City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. So, welcome again everyone to our work session for Monday, October 27th. It's 5:37. So, uh let's uh start with roll call. Mayor Geritano present. Council member Farmer here. Council member Dodwell here. Council member Nyan here. Council member Tradier. Council member Mabberry here. Council member Robooski here. Council member Preston here. Council member Marshall present. Council member McCutchen here. Council member Rambo here. Council member Bockard here. Council member Crayons here. Council member Vanic here. Council member Alers. Council member Galani.

All right. Great. Uh thanks again everyone for being here. Uh whether you're in the room or on Zoom. Just a couple of comments. the next part of the agenda just to guess kind of get the meeting warmed up for the exciting topic of the municipal budget. So, uh thank you to our staff for uh their work over the recent weeks. Uh we had the um the race that took place on Friday night and so Joe sound like everything went well so that's good. And then also I do want to thank staff for the first execution of the Haunted Express. In case you're not aware, this is a great partnership with the Wabash Frisco and Pacific Railroad. Um where they ran a train on a Friday night, two trains, and it was dark and then there were these wonderful actors along the route, a lot of zombies along the way in the dark. Um, I think we even had some city staff, right? Were they out there also being uh were they were they also dressed up as zombies or Okay, who had the chainsaw? Was that one of ours?

I don't know. But that one really got got me going there. So, I would highly encourage uh council uh to uh check it out next year. Um, and uh, it it seems like it's a cool event and hopefully we can even get some additional seats or come up with some ideas because I think there's a lot of great interest. Uh, we've got this uh, legend right here in Wildwoods on B Road. So, uh, I think there was it was a wonderful evening. Uh, and, uh, Travis was serving up the chili. Uh, we had, uh, we had a fire going there. It was it was great. So, thanks again for doing that. All right. And uh and of course then the other item I just want to share, we did have the mayor's bowl. That's the annual uh football game that takes place uh between Lafayette and Marquette, the rivalry. So I was there with uh Mayor Sue McNamera and I'm pleased to report if in case you're not aware, Lafayette, they'd win the game. So, uh, great, uh, to have our, uh, high school that's in Wildwood in here. And then we'll look forward to continuing to do that next year and also look at, um, bringing back also the one we did with, uh, Eureka. Yeah, we'll need to do that, uh, next year. Okay. So, thanks again. So, let's then dive into the main reason we're here for tonight, which is under for action. We have the review of the proposed fiscal year 2026 municipal budget. I'm going to hand it over to our city administrator. He's spent a lot of time preparing materials and he's also walked around tonight presenting some materials. So, I'm going to let him talk to what we have in front of us. Um, and also ideally, you know, kind of how we want to make this an efficiently run meeting. I know several folks might have some ideas, questions regarding some of the items here.

Certainly. Thank you, mayor. And uh just wanted to first say thank you to the staff um for assisting and getting all these projections put together for us. Um it does take an incredible amount of work and while we got all the other events and everything going on, just wanted to give a quick shout out to them. Um this has been something we've been reviewing for the last couple weeks now and what we've done and what the handout kind of goes over. uh through the committee review there was discussion and then requests from admin PW and also the uh planning and parks committee to go ahead and kind of put out what is truly needed when it comes to operating expense and then what you know may be you know potentially not needed. So that said, uh what was handed out today, do apologize for the small text, but it does show a couple different uh columns here. One being option B, which is, you know, original budget from different department heads coming in saying what do they need for that fiscal year. That's before any, you know, real checking goes into it. Um and then balance budget option A is the budget that was then brought back down to levels of our revenues, which we'll get into here just in a second. And then last but not least, there's a last column that has been recently added, which this one is different now because of it. And you'll see different rows highlighted in green that indicates a change. Um, and that shows PMP added expenditures or adjustments. And then it shows that recommended change a little bit more in depth of what that change was was and what actually is what what's being added back, if you will. Um, so we'll go through these and if there's any questions on them right now that the planning and parks committee, it was discussed and acknowledged that 350,000 uh would be acceptable to pretty much dive in and allow uh the use of our reserve fund balance. That said, after going through these, we were able to identify expenditures equal to 212 and then also two saving items. So, did want to present that. So really when looking at these columns um you really want to look at the option B column, the

balanced option A and then PMP adjustments. It'll show the difference between the three um as you go to the right there, but just wanted to call that out which we can go through the [clears throat] other component. Uh I just wanted to go through revenue real quick. I know we've had this discussion at different committee meetings up to date, but I did just want to call it out just in case anybody wasn't here uh for those meetings. there's really been, you know, for 2026, our revenues are remaining relatively stagnant. Um, we did want to point that out just because there's two different funds that have been decreasing and then there's been, you know, just some general rises in expenditures that have happened year-over-year. One um being our utility tax from telephone uh s the gross receipts tax from telephone service. Um we've seen that slightly decrease over the years from its height back in 2019. I think it was 2 uh $390,000 and now it's coming in anywhere between 220 and 230 each year. It does seem pretty consistent at this point around that number uh the 220s, but overall it has been decreasing year-over-year since 2019. So on average that's almost an annual decrease about 190 to $200,000 in the last 5 years. The other side of it is the cable franchise fee which produces a similar result. Um and that comes from the gross receipts tax that we had charged for cable being installed within the right ofway that was also locked in at 5%. Uh but year-over-year uh the legis state legislation had decreased it by 0.25% for each year uh starting in 2021 and then ending this October. So that said we've seen a nominal decrease there as well from about 400,000 to about $200,000 annually. So when you combine those two for annual averages, um they combine to be about $400,000 that we're no longer seeing based off those two taxes alone. Uh the other side of that is that we're are seeing increases on

the side of our expenditures just for our normal service contracts. So two of those items um one just the general, you know, generalities of insurance, etc. that that goes up each year, but we did have you know a nominal increase from our police department which will increase again. um each year they it's not unusual for it to increase, but it's at a 3% increase. And then we also had just year-over-year increases in a couple percentage points in each department. So, we overall have $59,600 uh $500 projected as our increase in operational revenue. And this is just speaking to the general fund. Um and then for the uh expenditures just with the police and just with insurance, etc. alone, I mean, that could be 200,000. So what we're looking at here is we had to kind of go through each different department and find some cuts to make. We presented those cuts in the balanced option A which did differ and have some pretty significant operational impacts. Um so that is what's being provided. The option A shows and then you look in the column that says operational impact. It'll show what the difference is between option A and B. that this new column PMP recommended changes from that meeting and from the administration public works committee economic development and then also the board of public safety. That's where those adjustments had come from. Um that said with the last recommendation it's around $212,000 in the red. So the department did just as part of the general fund process first and foremost want to answer questions about any revenue questions. Um, but then possibly go through some of the highlighted green or if there's any that are in white that you'd like to call out, we'd love to to jump into those today, but the the goal of tonight's meeting is to collect feedback. It's just a work session, but get specific motions as to what should be included, what shouldn't, and then we'll take that feedback and then incorporate it and bring it back to the budget public hearing with the presentation that is scheduled to occur on November 10th, 2025. So, that's

really the plan is to have a better understanding of where we're wanting to go as as the whole city council. Um, and then when it comes to the next meeting, we should have, you know, instead of three, you know, different options kind of boiling around on one piece of paper, we should be filed down to one with some slight adjustments possible. So, ready to answer any questions before we dive in, but wanted to start off and give that intro statement. Any questions from anyone? Please raise your hand. Council member Golani and then did council member Mangry, did you also have a question? Okay, so go ahead, Council Member Galani.

Hey, uh, thank you. Um, great work on all of this. I, one question I had is it was my understanding that in the parks and planning committee meeting that we had suggested an authorization of 350,000 to offset budget deficiencies out of the reserve fund, but on here it's showing 212,000. That is correct. So, uh, it's at the last page, the back page, second to last. The reason I'm asking that is because even with 350,000, I think the total deficit was 483,000 and change. Yes, that is correct.

So, we were looking at 350 and then figure out ways to cut out the remaining 130. Um, but I was just wondering how we got to the 212. So the 212 was I the department interpreted as going up to 350 and we kind of stripped back. The thing is you could add in and I had a couple notes here to bring up but we're trying to keep it as balanced as possible um without you know straying too far into the weeds that said we did add back some items. Um I'd be more than willing to go through these that the idea go through these.

No, I'm not saying we have to go to 350. If you were able to get it down to 212 by by being more austere, I think that's that's great. But um and we're more than happy to take 212 over 350, I think. But um I just wanted to ask that because to clarify that I'm not saying we have to go to

No, I get you. I get you. U one of the major changes to it's included here, it's not major, but it's a decent change and it was part of the discussion I was at uh planning and parks. So it would actually be a $31,000. It would be 200 about 250,000 actually if you accounted for the 31,000 that's been reduced and this is in the PMP recommendations for the elimination of our legislative consultant. So I know it's still off from the 350 total but did want to call that out that is one of the green expenditures that you'll see that is actually a decrease to the total year-over-year and wanted to discuss that too. Um this still and just I'll jump into a couple of those. Uh we did add back in the budgeting for the special events considering we do have um the Route 66 100th anniversary. That's still going to include some cuts for some events or some types of services given to our residents whether it be you know catering some meals for some of the paid events which kind of takes away some of the selling of the event itself um or some of the free giveaways that we do. Um the other side of it is music on Maine. We've kind of b I would wanted to have this discussion because that could truly be back up to 80 to 85 if we want to maintain four full concerts. Um that said, we did the math on it and found it was about $5,000 each each event to do the free hot dogs, the free uh ice cream, the free kettle corn, the free drinks, etc. So it we almost have two options here. We can do three concerts at full full steam or we could do four concerts with a reduced scale or we could go add it back in. That was one that was somewhat we did we didn't get a firm direction in that meeting. So, we wanted to have some room Yeah. to bring it back.

