing you've done for White Buffalo. Gain access. Okay. If you want to accept that plan, we're ready. If not, get ready for a real battle.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Teresa Clark speaking on recording data for deer management.

Hi, Teresa Clark. Ward one. And um I am going to change a little bit of what I was going to say based on your the work session, but um yeah, firstly I want to thank you, the council, the staff, the the mayor, the um city attorney for all that that you do and preparing for these meetings and for considering all of the proper data before coming to decisions that you make for your votes. Um, from experience, I know that there are specific programs such as the deer management program that the council and staff members must invest hundreds of hours in research, consulting, and knowledge with knowledgeable and impartial experts. Those scientific findings are compiled into a comprehensive professional report that addresses all established weighted criteria including safety, environment, conservation, sustainability, cost, maintenance, stakeholder impact and so on. While the basic arithmetic is um in the benefit cost analysis may seem straightforward, the overall equation is very complex when accounting for all the dependent and independent variables with their respected respective weights. This takes time, resources, and skill that I know that you do every time you have a project. I completely support the proposal made in the recent admin public works meeting that all the factual factually accepted data gathered using reliable repeatable robust and in control test test methods should be saved to serve as the foundation for future legislative decisions unless it's later determined that the method was

flawed or not properly followed. This will reduce waste, result in a more accurate decision-making pro process, improve communication, and provide appropriately appropriate data efficiency. This might be considered a policy in our master plan as we go forward. Any effective problem-solving initiative should c should include a root cause analysis and benefit cost assessment grounded in six sigma principles as I understand is being scientifically calculated for the deer management culling project utilizing hunters in the maintenance portion. Such an approach ensures the council is equipped to quantitatively meet the primary goal and identify the safest, highest quality, most efficient and effective solution for the entire city. I trust that all the council members here are thoroughly familiar with Robert's rules, our city our our our city's rules of procedure and codes, our city charter and master plan. Serving on the city council demands more than simply attending meetings and casting votes based on personal judgment. It requires knowledge of all our city legislature, careful review of materials provided by the staff, independent research, attentive engagement with constituents, and deliberate consideration of the city's long-term sustainability prior to making any decision or vote. Decisions made without careful consideration may lead to deleterious or unintended outcomes. The citizens of Wild would greatly

appreciate your dedication to the importance and responsibility of voting.

One minute. Yes.

Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. So what is our goal with this deer deer management program? We have to think about that our primary objective should be an ongoing improvement within the city rather than prioritizing any kind of a trophy hunt. I grew up as a hunter also but well I know that many people did and that does not make us um sharpshooters. It's crucial to identify problems, uncover root causes, streamline processes, reduce waste, promote effective communication, and develop a comprehensive plan within the legislated budget. Solutions should then be proposed, implemented, and followed up to ensure successful outcomes. I appreciate all of you and all the time that you put into all of these decisions. I know how hard it is and I know how much I studied for each one of these. So, thank you for doing that. And um just remember as you are getting ready to vote for any of these that there's a lot more to it than just what you hear from the outside. You have to go and dig deep.

Thank you. Right. Thank you. Next speaker, Gary, excuse me, Gary Wigger, city county merger.

Okay. Uh, my name is Gary Wigger. I live in Ward 3. And first, I just want to mention, um, one of you board members up here, uh, was a heck of a great rebounder, a fierce competitor, and if I could bring up a story, Cliff, in 1974, I missed a shot, tried to follow it up, and I took a hard elbow to the ear. And so, um, Cliff was a very good player. And you know, Cliff, if you put a yard sign up in your yard of mine, I will let all bygones be bygones. Just letting you know about that. Um, in all seriousness, I wish to talk about uh city county merger. Um, I was just contacted by uh Saint Anne Mayor Amy Pelker and she advised that at a recent uh business journal article uh attorney and developer Jar Jared Hol from Reezman Burgerer uh PC was going to make a push again this year for city county merger. Last year I went down to Jefferson City, testified against the bill and we were able to keep that from um even being voted on or coming out of committee. uh some of the scary things that I read about in that article. I might have been in that article on an interview he did because then I researched this guy a little bit. And so he says he wants to start out early and merge the sewer districts, but here's the scary stuff that comes up that he wants to do. He wants to merge our school districts eventually and then he wants to merge our police departments. Um, having been a police officer for 35 years and I was also an investigator for the St. Louis public schools while I was on the police department, I guarantee you folks, we do not want to merge with the city. We do not want to merge with the school districts. And even though I collect a great pension, um, right now the pension, uh, there's three retirees for one active in regards to the pension. This is something that we in

the county here do not want to have to take up. Um, as a treasure of stop city county merger, I will work against that. Um, and I hope to be elected and to be able to uh be a champion against that in Jefferson City if you so decide to send me there. So, thank you. And if Cliff wants to make some comments about me, I'll go ahead and take them.