No. And I know the committee's perspective on that was that we should get eliminate the free giveaways of all of that stuff at those concerts and events. We don't need to be giving away free hot dogs and popcorn or anything. T-shirts. No, eliminate it. Well, you just got rid of the May concert, right? So, is that is that an official motion? Okay. So, that would Yeah, we got we did get rid of the May concert and we got rid of all the free t-shirts, hot dogs, popcorn, all that stuff. Yeah, we did. Yeah. So, that that was the confus that was a little bit confusion we had. I mean, that said, I mean, that's a

Yeah. I mean if we're putting on the I we're the committee and correct me if I'm wrong committee members but what we had discussed was the fact that obviously with you know inflation and the fact that um the revenue sources for the city are tight and we're in a negative situation as it is this isn't a problem that we're going to deal with for 2000 2026. It's an ongoing problem that's only going to get worse. So we're not trying to figure out how to balance just this one year so that we can get back to normal next year. we got to figure out things that we can do differently that are going to put us in a better position to be in a right path moving forward indefinitely. And so our thought process was that with the the reserve um balance being at close to 20 million or 19 whatever it's at, we've talked about it as long as I've been on council for six years now that it's way more than we need to have in our reserve fund. and we were looking at doing an audit to figure out what we could get it down to that would be safe and healthy and then use that difference as to how we would spend that. Um, and so there were talks about going to the taxpayers for additional revenues, which how can we go to the taxpayers and ask them to pay more taxes when we've got an extra 8 to10 million sitting in our reserve fund. So we had that's why the premise of authorizing the 350,000 was not just a onetime thing. It was we we looked at it as if we did this for 10 years and gave the city 350k out of the re reserve balance that would be 3.5 million over 10 years which even with the money being invested and growing um it would be a minimal amount. We would still be way over and have plenty to figure out what to do with the difference. But getting rid of if the city's in this position and we have all these parks and all these things we like to do, we don't need to be giving free food and t-shirts and popcorn and things like that to the residents on top of putting on the the concert. So, just I just wanted to give a summary of what our conversation was in that meeting and the reason and the

why and how we came to the motion we did as far as authorizing up to that 350 and why we were taking away some of those things. Not because we're looking to impose draconian measures on the residents, but free food and things like that aren't something that people have to have to come to a free concert in our opinion. Sorry.

Yeah, it was June, July, August. So that said, I mean that and that and that is consistent with what was talked about. I could we potentially tonight uh get a firm motion whether and I we can go through these at least the green ones that were changed uh one at a time but the idea would be to get some motions on these so we can have the firm direction for what we present back um so it's and that one is pretty easy it's reduce the remove the may and then reduce the the freebies if you will yeah if you want me to make that motion I'll

and and let me just pause only because I want to respect the order of the speaker so let me ask council member Mabry you had raised your And is your comment related to this? If not, I I will ask let's get this motion on the floor to get this done. Um and then we can obviously come back to you if it's unrelated to Yes. Yeah. Then you're fine. So yeah, this would be a good time right now if you want to go ahead and make that motion. Then we can get the vote of the council. Just music on Maine is my understanding. So, we're just going to eliminate the May concert.

It's on It's on second page of the handout that you received tonight. The row is in green, the second row.

Yep. And real quick note on that too before we uh if that motion is the council would like to make it. Um, one little item we did have was to have somewhat of a contingency added in there specifically for the music on main concert. there. It was originally 60 thou,000 and option B, I mean option A, sorry. Um, and it was increased to 65,000 to allow for the inflatables that would still be included. Um, so that tonight, that third option, if you will, the planning and parks recommendation is at 65,000 for three concerts and it could have accommodated a fourth concert if we did away with the freebies. So, that said, it could make a change here. I mean, it's because it averages about $5,000 per event for the free and items that we give out. we could in theory potentially keep one or it could reduce it more.

And I think I think the other thing with May is that I mean school's still going on for for most of the kids anyway. And so I mean and and the weather is an issue and you know it to me it it's a summer concert series I think is we and even if take that five grand and put it back in the budget towards something else or or or whatever save it but I look at it as a summer concert series June, July, August with August being the back to school finale. So no reason to try to add extra months on the front or the back. I would say we can even call it we can rebrand it the summer concert series. I'll make the motion that we just do June, July, August and we get rid of the freebies.

Okay. So then uh Council Member Galani is making that motion and then seconded by Council Member Rambo. I heard you say you would second. So again for clarity the motion being made is that uh the concerts for next year would be on and in June, July and August and also the uh I guess the elimination of the uh free food or something like that. Um is that correct? Yeah.

Okay. Director Vounage, did you have something you wish to say? With all due respect, I have no idea what Tom is describing in terms of this new handout, Mr. Brown and I have not received it. Joe, we're ju I'm just now getting it out. So, it's not very much different than what was already presented. Certainly, out of respect to the department directors, wouldn't it be nice if we could see it?

Yeah, I'm going to give you mine and I'm going to look over here at Tom's so you can have it. And by the way, per the direction of city council, the only thing we give out free anymore and don't charge for are the concerts. And it's the drinks, the hot dogs, the kettle corn, and ice cream. Everything else, we don't give out free t-shirts. People pay just like at the event Friday night. It's a $40 fee. If you enter on race day, it's $50. City council was clear several years ago, we need to charge start charging for events. So from that perspective, you're saying things that aren't correct. And I don't know where that information is coming from, but it's not the Department of Planning and Parks. And by the way, we have the May concert because the weather is usually more favorable. We've been rained out about three times. The July concert is our least attended one because it's always hotter and blazes. So

just some information.

Okay. Thank you, Joe, for that. And and I think too, you know, um doesn't stop the city from working with uh the partners that we have like the Lions Club to still uh provide food, but it be sold. Uh it probably would be cost or or whatever they, you know, could determine that's an appropriate value. Um I'm sure that's still an option that can remain on the table. I know that when we were looking at um expenses in the past, we had had a discussion about free hot dogs um and I know that um a lot of folks cherish that. I've worked handing out the hot dogs over the last few years and you know sometimes the observation was you'd have people come with a plastic bag loading up like five six hot dogs or something like that and so having a nominal charge might help at least you know set some accountability

time the hot dogs were donated but they're no longer donated I don't know never happened no I think director do you wish to I think the city purchases the hot dog that is a fee So, I know that that conversation happened in the past and we were looking at ways I I think we're in a difficult situation of trying to figure out cost savings. Um, city administrator Lee then with this um motion that's on the floor, can you just recap the financial benefit of that?

Yes. C can I say one more thing regarding to that if you want to director Rudach's point. I don't have to necessarily say the specific months. I I say just three instead of four. And if the department would like to do May, June, and August and take July out, which to me kind of makes sense because a lot of people are on vacation in July anyway, but leave it up to the department to decide how to allocate those three versus the four.

I think that would be great to allow the flexibility. And again, I think it's also important to keep in mind, we're specifically talking about the concerts. Let's not forget we also still have the concert that takes part as part of Celebrate Wildwood which is in uh September. So um let's see what other questions or comments we have. Council member Alers, then Marshall, then McCutchen

free celebrate Wildwood. No, I I think this conversation is specifically related to the concerts and and I think just as director mentioned maybe well let's just be specific about what we mean when we say freebies. So it's the I think and and I think it's good that we clarify that. So I think the city provides hot dogs, drinks, chips, uh all the condiments. Uh we have ice cream, kettle corn. Am I missing any others? That's it. So if you're So if we keep it where we're saying generic that that's what the the city is not paying for anymore, then those would be all part of that.

But is it I I guess I'm just celebrate while there is no free food or anything like that. Yeah. Okay. Because I'm thinking in conjunction with getting away from the parade I guess we're talking about too that if I don't know if we're we're going to cross that bridge shortly. Yeah.

Good including reductions with celebrate wildwood. Okay. Council member Marshall and then McCutchen. inflatables out then no what's included would have the for music on main the back to school party if you will and for the celebrate wild would you both have inflatables that said the footprint and we haven't fully organized it yet the layout I don't think and Joe will be a better speaker to this than I uh will probably not be able to accommodate as many or we'll have to find some room for the inflatables But it does include that that's included.

Oh, well it would we would not be getting rid of the inflatables is the clarity. Okay. Council member McCutchen. So back to school concert. Nothing would change there. Correct. Um, as part of the motion that's on the floor, the there would be a change and it would be that the city would no longer pay for the hot dogs, beverages, condiments, kettle corn, ice cream. And so what else then would be at the back to school music concert? What would be there?

It would still include, based off what we're looking at, I mean, it would still include all the other features. So the bounce houses, the um, juggling Jeff, the kids attractions. it just wouldn't have the free food component. So, um, how much if if we continue to provide the free food, what what's that cost? It's about $5,000 per event. Per event. And it's typically Music on Maine. Well, it depends on the attendance, too. But Music on Main, you typically see a little bit of a jump if the attendance is there.

Personally, for for the back to school fair, I'd still like us to hand out the free float. I I'm okay with not doing it at the other concert, but I think for the back to school fair, um, we should go ahead and hand out the food. I think that um, you know, I think the families enjoy it. I think the kids really enjoy it. It makes it a little bit more festive. Okay. Um, Council Member Dodwell, have we already spoken with these vendors and arranged for them to participate in these events this next year? We haven't had anything signed just yet.

Okay. Number two, is there any reason that we couldn't charge um what the cost of those vendors are to the residents if they want to buy kettle corn, etc. so that we can recoup the cost of those events versus taking away those items.

Yes. And I think individually we'll have to go through each one and and double check everything. But there we can definitely set it up where the only one and I think the Lions Club would oblige that if we charge for the hot dogs that we purchase the hot dogs. It's a little bit of a different situation, but for the for the ice cream and the uh the kettle corn that that's a that would be pretty simple to maintain. And then if the it would also depend on who the vendor is because we don't currently have a vendor that would sell the drinks. Um we do have I guess some food trucks that have one food truck that's come to these events, but it would be difficult to have them be the sole sole source of of drinks and then get some kind of recoup. It would almost be like they had to bring their own drinks. So that'd be the one we'd have to look at. Yeah, I think uh I think it would be hopefully the intention of the council that there would still be food available at these events. It's just that whatever the cost is that um you know that would be charged so that this way can you know cover the expenses there. Um and I believe we may be one of the last few cities that still offers right now complimentary food. Uh I don't I think other cities uh charge for that item when [clears throat] people go there. So um Council Member Galani.