Wow. All right. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Any other speakers? All right. Anyone online that wishes to speak, please use the raised hand feature. Otherwise, uh thank you for everyone that participated during tonight's public participation. Uh we'll move forward. We do have one public hearing. So, um believe we need to get that uh read into the record. Is that correct, Director Vunich, or do you want to mention a few things? Mr. Mayor, if the city clerk could read the request into the record, I'll do a brief presentation then.

Okay. So, we'll declare the then that public hearing open and have the city clerk read the uh hearing.

PZ2-03 amended. Tom and Leslie North in care of Steven and Abby North, 1682 Manchester Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. A request for the change in the zoning district designation designation of this 0.4 acre property that is located on the south side of Manchester Road, west of Village Hills Parkway, Street address 16828 Manchester Road, St. Louisis County locator number 24V 630341 from the C8 planned commercial district ordinance number 1750 to the amended C8 planned commercial district which would then allow for its use as a single family dwelling along with retaining the existing provisions for professional offices as well as extending the time frame for its connection to public sanitary sewer in lie of the individualized ized household treatment system that currently serves the site. Proposed use professional offices in a single family dwelling.

Director Vunage.

Mr. Mayor and members of city council, the planning and zoning commission has provided for your consideration tonight its letter of recommendation regarding the change to this CA plan commercial district. The change focuses on two items. First, the current owners of the property would like to convert the resident, convert the building back to a single family dwelling as well as retain the uses that were authorized for it in 2003. Those uses were professional offices. Additionally, in 2003, a argument was made that was supported by the city that given the distances to the public wastewater treatment system that it would be deferred until such time that system became more readily available. Surprisingly, in that period of time, that system has not become more readily available. So as the planning and zoning commission considered both of the items and is recommending the ordinance as presented tonight be amended to accommodate the use of the building for a single family dwelling and again defer the connection to public se until such time it is more readily available within the action of the planning and zoning commission. specific conditions are set forth for that connection and how defi how to define readily available. After public comment, Mr. Mayor, the department will be available to answer any questions regarding the the commission's recommendation report. Thank you.

Thank you. The public hearing is now open. Do we have any speakers? Okay, we do not have any speakers. If there's anyone online that wishes to speak related to the public hearing, please use the raise hand feature. Okay, seeing none, then director Vunage, again, if there are any questions regarding any of the components of the letter of recommendation or any of the items that have been identified in the presentation, the department be glad to answer it. We have any questions? Uh, Council Member CR,

so uh what will it connect to the sewer? Well, in 2003 when the town center plan was percolating along, the department of planning thought it would be within a year or two. It is now 23 years later and the extension of public sewer in the vicinity of this site has not occurred. saying that again in the context of the commission's action there are some um there are some measurable goals or measurable items that would require it once it becomes more readily available. So right but again

I think the the counterweight to all of this is it was a single person office for Miss North who was an all-state agent. So the the load the wastewater load was minimal. Even if it converts to a single family dwelling, it is just a single family. So I think the system can accommodate it. And as part of this with the change in zoning, we are asking for an inspection, make sure it is functional now because that system's pretty old. Um it is, but I know that I can't remember the exact year. I apologize. There were upgrades made to it. You're welcome.

Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, then uh we get a motion to close the public hearing made by Council Member Farmer. Is there a second motion made by Council Member Marshall? All those in favor, please say I. I oppose or abstain.

That public hearing is closed. So, we'll proceed into legislation under unfinished business. We have three bills. If there's no objection, I'd like to request that we read item number one under unfinished business and item number three in mass. Uh the city administrator has pointed out that item number two, bill 3028, there's an amended version, so we'll handle that one separately. So again, if there's any objection, this would be the time. Otherwise, we get a motion for the second reading of bills 3026 and bill 3029 made by council member Farmer, seconded by council member Attenburg. All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

You want to oppose or abstain? Right. Please go ahead and read those two bills for the second time. Bill 3026, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, imposing a temporary moratorum on the processing and issuance of demolition permits during the pendency of the historic preservation commission survey of historic property within the city. Bill 3029, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, approving the reszoning of an 8.05 05 acre tract of land to the R1A 22,000q ft residence district in the R4 7500 square foot district residence district with a planned residential development overlay district PRD which is located at the terminus of West Avenue at its intersection with New College Avenue thereby authorizing a total of 16 single family dwellings on individual lots with common ground areas access accommodations, required public spaces, and storm water management facilities. All being consistent with the planning and zoning commission's letter of recommendation on this matter dated November 3rd, 2025.

Okay. Thank you for that. Director Vunage, do you have anything related to Bill 3026 or 3029 you wish to add? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of city council, the bills remain unchanged from their introduction in December, but if there are any questions regarding either of them, the department would be glad to kind of answer them at this time. Does any member of the council have anything? Council member CR.

Uh what about the low water pressure? again. Um during the discussions on Center Avenue and the city's takeover from a private to public street, the city contacted all of the utilities. One of those utilities, Missouri American Water Company, went ahead and did the upgrade along Center Avenue, and I understand it's improved the circumstances. Also, as part of this bill, which would become ordinance that the final vote is taken tonight, there is a requirement that the developer provide a guarantee that the addition of these units will not decrease or negatively impact water pressure or water flow in this area.

So, my question would be, would we want to pass this until uh that water pressure issue is uh determined? I know Ashley Grove uh there were residents in that area that were losing their pressure and uh uh you know buy a new house and your water pressure is low that's that's not a good thing. The way the structure of the ordinance is is that if the water company were to submit a letter saying that there is a negative impact, the site development plan can't move forward and that's the you will get that then before they Yes, we will get that before any shovel is placed in dirt

and then you can halt it. Certainly what the department would typically do is basically bring the site development plan as presented with the letter saying there's a problem and the planning and zoning commission would not take action or take a negative action. So that situation can be fixed then right if you have low water pressure.

Yes. In fact, the Missouri American Water Company has a long-term plan to address the overall flow volume of potable water not only in the area of West Avenue, Center Avenue, East Avenue, but also over by the community college. There's some fire ramifications as well. The plan when last it was discussed with Missouri American Water Company was at least two to three years out. That was a year or so ago, so it's getting closer and closer. Good. All right. Thanks.

I was just going to add that uh we've we've gotten that from Missouri American Water and I believe that work is related the the water tower that is located off of Shephard Road is the one that provides service to the area and the challenge. And you mentioned Ashley Grove. Nothing's been built there. So, I'm assuming you may have met another neighborhood around there. Yeah, we we are aware and uh [clears throat] just so that everyone knows um you know Missouri American Water has tested it always comes back that it's within the range but obviously on the very low end of the range which um isn't favorable of course if we you know prefer to have stronger water pressure. So, uh, yeah, we are, uh, aware. I believe if we have concerns, too, the fire district would certainly step in if there was an issue where they couldn't get the water they need to, uh, put out, uh, a fire. But, uh, we're looking forward to Missouri American Water following through on that, which should be a big improvement for everyone

in this area. Okay. Anything else? All right. Uh so do we have oh council did we have someone else that wishes to speak or question or comment. Okay. So therefore uh second reading then we'll proceed with a roll call vote. Council member Farmer. Yes. Council member Dodwell. Yes. Council member Nyan. Council member Attenburg. Yes. Council member Tier. Yes. Council member Mabberry. Yes. Council member Robooski. Yes. Council member Preston. Yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bockart, yes. Council member Crayons, yes. Council member Vanic,

yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, yes. Thank you. Uh, next item is Bill 3028. Can we get a a motion for a second reading of bill 3028? Made by Council Member Dodwell. Is there someone wish to make a second? Council member Galani. Um, all those in favor, please say I. I. I. You want to oppose or abstain.

Okay. Please go ahead and real read bill 3028 for the second time. Bill 3028, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute an agreement with Olympus Capital Strategies LLC, doing business as Olympus Political Consulting LLC for legislative consulting services. Right. City administrator Lee.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh tonight uh nothing has changed in the cost or the actual services being rendered, but tonight the department did want to pull this out and just call out the fact that uh there was originally a requirement for workers comp and some other insurance requirements that technically does not need to be uh provided since he is a sole proprietor. So that said, that change was made. All the other components of the uh of the contract remain the same. That said that tonight um in order to have the consultant execute the agreement, this was something that was caught after the meeting when he was taking a look at it that we wanted to straighten up. Um, we would request that bill 3028A is adopted, which is the same bill in substance and included on the online agenda and in your uh paper packet if you requested that uh which would be the same exact agreement, but the only change would be the insurance requirement being lifted due to the nature of his services. Barb's available for any questions. Thank you.