Yeah, I was just going to comment um in relation to that and I don't disagree with you at all, Council Member McCutchen. I mean, it's a great thing to be able to give away free hot dogs and kettle corn and ice cream and I think the residents that participate in it love it and enjoy it and no one's arguing that. Um, I think for us to sit up here and say, "Well, we should keep doing it because it's a nice twist and it's a nice additive and it's great." Those are all true statements, but at the end of the day, we don't have the money. So, government typically has a great time having conversations about what they like to do because it's cool and it's great and it's fun and people like it as if there's an endless supply of money, but there's not. And if we keep spending, we can give free hot dogs away for another five years or so until we go bankrupt and then we don't we can't keep up our parks. We can't do anything else and we stop functioning as a city. So, you know, sometimes you got we've got to take action. This is a frill that is an unnecessary frill. And sure, the people that get a free hot dog love a free hot dog. And I don't think if you pulled all the residents in Wildwood, 100% of them would say they'd like a free hot dog, right? But at the end of the day, we just we can't do things that we can't afford to do. And we can't afford to do it. And we're going to go, you know, we're running a P&L here whether we choose to admit it or not. And so, you know, at some point, even using some of the money from the reserve, you know, our revenues are going to continue to go backwards. And if they ever get rid of the pool tax, which is something that could happen in St. Louis County, we're we're done. We're not a city anymore. So, we got to stop talking and and and the only reason I bring this up and I'm not trying to sound ignorant, but like, you know, I run a P&L for a living and and it's, you know, when we have conversations about what we need to do and what we should do because it it's like people like it and it it's fun and it's great, like none of that matters. You know, what we have to sit here and figure out are what are the missionritical things that we have to

spend money on to function as an operation and to be able We've built all these parks. We've done all these things that cost a lot of money to maintain and the infrastructure that we have to use to repair these things and implement different ways of maintaining them are only going to continue to become more expensive. So we have to in my opinion stop looking at it as far as what we think people will want and like and take the action that is our jobs to do as council that not is always easy is to say what are the mission critical things that have to be done and how do we maneuver across that to position ourselves for now and in the future and if people don't like it then then that's tough. Sorry, but it it you know, just the same way you would do for your family, you got to make tough decisions sometimes that everyone's not going to agree with and might not be the most enjoyable, but we're not a position to do things that we want to do or that we think are are going to be reflected on positively by everybody involved. Just my opinion. It's Sorry.

All right. Well, I don't see any other hands up, but what do we Oh, Council Member Utenberg. Um just a brief comment uh regarding the food at the events. You know yes one option is to continue providing food and then charge for that food. But then another option would be to continue as we decided in planning and parks uh eliminate the free food and then contract with have food trucks come in and provide food for the residents as well. So that that's another option that can be explored.

Yeah. In fact, uh, that's already been happening the last couple concerts. Tom has brought in, I believe, one or two food trucks. And so, I think the variety and options and those are where people pay for those items today from the food trucks. I think folks do like having that variety there because not everyone may like a hot dog. So, um, sometimes we hear that our hot dogs are too salty. So, uh, anyway, um, okay. So, that we did have the motion on the floor. Council member Marshall,

no. so many different decision $20,000. I think maybe that might be the best way to make the motion because that might give most flexibility to I mean it seems like that's what it's going to account for is what we've discussed. But if if that's

Yeah. Well, I think if we stick with just saying that maybe that's the reduction, you know, if we end up getting free hot dogs next year, then we can give free hot dogs. But uh you know, I think the way the motion is uh described right now, we're we're just not uh paying for it, I guess. So, is that a maker of the motion? in the second. How do you feel about rephrasing your motion again with the input from the director as being not uh maybe perhaps just uh limiting you know the number of concerts and then still you know once again I 100% support uh there being the option for vendors to be present that and we can even invite food trucks and other bring in additional food besides hot dogs and I mean these days food trucks are great because you don't have to pre- purchase the food all the time. You invite them to come and they'll line up along the street and residents can have options to a lot of different food items. Um I think if the city goes out and buys hot dogs with the intent of selling them, that's still an expense that could fall on the city if we don't sell them all or or they because they spoil. Um we can't save them for the next concert. So, I would advocate looking into inviting food truck vendors to come out and and provide options cuz having the food is great. It's just we can't pay for it in my opin.

We don't restrict anybody from bringing their own food in. Right. That there is no restriction I believe uh today. So then uh just to let's make sure Colleen, what's the motion or do you need it restated? Okay, go ahead. My Go ahead. Say it one more time if you don't mind. Say state your motion. So, Colleen,

I make a motion to change the concert series from four to three. Um, and those three can be at the department's discretion of when to use them. And then, uh, eliminate the free food and bring bring in Yeah. bring in vendors to offer food and drink options for the residents that they can pay for. All right. And then the second of the motion, um, was that okay with you or do you

Yeah, except I have one further comment. Um, there are folks that may not be able to afford a $10 hot dog from a from a a a vendor, a food truck, but they c they would love to pay the um pay for the actual cost of a $2 hot dog from Wildwood. And I wonder if there's some way we can ex we can um uh you know provide guidance to to support investigating that at the same time because you also mentioned that we might be able to get some you know we might get get free hot dogs again or something like that.

Well, I think that and I might ask for the department or the city administrator's input there. I mean, just because the city is no longer paying for the hot dogs doesn't stop the city from perhaps having a conversation with some of the partners that we have today. You mentioned Alliance Club.

I mean, the Lions Club has been a partner there and maybe something could be worked out where they they use it as a way to raise some funds uh and uh sell hot dogs. Um, you know, that I'm just throwing it out there. I think a conversation would have to be had with them. But I would think just like we've had um other organizations that participate and sell beverages at events, they use it as a way to raise money. So maybe there's there's something there. You know, I don't I don't have the math on, you know.

Yeah, I'm just break even is on hot dogs. I'm hoping to prevent the situation of folks that don't have much money suddenly they can't come there and get a hot dog, but if it's a $2 hot dog, most folks can still afford a $2 hot dog. And so I I wanted to be sensitive to that issue. Um I don't know how we do it, but um thank you. Yeah, we we do. And in fact, I I I see a lot of folks that will come in, they bring these like little tables and set up a nice spread there uh in the field.

Council member, yeah, I guess just a brief comment. Yeah, I'm sensitive also to those who may not be able to afford um uh food from a food truck, but I think we need to be cautious here because um I know many owners of food trucks will be reluctant to come to a city event where they see uh the city essentially competing with them by providing a a $2 hot dog. Council member Nine, I just had a clarification. I know this um says no free food, but can we put in there still free water? Is is that true? That that was understood too that we'd have water available um just not the soda part, but that just because it's so hot outside I think it's a given.

I had one last just quick question and I don't know have we ever done in the pavore looked I mean I know a lot of different municipalities and stuff that have things like this. Could we have it like a corporate sponsor and offer it to where a corporate sponsor could come in and say we're sponsoring the June concert and they could have a banner with their company and then they pay for the hot dogs or whatever. We could come up with a list with it's only five grand. A lot of companies spend five grand to sponsor a well yeah charity gala.

Yeah. I believe over in Chesterfield it's the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce that sponsors all their concerts. And I recall city of Ellisville, I believe that they have sponsors like West News Magazine that sponsor their concerts there. I don't know if it's a full sponsorship or partial, but I think that um certainly our neighbors are doing that. So, we might want to look at that. If we have some data to show how many thousand people show up to these concerts and you could show a company to say, I mean, $5,000 is not a lot of money to a corporate sponsor to to write a check for five grand to have their banner up as being the sponsor of this month's summer concert series or whatever.

Just Okay. As Yeah. And as long as we're able to, you know, they're the the main thing is that vendor is going to want that promotional piece. They're going to want to have, you know, either a banner put up. And the question would be too, I think it would be necessary for them to cover those costs as well. Sure. Council member Crayons,

in addition to the vendors, like for instance, the Lions Club, they uh cook the hot dogs. maybe they could be the vendor for the hot dogs and and then control that and put a price on it and then just go with some charities as well as vendors. Just a suggestion. Uh I think those are all good ideas. Um all right. I uh don't see any other hands up. So I guess uh we have that motion on the floor made by Council Member Galani and seconded by Council Member Rambo. Anyone need it repeated? All right.

What I have is we'll have three concerts instead of four and eliminate free food and and give the option to bring in vendors for food and drink. Okay. Right.

And explore potential part uh sponsorships for offering food for free. Not us, but really we're not Can I repeat it? Um reducing the number of concerts from four to three the month doesn't matter. it will be left to the department to to be able to define which which months work best. Um, still providing food vendors, but we will not pay for it. Uh, the other side of it, we will still provide water. And then overall, we're going to be looking to find sponsors. If there's a way to offset the cost for the food, that would be explored. Okay. Um, any other questions? All those in favor of the motion, please say I.

I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Motion passes. All right. Uh, city administrator Lee, you can continue.

Thank you. And, uh, just for the sake of time, I if you don't mind, I can jump through these real quickly. But overall, I wanted to give a couple quick notes just about all the funds first and foremost and then we can kind of dive into the operational because overall the other funds that we have and we want to jump into the capital improvement sales tax fund as well. But um realistically the operation operating budget and the capital improvement sales tax fund are the two that we'll probably focus on the most. The other ones are really just day-to-day operational expenses. The one thing I wanted to point out is that the town center sewer fund, that account does still exist. That fund exists. We closed that out in 2023. Uh we've been working to get the last remaining delay delinquent assessments, but once those last it's we have we're down to less than five properties at this point. Um and we have taken necessary steps to you put a lean on their homes and things along those lines to get those paid. But once that's all paid, the idea would be to issue a refund and then close out that fund altogether. So the department is anticipating that that refund would take place in 2026. Um, and we have about 350,000 that could be refunded with an additional 90,000 that should be retained in order to if there's further action that's necessary to get the remaining amount. So, just putting that out there. And then the other one that is just a quick call out that it's expenditure without address revenues is the U deer management fund. We do have funds associated with that account as well. And overall we are back in 2023 we separated those expenditures out from the general fund. So there isn't necessarily a revenue source that's offsetting that expense. So those two I just wanted to call out specifically. Um but if in the sake of time we can go through the operating budget um with the document in front of us today and just go through some of the changes that were made really um would that be acceptable to the mayor?

Yeah. Okay. Um okay. So, first and foremost feedback we were the department received from both the administration and public works committee and also the uh planning and parks committee was that the salary adjustments to work those back in to the overall budget. Um so that was that wasn't

first p Yeah, we're start Yep. First page page. Okay. So, we're going to go through the green highlighted items if there's anything along the lines. Um, and this the only items that have been added as a reminder is the adjustments and the expenditures in general. So, the PMP adjustments, PMP added expenditures, the changes from that PMP meeting and then also the PMP recommended changes. So, that's the impact since that meeting. So, that was in consolidating both admin PW comments, all the committee comments into one. Um, and there is still some room here. And the reason why that room to get speak to Mr. Glan's point was that there could be a need to have some additional funding put towards the uh our park maintenance since we're adding in the village green. So that's where the breathing room kind of comes in there. But to go through these real quick one at a time, we have personnel uh the adjustment that was originally proposed in uh the version A uh was 2% but we after studying the market 4% is actually where the market is right now. and both committees had determined that that is that would be acceptable and that does the increase the budgetary expense by $64,311. Going down here, the one thing that the planning and parks committee did want to call out as well was the hometown heroes program retained that program. Um that covers the expenditures associated with purchasing the actual signs themselves and then putting those signs up and then taking them down one month before Memorial Day and one month before uh before Veterans Day. Uh the other one we wanted to add in a contingency for computer computer systems for the parks team that could be monitors, could be keyboards, etc. Um also if a computer goes out or needs parts uh special events, we did want to increase that budget back up to 25,000. The reason for that, even though we have um probably a little bit less of special events we're going to jump into, but overall we're having the Route 6600th anniversary and

the idea is to make sure that there are funds set aside for when the council if they want to support a special event. Um that I guess this was one of the ones we wanted to talk about if we want to have some money set aside for that specific we don't know exactly what the event is yet, but we're already kind of talking about a scavenger hunt and some other things that haven't been necessarily announced. The idea would be to have something set aside for the Route 6600th anniversary and that's where that change comes from. Um, there was a question there. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, you can. You have a question, please go ahead.

Okay. I think Council Member Mabry, are you Yeah. Do you do you want to I guess my question is uh which item are you uh interested in speaking about? out of the last admin public works meeting I had made a request uh that a recapitulation would be made that if option B as it's turning out here to retain the the quality and the quantity of services as this year and not penalizing the city and its residents by our accounting practices which funnel accounts back if they're not used appropriately or whatever. I had asked if we take every item of option B which retains quality of services and we find out what the shortfall is to that instead of balanced budget A which reduces what I consider to be critical um sounding trit but it's going to be safety security and salaries which we've already addressed and sounds like we're proceeding with uh what exact dollar amount exact act would that require that we draw from our uh reserves, our reserves, and what actions can be taken that we could vote on to take those funds out of those reserves as they're needed. And as that draws down the 19 million in reserves to a lesser figure, and I'm hearing figures anywhere from 250 to 380,000 or whatever, that we are going to be doing two things. We're going to be drawing down those reserves and communicating that to residents that we are drawing down reserves to retain

the quality of services that they've grown to um enjoy and and expect. Um, and that that's going to require the very clear communication also that we need a u a an a means to increase our revenue by those means that are being drawn down by the fact that um both state legislation and taxing base is being eroded from our from our our income. I don't see where that's been uh accounted for are being discussed or are being recognized and that's really all. Thank you, mayor. Um so that would be included in option B. So that was option B, which I know it's getting confusing with 15 different options here, but overall what that was showing with no cuts whatsoever, keeping up with inflationary pressures, and remaining at the revenue that we're at now, it was at $483,61 over. It's within option. It's Yeah, that's this page that was just handed out is take Yeah. So that is that not that page. This is included in the budget document that was on the agenda. So this sorry for the confusion here. That said in option B if you go to the I would have to show you on the computer but overall there's a fund balance page. Yes. Yes. That's correct. So to do that I mean the council could approve option B. That would be the that would be the to do that effectively, you would be approving option B. The planning and parks committee wanted to take a little there was two different directions that were taken. Administration of public works had given direction to go ahead and look at some of the 5-year averages, but try to make

cuts where possible, but come back with um somewhat of a revise and that kind of comes into the the recommendation for PMP, the PMP recommendation tonight. Um it kind of includes both of them. The other side was planning and parks had mentioned that use this 350,000. We don't want to go above that number, but and that was based off of what we could do for approximately 10 years if we had to. And then this that's what was really created from this. And part of that why it's at 212 was that we actually subtracted out the legislative consultant services which we'll cover here. And the other side was to retain a little bit of funding which was going to be discussed tonight too but wasn't stated was that we might need some additional funding for the park maintenance as well. That if nothing's cut, that's correct.

Council member Farmer.

Yeah. Um, so I I think you know these budget conversations are always kind of interesting because we fight this balanced budget thing which in my opinion is sort of a generally made up thing because we just move stuff around and make adjustments as we go, but it's what we have to do. Um, one thing I will say is I think uh, city administrator Lee, you did a really great job. You guys have all done a great job with this budget stuff this year, but last year you did a great job of calling out an issue that we had approaching with the capital improvement budget. and we've spent the better part of the year trying to sort out how to fix that problem, make some adjustments, some of which are painful, more painful than others. Um, in admin PW, we decided to try to go with kind of a scientific or mathematic version of this where we're looking at like what real world expenses are. So the biggest concern I think from admin PW was you know in our opinion generally speaking as a city we are we are underst staffed in terms of manpower and the manpower is in many cases when it comes to annual increases a lot of times is under increase. It was kind of it's just not how you keep that's not how you treat people at work for your city and it's not how you keep good people. So, we need to address those things. And I'm I'm very appreciative that the parks and planning committee kind of took a similar approach seemingly where they're looking at items that um we do need to make difficult cuts. I like free hot dogs as much as the next person, but the reality is, as Council Member Galani said, we don't have revenues to support those things. We don't have revenues to support the employees that work for the city. Um, we talk a lot about in our committee our reserve which is in my general opinion outrageously overinflated. And that overinflation is due to many many years

of under maintaining things that were necessary and under staffing what we needed to have. So I think what we're doing here tonight is a great thing in that we do need to have some difficult conversations. Um, we do need to raise the alarms to our residents so they understand these things. I think again in my personal opinion, we are going to have to look at something down the road to pay for this tremendous parks and trail system that we have and maintaining all of these things. But we need to really genuinely look at what we're doing with our reserve and what we can do here where I think I think Mr. Mabry might have a point in that we don't need to, you know, slash some of these things with a machete. I'm not sure that we're doing that fully in all of these things. Um, but we do need to make some changes. So I think the changes to reduce events and the food is a great change. I think looking at you know some of the stuff we do in admin PW like salt for the road. Look at how much it costs us over 5 years. You know sometimes we have a crazy year. We talked a lot about how we shouldn't probably budget for tremendous snowtorrms and multiple tornadoes every year yet. We don't know that that's going to happen again. If it does start to happen then we're going to have a bigger problem. So I I think looking at this reserve throughout many many meetings you know we've suggested different people myself included have suggested different ideas to look at the reserve the biggest thing I think we need to figure out I would suggest is from a priority list for our city what do we need to do I think parks and planning did a great job by saying we got to make some decisions here I I personally think we need to look at how we are staffed and how we compensate those people and then we look at what services are necessary to operate a city before we're really doing anything outside of that. I mean, I I'm not I certainly don't want to pick on the veterans. I think the hometown heroes thing is a great great deal, but I mean, $7,500 for that seems like an awful lot of money when we can't pay our employees an appropriate amount of anything. And I understand sometimes these things come out of different

budgets or whatever, but it's the same pool of money. Um, and so I think I I mean I think we need to look at these things, but I do think, you know, if we're talking about $200,000 or whatever it is you guys need to balance this thing, that seems like a good way to give us a year to figure this thing out moving forward, just like we did with the capital improvement stuff. Came up with a pretty good system with that. Seems to work so far, I guess. Um, but that's kind of how it goes. So, I'm all for I mean I think we can go through each item if that's what you guys want to do, but I mean a lot of these things seem like kind of no no-brainer stuff. I would also suggest $500 for computer systems is not I don't know what that buys like one half of one monitor. I don't know what we're getting for that. So, I mean some of these numbers I know you guys are putting some stuff in here, but it's just like not realistic. A new computer is a couple grand. So that said with the that specific one we have in the budget this year to replace the remaining of the two parks employees and the other it would really be for replacing you know miscellaneous items the two computers unless there was a catastrophic failure of one of their devices both should be replaced by January 1 like relatively like within the last two years.

So then everybody's got good stuff. We're not like each year we every it you can almost look at it for computers every five years someone we replace we replace laptops. It's a rotating schedule.

I I would just say like things like that. Like I mean five $500 for whatever we have 26 employees does not seem like nearly enough money. And I understand it's just in one department but still that's spend more than that at my house. Well, I guess what I'm saying is, you know, the 43 for option B, I, you know, if if it was, I guess technically it is possible, but, you know, if we could do everything that we did this year, keep the status quo as you're saying, I think that that's something we could do. we can also, you know, get a few pieces out of this to start this conversation moving forward rather than just kind of saying, "Hey, well, we're going to do what we did last year and we'll figure it out next year." I think we need to start figuring some of these things out for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you want to think of I mean,

correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, andor Joe, but like this is giving you guys sort of final direction to put the real thing together. That's correct. That the whole idea is to take this input tonight. I know there's a ton of different versions, but it's been kind of with it being in balance, it's been a little tough to kind of carve it down and put it back in. Um that said, tonight the idea is to get this collected feedback and then have a consolidated here's one version clean and simple and then if there's obviously questions the council has full discretion in changing it there. That's their prerogative. That said to have to pretty much reduce from three down to one.

Yeah, I think it's I mean I guess maybe I didn't really have more of a question. It was a very long statement and I apologize for the length, but the idea is I think we're really trending in the right direction on this stuff. It's It's been a long time coming to get this thing uh get our arms around this as a group. So, I'm all for moving forward on this thing and I think making tough decisions on hot dogs and different things is where we got to be. Yeah. Um All right. So, I uh was suggesting this to Tom here to maybe help us move along with this meeting here. I mean, we could go through each one of these items one by one and you saw it took about 20 minutes to talk about hot dogs. So, um, so, you know, I think that maybe what we could do is give everyone a chance to look at this here and then what we're going to do page by page is we're going to stop at each page and say, "Okay, does anyone have anything here?" Otherwise, if no one has anything specific to any item on that page, then we're assuming everybody's fine with what is that recommendation there. So, we're only going to stop if someone either wants to have a discussion and change something from what is already there proposed. Um, and I think that might help us move along a little bit more efficiently. Um, Tom, how does that work for you? Does that

That works fine. And I would just So, so everyone's reading the format properly. I know it's somewhat jarggled up too because it's three different numbers here, but when you're looking at the document, um, option B was the first thing stated cuz that was where we started from, but really the option A was supposed to be, you know, what was presented because the department has a prerogative to submit a balanced budget to the council. So that said with if the absolute toughest choices were made, that's what option A is. And that's a pretty big whiplash. Option B accounts for, you know, maintaining everything like it is. Um, and not really building all too much on it, but maintaining everything. And then option this PMP added expenditures and PMP adjustments. Those and should have had slash AMPPW, but I didn't want to muddy the water further. Those are really incorporating feedback as much as we can and then trying to get to that number that getting it lower, but also trying to get to the 350 that would allow us to retain most services. I would almost look at the PMP recommended changes as the most updated notes on each row and then just look at the difference between the PMP adjustments to balance budget in parenthesis A. That's going to show what was added back after committee review and if there's any changes or questions, I think that would be a great way to start and each one does have its own u little definition if you will that could help explain it. Okay,

does everyone understand that? Uh yeah, we're going to look at page one right now and I'm going to give you a chance to look at it and then I'm going to pause for a second here and then ask if anyone has anything related to any item on page one. And again, like what Tom said, that PMP adjustment column, that's the final column. And if you want to understand what changed, go to the very uh far right column, which is the PMP recommended changes. So, if you're fine with what's there, then you you don't have to say anything. Um, if there's something here that you disagree with or wish to change, then we'll entertain those uh remarks and we'll do like what we did with that item just now that Council Member Galani covered. So, so we can take a look at page one there and just see if you have anything here that you wish to change. Again, we'll just pause for a moment here, give everyone a chance, and then we'll uh see if anyone has anything. Starting

to get a couple folks looking up here. So, and just checking around the room to see if anybody's still reviewing any of the items here. We'll make sure we give you time. I'm going to ask anyone have anything on page one that they wish to discuss? I saw council member Mabry and then council member Farmer. So on page one and then council member Dodwell. Council member Mabry, which item do you have that you wish to talk about? And sorry, we don't have a row number here, so you're going to have to point us to the title.