Need a motion for uh to amend to uh for the second uh for the amended version. Council member Dodwell and then second by council member Attenburg. All those in favor please say I. I. I. And we have the amended version on the floor. Any discussion or questions? Seeing none, then can you proceed with a roll call vote? Council member Farmer. Yes. Council member Dodwell. Yes. Council member Nyan. Council member Atenberg. Yes. Council member Tradier. Yes. Council member Mabberry. Yes. Council member Rablooski. Yes. Council member Preston. Yes. Council member Marshall. No. Council member McCutchen. Yes. Council member Rambo.

Yes. Council member Bockard. Yes. Council member Crayons. Council member Vanic. Yes. Council member Alers. Yes. Council member Galani. Yes. Okay, that passes. Moving on then to the next part of the agenda, which is new business. U. We do uh I will request similarly if we can read the following bills and mass. The first one bill 3030. Number two bill 3031. Bill number three um bill 3032 and then uh bill number four bill 3033. Are there any objections to reading these in mass? I object.

Sorry. Do you have an objection, Council Member McCutchen? I do. I'd like to pull out uh 3031. Okay. So, bill uh we'll we'll read that one separately. So, uh so back to the list with the exception of bill 3031. Any objections to read the other all the other bills in mass. All right. Seeing no hands up, uh then all those in favor please say I. I. I. Oppose or abstain. All right. So, please go ahead and read bill 3030, bill 3032, and bill 3033.

Bill 3030, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor to negotiate and execute a city contractor agreement on behalf of the city of Wildwood with Meer Electric Company Incorporated for construction of the Manchester Road crosswalk improvement project. Bill 3032, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, to execute all of the necessary documentation that will grant a singlepurpose utility easement to the Missouri American Water Company, MO A, that will accommodate the installation of a water man through city-owned property that will serve Babler State Park. Bill 3033, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a record plat deposit agreement along with a associated letters of credit, general warranty deed, and trust indenture for 115 lot subdivision of a 50.4 4 acre lot, which is lots one and two of the Drying Hoffer estate, being located in section two, Town Center, Township 44 North, range 3 east of the fifth principal meridian, city of Wildwood, St. County, Missouri, or more specifically situated on the west side of State Route 109, south of its intersection with State Route 100, thereby allowing for the development of the reserve at Wildwood subdivision by McKelie Homes.

Okay. Uh the bills are on the floor. Do we have any information that Director Vunage would like to add? Pardon me, Mr. Mayor and members of city council. Two of the items relate to easements that have been requested by Missouri American Water Company and um pardon me, one and the other being the reserve at Wildwood. The reserve at Wildwood is the record plat which includes the deposit agreement for required subdivision improvements and associated letters of credit. The general warranty which transfers common ground to the homeowners association and then finally the indentures themselves. This is a 115 lot plat which is very unusual. the escrow associated what one plat in this case will be over $5 million. So from the perspective of the department this is a major step forward and the sale of the lots and its completion at some point in the future. If there are any questions regarding the two items that have been read for first reading the department will be glad to answer them at this time.

Okay. This is a first reading so entertain any questions for clarification. Council member Galani. Yeah, I'd like to request a second reading for bill number 3033 on the reserve to get the record plat taken care of. They've already sold the the site plan's obviously fully approved. The land's been excavated. They've already sold a handful of homes and they need this done so they can start putting the homes up and filling in the vacant area. And uh to avoid having to just wait a 30-day period for that to happen, um I would request that second reading to happen tonight. Please make a motion for that.

Director Vunage, um you did hear that. Does the department have any concerns or reservations regarding second reading pertaining to that item?

Certainly, this is a major development and the pre-sales have gone very well. So, the department recognizes the advantage to a second reading tonight. I just would advise that there are a couple of items that are still outstanding, not major items by any um any uh qualifier relative to the subdivision and development regulations. They relate to the indentures. There are a couple of comments that the department requested the attorney representing McKelby Holmes address. And then as with any $5 million escrow, there's probably a couple of items that we're still trying to figure out if I've done the right unit cost, if I've done the math right. So from that perspective, it'll be adjusted. But I don't think there's any way it's going to be less than $5 million. So the department wouldn't object. It just wants city council to understand there's still a few um let's say threads that need to be clicked before we're all set to go.