Oh, okay. All right. Hold off then on that, Council Member Farmer. Uh, yeah. So, I just had a question on the salary adjustment thing. I'm totally good with the 4% thing. Um, I just wanted to make sure is that is that 4% in general, so including the the cola or is that just 4% on top of that? That'd be 4% total with a 2.5% cola and a 1.5% merit base increase. Okay. And then does that number assume it would also include like if Paula were still here or what?

Yes, it does. So we don't No. So that a little different. If they were here, we would incorporate it. But really the and that's broken out. That number is budgeted currently for that position at 90,000. So that's a that's really that's like it's not we're not pretending that that

No, we're not pretending like that person exists. Yep. Yeah, I was just going to mention that too. Yeah, I heard 2.8% uh is what the cola number for 2026. So, if you want to include merit, you do have to add whatever merit plus the cola. Yes. To determine what that number is. So right now at four means merit would be 1.2% plus the cola correct

which is the 2.8. Um council member Marshall uh is that related to that that item as well?

Yeah I I would just like to make sure I know we have at least four new council people. Our role as council people will do the evaluation for the city administrator and city clerk. Our role as a council member is to give him a wage dollar to divide among based on performance and their caps of all the other staff. So it's not everybody won't get that same level. That's the dollars that would be given to the administrator to work within the caps. The employees that are at the cap would not get the same increase as the new hire. So we don't get involved in all the detail. We do two people. we do their rates and then the the city administrator takes the dollar amount that we give for salaries and adjusts that based on individual performance. Thanks.

Thank you. So, um any anything else on that item there, Council Member Dodwell? I was going to mention on as much as I want the hometown hero activity to continue go to go on. Wait, you know, if I could ask just uh let's since we're we're we started going down the path with the salary item here. Let me see if we need to close that out just if you don't mind holding unless it's related to it. Okay. So, anyone anything else related to that first row item regarding the salary adjustments? All right. Right. So, council member Mabberry, you had mentioned maybe making an adjustment to that. Yes.

Okay. Go ahead. Speak to that and why you want to do that. And I'd heard your your uh u you offering that it's 2.8%. Right. I had also heard it say 8 point it's 2.8% early last or last week. Oh. Now it came out today on something I found that it was 2.7%. So, I'd like to air the side of safety by 2.8% and offer that it should be 2.8% plus 1.5% whatever that math works out to. And then that closes out that issue. 2.8 plus 1.5. That'd be 4.2% total. 2.8 + 1.5 is 4.3.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. A lot of math lately. All right. So, Council Member Mabber, you're suggesting raising that amount there to include some additional flexibility on the merit side. Anyone else have any other uh comments related to that? Otherwise, we'll look for a motion if you want to go ahead and make that motion to increase that to that or to any other number. This would be the time. Motion for that uh line item. Okay. So, you're going to change that to 4 uh three the maximum. Yes, sir. Okay. Council member Dodwell, did you have a question? Okay, you're seconding it. So, we got the motion on the floor. Council member Marshall discussion. Yes.

Because we're in a process of going over and over this. If we're going to do this, let's lock something down. Yeah. So, we're not doing six more budget revisions. So, if it if the motion is that we want to make it to 4.3, then that's what it should be. And we shouldn't come back to the next budget review and say, I want to change it to another.8 or another.5. So, we've got to agree to a number. And again, it's not that everybody's getting that. It's just that's we're just giving the dollars. He can do it however he needs to do it. But I just don't want us to keep doing this every meeting. Ideally, yeah, in the perfect world, right? But someone always could bring something up. We agreed that just that's it. Let's do it.

Okay. Um, so we have that motion on the floor that is to increase it to 4.3 maximum there. Um, anyone else have anything else to say? Otherwise, all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone abstain? Anyone oppose? Okay. Thank you for that, Mr. Mayor. Can we have a second reading on that one light item? Oh, well, we joking. No, no, no, no. Oh, he's joking. Okay.

All right. Good. Good on that. So, okay. Moving along. Anyone else have any uh any comments related to any items on that first page? Now would be the time to propose any changes, suggestions? Council member Dodwell, which one do you wish to bring up? Thank you. Please go ahead. That or I think these banners do go up twice a year um in May and then in November. So perhaps maybe it's just focusing on the November which is uh where we have our program might be an idea. Uh all right so Council Member Batnik

uh being a veteran I have to speak up for my fellow fellow veterans. Uh maybe city administrator can explain the cost to the family members uh who want to do this for their fallen uh [snorts] overall I I get what you're saying. Uh overall they pay a slight I think it's Joey if you could answer this. I think it's like half of the banner cost I believe or it's a very what was that $100 towards the banner cost which covers a good portion of it but the city's really eating the cost for putting them up. We put a lot of banners up on Manchester and Taylor that's where and is there

Yeah. So, it happens annually. Um, every every year they actually get the the poster, if you will, the the signage back if they um, you know, they could put it back up, but then they would have to re-engage in the program. So, it

just for information, my wife did that for me, paid the initial fee, but we've never been charged any additional fees for the next year. So, I'm not sure if this is an isolated case with me and or if it's if this is something that is happening with other other veteran and or other families also. But, uh perhaps uh we could because we're my wife's willing to pay that and these other people are willing to pay it for their grandparents, parents, whoever, brother, sister uh who served. But um yeah, maybe we're missing some money income coming in to provide for this service.

I can check that. Uh they should my understanding. Go ahead. Speak to it a little further. First of all, I have to correct myself. We did raise the price to $150.

That's fine. And the reason we don't charge for the reposting of the banners is that the program hasn't been as successful as we had hoped. And so each time we get a new banner, a new person, new veteran wanting a banner, it would not necessarily fill the street. And so we've continued just to post the banners from previous previous years. So the so we have a what I would consider an attractive display on Manchester Road.

Okay. It's appreciated, you know, but people in my position are willing to pay that annual fee for that for that poster to go up. Uh we're not being contacted apparently. So anyway, um it's interesting to me, you know, $7,500 here, you know, $20,000 or um $5,000 for hot dogs and stuff like that. And I'm going to go on a little bit of a rant which is going to take us off off of uh [laughter] off off the issue here, but just a little bit of an observation uh for me as as a new city councilman is that uh I'm amazed how we like to spend money on the city council uh and for perhaps projects and issues that that we shouldn't be paying for. You know, we spent $1 million for J turns on a state road maintained by the state. We spent $1.3 million on a roundabout on a state state road maintained by the state or paying one $1 million over 5 years for deer calling, which really is a state issue. And when my constituents come to me and ask me, you know, why are we spending $3.3 million? You know, we're spending $300,000 for a cabin, which is 50% original cabin, and the rest of it, who knows where it came from, and then we're talking about, you know, $5,000 in hot dogs. You know, that's not where where our focus should be. Our focus should be on these big items that we seemingly uh make decisions on without I mean everybody wants traffic safety

especially me but th those roads are maintained by a state which has ample finances county the county is broke county is broke They don't have money for Old State. You know, we're looking for $250,000 for the improvement for the roundabout at uh Old State and Ridge, you know, and uh but when you talk about $3.3 million of city money that is going to try and uh resolve some of these state issues, that kind of I mean, that's shocking to me as a new city councilman. And then we're arguing about $5,000 in hot dogs. You know, uh it's hard to I I I proposed this at the last u uh admin public works and went over like a lead balloon. So, but um um my proposal was that we do uh celebrate Wildwood every fifth year. And I hesitate to bring that up because uh uh I mean, Mr. uh Glani, you know, suggested going from four to three concerts and there was some, you know, push back and I I get it, you know, but uh when you're spending $100,000 a year for Celebrate Wildwood, it's hard to celebrate it if we can't pay our our our staff, if we can't keep our staff because we're not paying them, if we're not making the necessary improvements for things like water erosion or or things like uh putting in a roundabout at Old State, you know, those are the big ticket items. Those are the things that uh we need to we need to focus on more in my opinion. And

um you know, $7,500 for um uh the u banners, you know, I mean, compare big scheme of things, you know, I would like to see them go out every year. There's people, you know, that that that's an important thing for in this community, you know, because they're loved ones served and perhaps died, you know, serving this country and they want to see them being honored and so they can take their grandchildren say, "Hey, there's grandpa."

And uh so that's all I have to say. Sorry about my grant. [laughter] And uh no, I really greatly appreciate it. I I think this is a difficult conversation to have um because we're going through items here and

you know some of these items, you know, yeah, they could be small and you know sometimes even feel trivial, right? When you're talking about hot dogs, I mean then in the grand scheme of things, right? I mean even the hometown heroes, I mean these are people who sacrificed for our country. I think the least we could do is put the banners up for them. And I feel terrible already that that, you know, we have to collect money to pay for the banner, but I know that things cost money. So, um, I mean, we couldn't certainly keep looking uh to find opportunities, but maybe the two I think the other thing we need to keep in mind is we we don't want to lose what makes Wildwood special, right? I mean, some of the things that we do are why people love Wildwood. Um, all right. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll keep going. Uh, anything else on the first page? All right. So, with that then we'll go on to the second page here. Um, Council Member Mabry. Yep. Well, I think I think that only we'll make we'll take motions whenever there's changes and then we'll do like a final motion that is anything that we didn't already discuss to just collectively cover it all. And so, yeah, we did have that motion for that one. Did we take a vote on that?

Yeah, we did. Okay. All right. So, we'll uh continue with uh page two. So, I'm going to pause here and give you a chance to look at page two and then we'll revisit I'm just going to look around. When you're done looking at that, if you kind of give me a sign, then I'll know, you know, who's still looking and who's ready.

Okay. How we doing here? Um any anyone have any items on this page that you would like to discuss? Council member Alers.

Um I'm a chapel celebrate Wildwood. Um, I think it's a event that like the mayor just said makes uh this city special and I think it's really grown into something superior. This this event this past year was was tremendous and I'd hate to see us lose momentum um in in that kind of a thing that really is positive for the city. I can remember going to one of them in the early stages and it was it was pretty lame. It was it was weak. I didn't come back for a long time. It really turned into a special thing to celebrate this great city. And uh you know I think the parade is something that uh you know I finally was in one and it was pretty special for the residents along the way. So, I'm I'm in favor of looking for ways to keep going with that and uh you know, maybe there's again sponsorships, you know, like, you know, somebody sponsoring the parade or I don't know what the biggest cost of the parade is. Maybe that would be something we should discuss.

It's the golf carts. Golf carts. We could walk. Yeah. Some people do. And how much are we talking about in golf carts? It's like I would say six thou 55,000. Uh not 55 5,500. Sorry.

So So maybe we kind of have an idea. You think that could save some money with that if we found an alternative to the golf carts because council member CR that golf cart was dead when they got in there. One thing that was discussed was potentially having like a and this was at the committee was having if the parade proceeds having a um like almost like a hay hay bale truck or something like that carrying like a a float all the council members the council members. Yeah, that was an idea. It would take some coordination to figure out what that is and who we getting elicit the help from, but it's an idea.

Or what's the biggest golf cart size? Maybe we just get fewer and we have like big ones like you know six passenger or something like that. I would like to you know through our experiences I guess Joe would be the only one to remember at one point they got um a trolley rented for all the council people to be inside it but the glass the windows were all darkened so you could not see anybody. So I would suggest you do something like that. Don't get something you can't see. Do that. That defeats the purpose. Yeah. Go ahead.

Well, it might be worth it. I mean, there might be some that'll maybe some can choose to walk if they wish and some could ride. So, it's a little bit of both. Um, you know, that's probably a good idea. Maybe we can minimize the number of golf carts. I know folks love the golf carts. Uh but you know, if we could either reduce how many we have to get or um what do you think? Is that something that is feasible? Mr. B, do they do they like if we were to get a lighter amount of golf carts, is there a minimum? I know the total, but the amount of golf carts we need, do they have like would they send us a couple golf carts or would do we have to have a minimum?

I don't know. We've generally ordered what we believe necessary for the grand marshalss, the council members including the mayor and then members of the Wildwood Celebration Commission. So from that perspective um we've just ordered based upon the number of people that have committed to participate could certainly investigate that.

Yeah, I think so. Maybe we you know we don't have to get specific in any motion saying about the golf carts. Uh maybe we just you know focus on the the budgetary it the number here and then that gives the department flexibility to be creative and figure out some maybe they get a couple of big golf carts or or maybe they just get one or two or three for some special uh you know grand marshals or whoever it is and you know we can do some combination of things. Um, so, um, I think that's a way that the council probably can help with saving some money for it if that's a good big piece of the expense. Council member Dodwell,

I was just going to make a motion that we go with what the planning and parks committee had put together of a $70,000 budget for Celebrate Wildwood and then we can look at alternatives for some of the things that we do. I know in the past we'd also had um an antique car group come through and we rode in those cars. So there are al there are alternatives. Yeah. All right. So um then if there's no change, we'll make this as part of the collective motion there. Um Council Member Mabry.

Oh, okay. Now, one item I do want to revisit here just for a moment here is related to the concert series and the motion that was made before which was scheduling three concerts for next year instead of the four. Um I I was just speaking with the city administrator and perhaps we may do you want to share is there a possibility like that you can maybe still make it work with four with the reduced budget number because we're we've uh eliminated the uh food expenses.

Yes. So that was the quick discussion here and sorry to return to it but that was what we were trying to present was one or two options. we either reduce the number of uh total number of concerts or we would reduce or remove the eliminate the the giving out of free items. So that said, I mean it at the amount 60 or 65, 60 would be a little tough, but if we were at 65, um I do believe and the Department of uh Parks and Planning could give us additional detail, but with the expenditures that I've reviewed over the last couple years, that would be right in line if we kept everything the same, but did not pay for the actual food itself, it would equal about 20,000 in savings. And we had initially anticipated that 85,000 would cover the entirety of it. So at 65, I think we could do it. It would be tight, but it could be done.

What do you think, Director Moonage? If we uh made a motion, if we can get a motion to reconsider that motion just to make it focus more on the dollar figure. I think it gives you flexibility to look at. Maybe you could still pull off four, but you know, we'd still save the money.

Didn't the council already make their decision on this? Yeah, that's why it would have to be reconsidered. But I'm thinking that, you know, if we if we focus on the monetary figure, it gives the department the flexibility to be creative. Otherwise, the motion will stand as it is and then that's it. There's three concerts. But according to what the city administrators have said, it's possible they still could pull off four with the same savings. In our planning and zoning or planning and parks meeting, it was discussed that the attendees in the July event were much lower than the other events due to the heat.

I mean, if that's the position uh folks still feel, then I guess we could leave it as is. But I was just trying to look for the most flexibility here. From the department's perspective, whatever a city council decides, we'll implement. If it's a cap in terms of the money spent, we'll work within that cap and not exceed it. If it's three concerts and there is a a limitation on the amount of money spent for the three concerts, we'll do three concerts at that amount.

Yeah. And the only reason I think I bring it up is I remember when we cut the recycling event and then the calendars, we got a lot of folks that brought up that they wanted their calendars and then the recycling event. And so I feel like we're a little bit locked in if we say there's just three, but if we say, you know, spend up to 65,000, then that gives them the flexibility to to look into things. So

the motion then we would just need a motion uh since everyone voted in favor, a motion to reconsider, resend the previous Yeah. Okay. What's that motion? Uh motion to resend the component of moving from four to three but then replacing that with just a budgetary number of 65,000. Okay. So you making a motion there. Is there a second on that to resend? Anyone wishes to resend a second on that? All right. Made by council member Mabberry. All right. All those in favor of that motion to resend say I. I.

Anyone opposed or abstain? Okay. Okay. So, that motion's rescended. Can we get a new motion then on the floor with just the uh approve? Well, we we may not need it because this is already part of it. This is the collective. Yeah. And and in theory, it's removing the food component of it. That adds up to 20,000. The initial, you know, needed amount was 85. That would [snorts] equal 65. So, the math adds up, but a motion could would assist in that. Okay. So, you're asking still for a motion just to um motion that would be that the u city would uh eliminate the expenses on uh food items made by council member Farmer or is that a

well close I'm going to propose something. I'm I guess since we're reconsidering it, I I would say this. If we want to go with a flat budget amount, I think that's fine. But I would really strongly encourage that what we try to do is make the best possible events that we can. We're going to put four events in and one of them is going to be, pardon my French, sort of shitty. I don't understand why we would do that. We have we're if we're pulling back some services from the citizens, which the food thing is fine, then you know, we can utilize certain budgets to make these events better if that's what we want to do. But if we're just adding more events, we're adding risk. I mean,

the July one is likely attended. We do have weather concerns. I just think and we have a limited staff. Like I I love the events as much as everybody else, but we just can't do this stuff like every other week. It's not sustainable. So, if I would, my motion would be if we want to have a fixed number, I'm happy to hear what Tom's number would be, but I would advocate that we make that number make the best events we possibly can, and that maybe doesn't mean adding a fourth one back in.

Yeah. I mean, just that I mean, quite frankly, if you do if you want to maintain what we currently have, the C like the event we currently have without the food, um, to reproduce that, I mean, you're looking at like 65,000 and that'd be right on the nose for four events. I mean it would be really close. Um that said, you know, if you're if you take out the food component um and some of the electricity cost too, that's the other component too that's going to be reduced. It should be at least in in a small sense because we have electricity running to the village green site. I think we could have and unless director Vunich disagrees here, I think we could do four events at what we're currently offering, but just without the food. I mean, it would just be water that we would provide. Maybe we could have three really good events instead of four so so events and reduce the stress on the staff and reduce the stress on our budget.

Well, I think if we focus on that just making the motion or keeping it with the budget that that gives the flexibility so we're not just tonight locked in. Yeah. Sure. Otherwise, you know, we have to come back and change it. All right. Well, then we'll go with the budget number. Okay. So, with that being the budget number, then you you still want that motion regarding the just the uh Yep. Uh with with and we've already the portion about the food items. It's already been covered. This would just be locking in the 65,000 and the cap has already the number of events has already been eliminated. reconsidering

the what the rescending the motion that rescended was only the number of events but I think it I mean it would be fine if we do both it would be a good coverage I mean that said with that rescending motion what Dr. Rambo had mentioned was that they were rescending the port half of it practically was the part where it's three versus four events. I think it would be nice though if we could just have a nice clean motion. We could we could definitely use that too. Do you want to go ahead and make that motion? Are you comfortable with that? Uh yeah. So I think the motion So what is the budget number? We want 65,000. Yes, that is correct.

Okay. So, my motion is going to be that the Music on Main Street series is not to exceed $65,000 and it will pull back as we already did the food and free food and drinks. Does that make sense? Okay, there there a second on that made by Council Member Rambo. of Lambo. So, we have the motion on the floor. Is there discussion? All right. Okay. Go ahead.

I didn't get that at all. I got I got maximum $65,000 budget, maximum four events. And if you can stick food in those four events for 65,000, you're fine. If not, you're hauled on the carpet. If you need to cut back to three to keep the food in, you can do that, too. gives the staff the option. Oh,

and that was and you're right, Mr. Mabri, of what was written in the document was kind of pref prefacing this in a question of like we have, you know, almost a fork in the road. We can do three the right way or we can do uh four the we can do four without the food and drink. That was the idea behind what was written in the document. But I think what the motion is stating here is that we're going to lock it in not to exceed 65,000 for our music on main series. If that turns out to be four, great. If it doesn't, you know, it can be a minimum of three. Um, and then the other side of that would be that the elimination of food and drink during these events for free. It doesn't mean they won't provide them. We'll find some vendors to fill in the gaps, but we will not be paying for those. That

it sounds like that's the motion that's being made. Then we'll have to vote on that. Yep. All right. So with the motion on the floor, any questions on that? Anyone needed repeated? Otherwise, all those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed or abstain? All right, we have one. No, a motion still passes. Uh, we'll move forward. Any other items on this page? I'm sorry. I'm I'm sorry. Who seconded that? I didn't catch that. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Thank All right. [snorts] Seeing Yes, you have one uh on this page. Go ahead. Yes.