Okay. Thank you, director. Do we have any again any questions for clarification? Council member Attenburg. Uh you you have your hand up. Yes, sir. Um no questions, but I would second Mr. Galani's uh motion. Okay. So, Mr. Galani, I just want to make sure it was that motion to do a second reading for bill 3033. Yes. Okay. Uh and council member Attenburg, you're seconding that. Um so all those in favor for a second read. What's that? Uh uh yeah, if it's a question. Um is it uh Well, go ahead. Let's let's entertain that question and then we'll get the second reading.

The director addressing cooperative spirit in considering a couple of issues that are um salient to their professional decision making even before the I was going to ask any anything that can be done to move this motion forward but don't forget insist that these items are satisfactory to his department motion director determines that it's appropriate for the department to agree with the council. I just need to know that that's legal, that we can actually defer some decision- making to the professionals instead of just um what might be perceived as just glad handing a second reading for almost everything we do as a rule instead of an exception. $5 million and the items that the director has raised are important enough to me because they're important enough to him

and his department. I think we might have an answer for you there. City Attorney Young, do you want to go ahead and

Yeah. And I'll ask Mr. Fish to correct me if I'm wrong, but in terms of the escrow requirements, we're going to follow the requirements of the code in terms of the escrow and what's going to be posted. And that's all inherent in the director's authority, and I don't believe there's any condition or amendment to the bill that need to be made. When the director said the word indentures, that that really flicked my ear as a trustee of my subdivision that I've lived in for 38 years and having heard the horror stories of subdivisions that don't have professional level indentures and a lot of developers are going to try and throw indentures uh to such that they are at the advantage of the direct the developer and at the expense of future residents. So that's all it took for me to say this I won't support this until I know the director supports this.

Well, I believe what the reference is in terms of the indentures. The city code does direct certain provisions to be in the code in the indentures and the city reviews those provisions to affirm compliance with the city code and that is reviewed by my office and by the director's office and I believe we've done that and accomplished that and they have met those requirements. Outside of that, it's a private contract between uh the property owner and the uh developer, and that's not nec amongst the property owners, and that's not necessarily something the city typically gets involved with.

All right. Well, I'm not trying to be testy, but I didn't hear that. What I heard was something specifically distinct from that and that there were still things to work out. And as long as there are any things to work out when it has to do with indentures, then it's the developer's job in life to try and not agree with as much as he can. He's not going to be led to much leverage if he knows that the director has purview to keep this motion for a second reading from taking place. And and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the indenture requirement is also a plaque condition, and we're not approving a plat at this time. Actually, the plat is

Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. My mistake. My mistake. So, with the permission of the mayor,

please. Mr. Mayberry, there's a couple of components that the indentures I feel need to include so as there's no confusion both now and when the actual homeowners become the the the board of trustees, so to speak. One relates to a special condition that's included in the ordinance. As you know, often times homeowners associations are underfunded or not funded at all when they are turned over by the development entity to them to the homeowners. Our ordinance, the PRD, requires $45,000 be set aside by the developer to fund the HOA at that time when all three trustees are residents of the development. That was not addressed in the set of indentures. I think it's critical that it be in the indentures. I'm under no illusion that a homeowner will eventually figure out a way to get to the site development plan, the improvement plans, or the sight specific ordinance to know what is involved relative to their lot and the subdivision. What they do get um a copy of at least a closing is the indentured. And so I think it's critical that that that component be in it. I believe the Kelby Holmes, the developer is fine. They're just working out a way to basically make that language a component of the indentures and that land language suitable to our city attorney. The other component and I don't know for sure but as you know indentures are laced with developer preferences, developer opportunities during the the construction of the subdivision. they stay in the indentures and their weight on the indentures that doesn't need to be there once the project's complete.

I've asked them to basically put some kind of sunset with those so as the indentures are clean at some point in the future when the developer has no longer any responsibility there. Those are the things I'm asking. They're not in our code. Our code only has seven or eight items that we check and the city attorney's office did a fine job as well as the department. These are more preferences to basically make the indentures better and consistent with the sight specific ordinance.