Yes. That and that's the uh we need to have that discussion too. So this was one we wanted to call out. So right now this the supplies document the budget the account pays for you know think about it the shirts that we purchase for events. It pays for you know for the most recent shivering shadows the decorations that we put out on the trail during the event to give it the fet festive atmosphere. Uh all of that is included under the supply item. Uh that said, with this cut, we would have to consider potentially removing an event or two from the from the repertoire to keep keep up or we could put it back. Right now, I would say to maintain every event within our event schedule for fiscal year 2025, we would need about $60,000 to maintain it. Yeah,

it is. Well, it's not. The city's paying for it, but they pay a small fee of it back. It's not getting you're not getting a onetoone coverage. I mean, we've got music on main, not music on main, sorry. Um, it depends because the supplies kind of go into almost every event. I mean, you got the Easter egg hunt. You've you used to have frozen feet. that actually creates an automatic savings because we used to purchase you know like a large jacket type item for the individual participants. Um that will actually produce some savings. Then you've got you know our green rock river green rock challen trail challenge which that one is a free event. No registration. They have to register but they don't have to pay for it. um to to Wildwood. Uh we've got quite a few that are kind of sprinkled throughout the entire year which typically plain air is another one um that people sign up and typically pay a nom nominal fee um but they do get things in return. They get to participate in the activity and then obviously the t-shirt as well.

Yeah, feel free. I I would say yes, but we might not see participation at levels that will reward them.

We have increased fees across the board. They're no longer nominal. If you talk to participants, they'll explain why they don't believe they're nominal anymore. I believe for tour we charged $40 and then $50 for race day registration and that included few snacks at the start. the shirt that you have to give at events. Everybody does and then the lunch. So again, the council directed us several years ago to raise fees and we have and they're not nominal any longer. The only nominal fee I would say is the early childhood recreation program. That's $5, but again that generally covers the cost of the snack and the drink. All right. Uh, Council Member Cut, anything else?

And say, I think this is one of those things where we need to we can say up to that dollar figure, but I think it would be good to have the discussion about which events, you know, get from the director's perspective to which events would be eligible. I think frozen feed in and of itself helps because that all of those costs associated with that event, I mean that saves us probably less than it's less than 10,000 but it's it's thousands of dollars that we're saving there. Um, so it really probably comes down to like one event or it's either you do all the events the same in a good way that we've been doing it or you potentially remove event an event that we've been doing to make sure the other ones are remained retained. Sorry,

Mr. Mayor, at the planning and parks committee meeting, excuse me, the last meeting we had, planning and parks, the department had on the agenda the actual schedule of events for 2026, it requested a postponement so as we could do the budget and then adjust the schedule of events to the budget. So, we've not set any events this year other than now the music on main summer concert series. Thank you. Council member Gani, did you have something related to this? Do you have as well to this item?

Mine? Yes. I mean, mine I think was similar to I think what uh Captain said to maybe make the motion to go with the budget stated amount and let the department figure out what they want to eliminate. I think like we just did, correct? Yeah. I don't know if the council really needs to vote on what Yeah. I I would prefer we just kind of stay at a certain level. Otherwise, we could determine we we could be making decisions on hot dogs versus BRZ tonight.

So, I we get too we get too much into the weeds. Yeah. So, but but I think you get my point that I think we have to allow the department to give them that flexibility. Um, Council Member Galani.

Yeah, I I don't disagree with that. I think that that's fine and I think there should also be the direction that we are allocating said budget and giving the department the uh ability to decide on which events. But I think with that being said, I think the directive from the council ought to be stated that the goal is to mitigate the expenses to the highest degree possible. And that I don't think, you know, when you talk about music on Maine, that is a concert that we bring in or or the the summer concert series where we have the band and then people can come and bring their food and drink and everything. But that frozen feet that is an expensive endeavor with the jackets and all of that, those types of events, while they might be fun and and great and everybody loves them that does them, it's still affecting a very small portion of the community and it's a great expense to the city. So I think any amount of money that can be saved from that budget that can be carried over into the next year or go into the miscellaneous account I think would be helpful as a directive as opposed to saying here's this set amount of money go spend all of it and if there's extra then do an extra event at the end of the year. So, I think we just have to get really diligent on cutting back. And so, you know, it's just something that it's going to take a few years down the road until we're at a point of no turning back and we're out of money and we're out of revenue, but we're going to get there. So, we've got to make sure that we're we're focused on those dire situations today. I think

director again to city council and particularly the planning and parks committee eventually you will see the revised schedule of events and so the events won't be advertised until the planning and parks committee makes its recommendation relative to them and then that recommendation is forwarded to city council. So rest assured you'll know the number of events and this year we'll do our best to put some kind of general figure cost in association with them and that way you can see how we've allocated the events as well as the cost. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Um so with that then if there's no change then we will just do this as part of the overall motion with the amount that's specified here. Okay, it's at 45 is the the recommended range based off the the meeting we had. All right, then. Anything else on this page? Otherwise, we're going to move on to the next page, which would be page three. And that um will give you a chance again to review this page. It has a combination of parks and public works items.

I was just going to say I had a resident just email asking if any council members that are speaking during our discussion can turn their microphones on and talk clearly into because they're trying to watch and they can't hear. Sure. All right. I'm just looking here to see if uh we have folks that are still reviewing here. So, if you're

Okay, I think looks like we've got most folks that have completed reviewing there. I'm just checking to see. Council member Farmer, you still reviewing there? You good? Council member Dodwell, you good? Okay, so it looks like everyone is hopefully Council Member Marshall, you still need more time. No. Okay. All right. So, we're going to open it up for this page, page three. If anyone has any items related to page three that you wish to suggest a change to, this would be the time. All right. Council member McCutchen, which item are you referring to?

Um, the community garden. Can somebody explain to me how that works? Do the the gardeners pay for the space that's there? what the what the gardeners pay for. Does it cover all the expenses or does the city have to pick in some money? We do provide for the compost and I think we do some general maintenance even though we have seen I think this year a slight decrease in what we've typically spent but Mr. Bon is a little bit more familiar with the operations.

We charge each gardener $55 for their plot. There's 140 gardeners. So roughly speaking, we collect about $7,000. Um what we do is we purchase the compost and top soil. We also maintain the facility at the start and finish. Um as Mr. Lee mentioned, I think this year we saw a reduction. We had great turnout at the gardener work days which helped us save the money. Right. Uh, council member crayons. So, how many people use the garden?

We have 140 active gardeners now. We have about 80 on the waiting list. Uh, could we increase the cost of the fee to cover some of the additional expense we're incurring? Certainly. What would you think would be reasonable? Well, that's probably a good question for the gardeners and they have all of their emails, so we could certainly ask them what they think. Well, $55 seems to me kind of should be more, I guess, is what I'm saying. Is that something I I

Well, you're trying to cut costs, aren't we? uh and this is more of an inclusive uh group of people. It's like swimming passes. It only goes out to a few people that benefit from it. And u so uh it's in that category, right? Well, certainly if we have 35,000 residents, 140 only benefit from it and you got 80 that want to get in.

I I would look at increasing the uh the fee. Uh uh if we could uh I I'm not going to make a motion or anything, but uh there's something there that you could probably uh uh reduce uh cost for the city. Before the end of the year, we meet with the volunteer gardener managers. There's about five of them that volunteer to help manage the garden. So, uh, Department of Planning and Park staff isn't out there every day. Um, so we can certainly ask them what they think would be a reasonable increase to maintain the interest and allow the people that want to be there to be there regardless, let's say, their circumstance. Thank you.

All right. uh related to the garden at this time certainly and we've offered some incentives. Um each year we have an arrangement with circle of concern and the excess produce if we exceed a certain level we give a we give a deduct that's why it's $55. Last year I think we provided 600 pounds of fresh produce to circle of concern which serves West County residents including Wildwood. We can certainly stop that. Um, looks like right now no uh change then to the budgeted uh amount there on the column.

And I just want to make a quick note of your permission, mayor. Um, just so we all know too what we're seeing in this chart, but also just when we see the expenditures listed in in our accounting software, this is truly representing the expenditure. Um, it doesn't take into account the net cost of the city. So, after accounting for that, let's just say the 140 uh different gardeners paying their fee, it's actually like 50/50. The city splitting this cost. It's about $7,700 that we get in revenue. So, that 15,000 is total. Subtract the 77 from it. That's what the city's actually paying. And this year, we've spent a lot less. Honestly, it's been a The work days have been very successful. that. Yes, that's typically yes. Not this year. This year it's a little less than $2,000 if I remember correctly from the last time I checked it. It's not much, but that's more so for the that is for a little bit of maintenance here, a little bit of maintenance there, and doing compost. But think about pulling weeds and just making it beautifying the overall area back there. All right. Anything else on this page here? Otherwise, we'll continue move forward here. Well, seeing none, then we'll move on to the next page. All right. We'll give you a chance again to review page four. We're getting close to the end here. There total of five page uh five pages of items. So, we're on page four right now. I'm going to pause here and then I'll just look around here to see if uh you're all ready to discuss

Um, let me see if does anyone need any more time related to this page? Okay. All right. This time, uh, we'll entertain any remarks or questions regarding any of the items here. Council member Marshall,

I don't disagree with it. I'm just curious um after our discussion about our lobbyist over the years that we've just decided to take it out completely, not look at changing lobbyists and maybe there's no reason to have any. But over the years, we've done an RFP. We've had different lobbyists and I've I just really never knew who did who did he report back to. We come in the meeting once or twice a year, but I really never saw any engagement as far as what we as a city or as 17 elected people could do to support anything the state. It appears that that's not all working. And I'm not against taking the 31,000. I just question suddenly after doing that without questioning it the last at least my three years of questioning it this particular one is this just the way to do it is I'm okay taking a 31,000 out but do we or do we not need any representation in Jeff city

so the idea in bringing that up was not even necessary and it was the idea was to call it out tonight was it was not included in the planning and parks committee but then there was discussion of whether or not we need that or if we would like to use it on an as needed basis almost have like a a way to call someone in where you're not paying that retainer each year. That said, um you know, I think we would want to if we're actually going to take that out, we would probably need to do a little bit more of an analysis. That was the discussion tonight. I mean, it's I brought it up so we would make sure that we looked at it. We had every avenue to replace, but overall, you know, quite frankly, next year there could be a couple things on the docket, but and where he reports to, every council member is able to call Jake at any time. The mayor can call Jake. Uh that said, typically he's he's sending reports to me and then giving me updates each each week, meets with some of the directors when it's pertinent, but overall it's more so focused in on that erosion control and then when these bigger items like the it really is kind of one-offs and from my opinion, you know, with the budget item, that was a big goal that we wanted to have. But when it comes down to like the grocery tax we had, I mean, he's able to go in and then give an give a statement on behalf of the city at that public hearing because he's in Jeff City and we're not. So that's there is the one benefit there where I would say it would be very helpful to have that individual down there. But that's something too we could give a call to the municipal league. The one thing is it's just it is kind of pros and cons situation because he's he's doing an adequate job of getting back to us, getting information to us and providing a pretty each week he I pass along his report of the bills he's tracking that are relevant to the city. Um, and it's nice to be able to have that voice to be able to go in, but we haven't seen the return on the on the erosion funding, etc. So, it's just more so bringing it up for discussion. And, you know, usually we review that agreement in December. So, I wanted to make sure it was on everyone's radar even if we do end up retaining it.