I won't be shy about it. I don't think anything that your department thinks it needs is a preference or nice to have. And the developer, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts. They've known about these references. they knowing that they hold out long enough, they'll get more of what they side with favor them. Um, I'd like not to remove that by throwing away a second reading for no reason when the developer had an opportunity to be more responsive. And they can be mighty responsive if they know that it won't have to cost them an entire month to be more cooperative and more professional in dealing with the city. I will just say Jim Brennan, the owner of McKelie Holmes, the president had called the department just to advise them that we'd love to see you at the ribbon cutting and I said typically the department doesn't attend those and but appreciated the invitation. That's more an opportunity for the mayor and city council, not department staff, at least from my perspective. When we concluded the conversation, he said this to me. If you need something and you're not getting it, let me know. We're here to cooperate. We're here to get this development moving forward. I don't believe that's changed.

How long ago was that that he said that please? Ribbon cutting was what about a month ago? So, he's had a month be responsive and hasn't yet. How about this? Um, I wasn't able to complete the comments on the indentures till right after the holiday. So, they've only had them probably now 10 days at the most. So, part of the responsibility for what we're talking about tonight falls on me, not them.

And again, um, since we haven't yet gotten the motion for the second reading down, um, I think right now we want to keep it to just information. Well, if you want to, if the motion for second reading does pass to have the second reading, then certainly we can get into more of a debate uh and you can express your concerns why you would or wouldn't vote for the bill. So, um you know, again, just out of respect, did want to give you the opportunity to ask questions. Do we have anything else? Any other questions for clarification on the first reading of these items? And then then we'll come back and entertain that question from council if it wishes to go ahead and do the second reading specific to that item. Is it a question council member Gwani?

It's in per in pertaining to doing the second reading. Um, so then, um, is it you mean whether we do it or not or Well, I just had a comment related to Okay, I'll let you go ahead and make that comment and then

Yeah, I was just going to say in relation to Council Member Mabver's concerns and, you know, what the director just said, um, this developer has been more than forthcoming and proactive in their desire and willingness and and, um, wanting to work with the city and acco accommodate all of our requests and anything that we need. Uh, Council Member Cray and myself were at the ribbon cutting um as well as Council Rottenberg um a few weeks back and during the holiday season. Um, you know, they they there's been a long process here. We started with several developers before McKelie that have gone through this for seven, eight years to get to where we are. And and McKelie kind of came in and they're, if you look at their track record around the St. Louis area. They've got a phenomenal track record as a home builder and uh reputation working with cities. And in this case, they've been as proactive as possible to accommodate our means. And to the director's comment just now, that the final two minor issues, which him and I spoke before the meeting and he mentioned they'd probably be cleared up within a week, um are preferences, not requirements. And the only thing we can hold them to is requirements by our code. Preferences are just that preferences that we would like. and in being proactive and good partners working with them, our chances of getting our preferences met are a lot better than forcing them to wait an extra 30 days for no reason um in a situation where they haven't caused any delays to start with. And they've worked with us on on our countless delays um as a council and and throughout the process. So um like I said, the other thing is the fact that the land is sitting there vacant. It's been excavated. It's cleared. They've already sold a bunch of homes. they can't start building these homes until this record plat is recorded. And so it's to everyone's benefit in the city to have that process start sooner than later and avoid any unnecessary delays. And and 30 days is is just literally another waste of time, which we're pretty good at doing um for for no reason most of the

time. So that's all I got to say about that. Thanks. Okay. So uh do I believe we had a second reading. Was that made by I know council member Gore was that council member Galani and then okay so therefore do you wish to go ahead and make that second reading right now for this okay if you wish to proceed okay so therefore now uh all those in favor of the second reading of the bill 30 uh31 I'm sorry I'm sorry excuse me bill 3033 all those in favor of bill 3033. Please say I I I have to say. Opposed.

Okay, we have one opposed. Uh please go ahead and read bill 3033. Bill 3033, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing a record plat deposit agreement along with associated letters of credit, general warranty deed, and trust indenture for our 115 lot subdivision of 50.4 4 acre which is lots one and two of the drying forer estate being located in section 2 township 44 north range 3 east of the fifth principal meridian city of Wildwood St. Louis County Missouri or more specifically situated on the west side of state route 109 south of its intersection with state route 100 thereby allowing for the development of the reserve at Wildwood subdivision by McKelie Homes Incorporated. Okay, now that we have Bill 3033 on the floor for a second reading, uh we're open again for debate this time. Anything else that anyone wishes to debate with regard bill 3033 or director Vunage, anything else you want to add in there?

If I could just steal a minute of all your time. So oftentimes this time of year when we have development, the problem we face is mud, rock and debris on the road. An errant concrete concrete truck left this property on Friday. Frank Laughlin, our code inspector, contacted Jeff Bolley, who's in attendance and within the matter of minutes, somehow he got the trades people out on the street in Manchester Road and they cleaned it up. So, they are cooperative, Mr. Mayor. If there is anything to that story, it's great. Uh, anything else? Go ahead.

The whole run of intensive amount. Turn around. off to any consolation. Mr. Young has to sign off on the indentures as well as part of the ordinance it speaks to and so um I'm sure he'll make sure I don't do anything wrong with them. Anything else from anyone? Otherwise, uh,

thank you. We have the second reading on the floor. Do remember this requires supermajority, so we'll have a roll call. Council member Farmer, yes. Council member Dodwell, yes. Council member Nyan, yes. Council member Ottenberg, yes. Council member Tier, yes. Council member Mabberry, yes. Council member Rablooki, yes. Council member Preston, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Council member McCutchen, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. Council member Bockard, yes. Council member Cray, yes. Council member Vanic, yes. Council member Alers, yes. Council member Galani, yes.

Okay. And what was the total on that? Okay. Thank you. And I I stand corrected. the supermajority is when we did the initial vote for the second reading to actually have it. So, wanted to make sure that was clear. All right, so that passes. Uh, back to other items under new business. We have bill 3031. Can we get a motion for a first reading of bill 3031 made by council member Farmer, seconded by council member Preston. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. All right. Please read bill 303. Bill 303.

All right, we have one opposed. Bill 3031, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor of the city of Wildwood, Missouri to execute all of the necessary documentation to grant single-use easements that will accommodate encroachments of limited private improvements onto city-owned property, which are for the installation of a portion of needed retaining walls and parking areas, all in conjunction with Wildwood Luxury Living Project, a 118 unit mult multiple family development which will include a temporary construction easement as well.

Director Williams, do you have anything you wish to add?

Mr. Mayor, um Mr. Mayor was kind enough to let Miss Lobbec and I know today that the 118 is 188. So there is a mistake in that particular title, although the body of the bill has the number of units correct. And in terms of this particular item, in reviewing the retaining wall plan, the departments of planning and public works noticed that a very small area of the existing parking lot for the theater encroaches onto the strip of ground that contains the trail around the detention basin. Unfortunately, it's relatively small and the colorized version doesn't make it um any easier to see, at least from where I'm standing. But suffice to say, the existing parking is in place and it has been encroaching into this area for a bit. The other two easements, one is a temporary construction easement, which is typical, as you know, with the Route 109 Route BA roundabout. We've been collecting easements for the construction purposes. They stay in place until the construction is complete and then the temporary nature takes effect and they are removed. And then finally in what I would consider the northeast corner of the strip of ground that the city owns there is a 345t easement that is needed for retaining wall. Um it does not impact the trail. Therefore the perspective of the department would be a reasonable granting. There any questions regarding the temporary easement or the two permanent easement department? Be glad to answer them at this time.

Do we have any questions?

Council member do I don't think so. There's still obviously a lot of extensive grading and putting in foundation work. These are kind of the finer points. So I think we can wait till February, but thank you for asking. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, all right. I, uh, do have two more bills on the next page, uh, oversight. Otherwise, I would ask to include them in reading and mass. So, if there's no objection, we'll read bill 3034, bill 3035, and mass. Um, I don't see any objection to that. So, if there's a motion for the first reading of bill 3034 and bill 3035, would someone be willing to make that at this time? Made by council member Albert, seconded by council member Cray. All those in favor, please say I.

I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Please go ahead and read bills 3034 and 3035.

Bill 3034, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, approving a minor subdivision of a 2.89 89 acre tract of land into three lots, each being approximately 1 acre in area located on the east side of Etherton Road, north of its intersection with Manchester Road, and more specifically situated in the southwest quarter of section 1, Township 44 North, range 3 East, City of Wildwood, St. Louis County, and to be hereafter known as Etherton Heights. Bill 3035, an ordinance of the city of Wildwood, Missouri, amending subp paragraph 11 of subsection A of section 1110.210 of the code of ordinances of the city of Wildwood by deleting it in its entirety, enacting in lie thereof a new subp paragraph 11 of subsection A of section 110.210, 2110 and providing rules of procedure for the city council.

Thank you. Um, director Vunich, do you have anything you wish to add? Bills 3034 and 3035.

Well, 3035 is in the purview of our city administrator, Mr. Lee. But in regards to Etherton Heights, it is a three lot subdivision that's proposed on the east side of Etherton Road, north of Manchester Road. Each of the lots will be approximately 1 acre in size. And as you can see, we've take great the planning and zoning commission has taken great care to ensure that the easements associated with um lot three for storm water purposes are clearly defined and protected by easements. Um from the perspective of the department, this has gone through the reszoning process and we're at the final stages with flat. If there are any questions, department, we'd be glad to answer them at this time. We have any questions? Council member Marshall?

I know it's factual, but I think I saw next door where somebody thought there's a sinkhole on that property. Is that true or just another rate room? Mr. CR and Miss Brian, Miss Brian lives next door to the property. Have both commented that there's some substance that has occurred. The department will visit the location along with the code enforcement team. They're our experts, so to speak. And hopefully by next month I'll have an answer for you. Any other question? All right, seeing none, then those bills will be back for second reading next month. Moving on to the next section. First readings from hearings are favorable. City recommendation. We have bill 3036 and W 8.

Is there a motion for the first reading bill 3036? Made by council member farmer. Is there a second? Made by council member Galani. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Please go ahead and read bill 3036.

Bill 3036, an ordinance by the city council of the city of Wildwood approving a change in the zoning district designation of a 0.4 4 acre site that is located on the south side of Manchester Road, Historic Route 66, west of Taylor Road to the amended C8 planned commercial district, thereby allowing certain changes to the property's governing ordinance to accommodate another permitted use upon it and extend the time frame for the lot's connection to public sanitary sewer service. All being consistent with the favorable letter of recommendation of the planning and zoning commission dated December 1, 2025.

Director Vunich. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, and members of city council. At the recently held public hearing tonight, this particular matter was presented to the city council and the preparation of bill was in place at the time of the public hearing. The department provided a brief presentation relative to the recommendation from the planning and zoning commission. And if there are any other questions regarding this matter, the department be glad to try to answer them at this time. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Director V. Do we have any questions?

Okay. That'll be back up for second reading next meeting. All right. Moving on then. Uh we have under the consent agenda several items. We have any objection to reading all these items under uh the consent agenda. Object. No objections. Objection. You do. Which item, Council Member McCutchen? Um the is the attendance is that in this section from last month? That would be in the approval of the December 8th city council meeting minutes. You have a correction?

Yeah, I was not I was not here staying. All right. So then we're going to call it out separately. Uh so therefore we'll have the consent agenda with every item except A which is the approval of December 8th. We'll come back and deal with that one separately so he we can make the note uh per council member McCutchen. So there's no objections then for BCD. Uh can we get a motion for approval of the consent agenda made by council member Preston seconded by council member nine. All those in favor please say I.

I abstain. Okay, that passes. And then we'll come back for the motion for approval of the December 8th, 2025 city council meeting minutes uh with um I guess this would be a change or correction with the attendance for the um for council member McCutchen. Is that correct? Yes. Oh, you just want to abstain. All right. I want to abstain. Yes. So therefore, u we'll just go ahead and treat that. Can we get a motion for dece uh the approval of the December 8, 2025 city council meeting minutes made by council member Farmer? Seconded by council member Dodwell. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Abstain.

Okay, that abstains. Do we have anything under miscellaneous? Council member Crayons. Am I late to ask a question about the budget? Um I I guess I just

Yeah, I mean the budget from December. Well, yeah. I just got a question on legal fees. Um, [clears throat] sunshine request, uh, $3,7. I'm just curious what that's all about. So typically that would involve when we get a sunshine request that is either a discovery almost of someone requesting a lot of information about there's sometimes there's incidents where we have individuals requesting information about how we set up the code for a sidewalk and all the information that went into it and sometimes we do need interpretation from the legal counsel we typically forward that

what was involved in this particular instance I would need a check I can get that back to you they're back with Yeah, I can. Thanks. Yeah. And just so maybe it may help, the city is able to remove some costs for sunshine requests, but the way that the state law is written, we have to build the requesttor at the lowest um hourly rate uh of the city of any city employee. Uh so it's not a full recoupment of I'm just curious how many requests we would get. Yeah. And certainly that information can be provided to you. Okay.

Um All right. Well, then do we have anything else in the miscellaneous? Oh, thanks. We can get a motion for adjournment made by council member Marshall. Is there a second? Made by council member Attenburg. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? All right, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much and have a great evening.