Thank you. Yeah, I think I just want to speak a little bit about that because I think you know the benefit that we have had is that the legislative consultant provides us with eyes and ears in Jeff City that I think we would lose completely not having anyone there watching out for us. Um and then you know while there are other avenues they're not customized specific to us. So, I think, you know, we've had some work going on regarding the erosion. Uh, but yeah, the the tax, the grocery tax and other items. I mean, I think that's when, you know, we've even, you know, at times even gone ourselves to speak, but when we're not there, that's what the legislative consultant's job is to speak there on behalf of the city of Wildwood. Um, Chesterfield has their own legislative consultant and I think a few other cities do as well. So, I do feel like we kind of go blind now if we go completely where we just dropped that. And I think we need to still continue to look at having that voice that we've been working so hard to build up in Jeff City. Uh so, I would love to see how we can entertain um revisiting this.

Any other questions or comments related to this item? I was just gonna bring Sorry, Council Member Farmer.

Yeah, I I was just gonna add I mean certainly it was frustrating with the the erosion funding not coming in for the last 3 years. Um I I have spoken to Jake quite a bit about that and some other items. I I was down for the grocery thing. Um and I don't know that there's anything Jake could have done to help secure that funding more than he did. and along with the mayor. I mean, my opinion is if we don't if we don't have it, someone like Jake and it's in our current configuration, we don't have a voice period in that building. So, um we we need to have somebody advocating for us and currently we have a lobbyist better than nothing. Council member Marshall.

So, should we leave the money in and just put into plans to do an RFP and to see what type of support we can get, not necessarily renew his, but look, I mean, some of these other ones who are using it, they can represent two cities, maybe for a lot less money. I don't know. But I just think if you take it out completely, it's gone. And and then we'll come back and say then, unfortunately, it could be a lot higher if we say we're just not going to renew with Jake and do an RFP for it. put the time period out there. I mean, they'll go back in session one, January. But at that particular point, maybe that's too late. I just throw it. I just think it's one of those things I don't think we know enough about whether and how much support we need there. Maybe Jake's not the right guy. I don't know that. Council member Dodwell,

having been on the committee that um engaged Jake um and the longest person here, we had a prior uh individual that was charging us three times the amount that you see here on an annual basis. Um and essentially doing nothing. uh he wasn't providing uh the weekly reports back to the city administrator. Uh so from the bang for our buck perspective, Jake has done I think a stellar job. While we didn't get what we wanted for the last several years for erosion control, um he has enabled us to have a voice on a lot of different things um that have assisted with what we've needed. So, um I concur. How long? How many years have we had Jake now? Three or four.

I think this is going to be going on four.

This will be his fourth year. Um maybe we put on our radar that prior to our fifth year with Jake, we go out to bid once again and the council committee um appointees or whoever want to have um select a new representative. But I agree with council member Farmer. if we don't have a voice out there, then there's going to be somebody that's going to say, "Well, I need this money more for this activity." Um Jake was helpful also in the uh the county tax issue as well. Um and making sure that we continue to get that. So, um I would like to keep this number in there. In that case, could we go with your permission, mayor, if that's the wish of the council, could we go ahead and give just a motion to make sure to lock that in to keep that service whether or not

31,000 at 31,000 is anticipated for 2026. Motion made by council member Dodwell, you spoke to it. Did you want to make or Okay. And then I need a second. I see council member with his hand up. So we have a motion on the floor and that's again a motion to allocate the uh amount the 31,000 that's correct for consultant costs. Any other discussion? All those in favor please say I. I.

Anyone opposed or abstain? That motion passes. Any other uh items on this page that anyone wishes to speak about? I don't see any others. So with that then uh we can move on to the next page. I'll give you again a moment to look at it. It is page five.

All right, just checking to see if anyone's still reviewing any of the items here. We'll give you some time. Otherwise, we'll open it up to see if you have any questions or changes related to any items on this page. Okay, we give you a little more time.

Right. Uh again, just checking. How are you, Council Member McCutchen Yoga now? All right. Anyone else need more time? Otherwise, yeah, let's uh entertain any questions or changes. Go ahead, Council Member Farmer. Yeah, I don't necessarily have an issue with the the dollar amount, but I'm a little confused because we've got in uh in the planning the special event section, we've got uh an amount for like the boards and commissions appreciation, which seems like something we do every year. So, I don't know that that necessarily should be a special event. And then we also have at least the description in here, I think, is like the third part where we're talking about the Route 66 thing. So, I'm just kind of

Are you talking about the last one commissions? No. Uh, no. Like it's the third. Yeah. Special events. So, it's 52 I think it's 64. Um, I guess I'm just curious how much we're planning on spending on this Route 66 thing because I think it's in here in like three different places. Well, that's I mean, we don't have any current Joe if you have anything planned. And I mean, the only thing we have right now is a scavenger hunt that would be released. But the idea is to have something set aside in 2026 because inevitably it's going to be the 100th anniversary. I'm I'm all for setting something aside. I guess I'm just saying like I don't find three different places. Like let's set something aside. Then we know what it is.

In that case, we can go in and I can identify I I can go back to those three, strip it down to its bare bones without um the Route 66. And if you'd like, we can have that added into just special events under parks or have it under special events. And

I think it's I think it's maybe more of just a housekeeping thing. Like I'm not telling you to take any money out. I'm just saying like the board and commissions dinner which we do every year. I don't know if that should be considered a special event. A 100th anniversary of, you know, the great American highway certainly sounds like a special event. And so it would make sense to me to have a a specific line item that says that because my I guess my thought is if we're moving forward to next year when we're doing 2027, I don't think there's going to like this year we had the 30th anniversary for Celebrate Wildwood. That is different than every other year. Now we're going to have the 100th anniversary. Like if we're just moving a lot of times we're just moving budget items forward. So we want to be very specific as to why we're doing that. So that would just I think it's more of just a housekeeping item than take money out. I'm just I just noticed it was in here I think three times. We can go in and that'll be addressed. We'll have we'll figure out a way to present it clearly with Route 66 directed items.

All right. Any other items related to this page? Okay. Seeing none then uh that actually concludes all the items. So I believe then we just I think right now would be make a motion for approval of the items excluding those that we've already that we've already voted on. So a motion to approve the items as presented excluding those that have already uh been voted on separately. So, council member Preston second. Council member Robilleski. Any other discussion on this motion on the floor? I just have a clarification.

Sure. Which column are we voting on? Option B with the changes. No, right now it's PMP. The whole PMP adjustments is the one we've been reviewing. The one where we've right reduced it from the hole.

Okay. Well, this this is this is for everything except for those items that we already voted on separately because those were modified tonight. Yeah, those will maintain their modifications, right? and then everything else. This is just a

I'd hate to think that I'm going to have to abstain because I figured we were working on option B, which is to hold the level of services to Wildwood for next year as we have for this year and taking any that we need from reserves, or we go to the austere position of column A, our option A, and we don't take anything out of reserves. I thought that's what the whole point of this was. But now we're going to be taking some B's and some A's and some greens. So the way it is right now, we're we're going to focus on LMG. So it's it's the one that it's it's got a header of PNP adjustments.

Do those adjustments still provide for all of option B? No, it does not. So that the ones that we went through that were So it does provide for the change in the personnel since we called that one out specifically. That's a [clears throat] Yep. Well, it actually went above what B had provided for tonight. Yes, it may. So, that's a B.

Yep. Then also, I'll just go through the ones that we covered just during this meeting here. Uh there was special events got raised back to 25. Um that was a B. One second here. Concert series, it's at 65 versus 85. Celebrate Wildwood was locked in at 70,000. Uh one second here. consulting cost of 31,000 um that really yeah that everything else would be consistent with PMP adjustments right so we that's the motion that's on the floor right now of course if that motion fails we can then come back with another motion. We'd like to make that, but otherwise that would be right now what we would vote on. Anyone have any other questions or discussion or seeking clarity, right? I don't see any. So, we'll try again. Vote a voice vote. All those in favor, please say I.

I. I. Anyone oppose or abstain? Abstain. All right. We have one abstension. All right. The motion passes. So that covers these items here under the um the sheet that have been provided. Now again this is a work session so we'll come back to council. Ideally uh mean we we shouldn't have to revisit but certainly understand if something gets identified. Uh all right back to you city administrator.

Thank you very much mayor. So now we'll uh jump over. That was our general fund which should be the most time inensive. Um that said did want to go now through our capital improvement sales tax fund. So, we over the last year, and this was something that the last city council meeting in December of last year, we had determined and discussed that there were quite a few too many projects in our 5-year capital improvement plan that quite frankly, they just not all of them were funded. And a pretty firm directive was given that hey we'll approve this at least this is the recollection from the department we will approve this as is tonight but the over the next year the goal will be to get this the expenditures related to capital improvements under control and get them pretty much categorized out so we can rep prioritize but really kind of reconfigure the entire thing. Uh that said uh in the budget documents that were provided uh this did not change from option A or option B. Those two options were really more relevant to the uh to the uh operating budget. That said, what was provided in the full budgetary documents were really wanted to focus in on the unfunded needs list. Um I have some printouts here, but this was the same that was provided. Uh other than two little notes about the green pines's third node, I did want to add in that there was some slight changes there that was brought up that I wanted to make sure to get include the full details. So I'll pass this on out unless anybody does anybody not have a copy? I have copies here to go. Okay, perfect. Mary, do you mind giving me a second to pass these out?

Yes.

Ward five, right? Yes. It's

your backyard. Okay. So, this was included under uh option A under the capital improvement sales tax fund. It was the last document with it. What's been passed out tonight is a copy of the unfunded needs list. And the idea here is that what we provided in the 5-year and the the 2026 capital improvement plan. Um it is a balanced budget. That said, there were projects that had to be postponed or cut. Uh tonight the department wanted to make sure we called those out, create this unfunded needs list and if there were items that you know the council still wants to make sure we hit at um that there would be a motion to entertain re making sure those stay in. But that said the idea is to keep you know quite frankly I know kind of tie this back. Um our capital improvement sales tax fund is directly tied to a half cent improvement sales tax that we have here in the city and it generates typically about $3 million. um we really offset that amount with grant funding and then some interest income. It's not very much, but it's a little bit enough to get us over the hump, but really if a project doesn't have grant funding, you can almost think of it each year, we only have about $3 million to set aside for any capital improvement project, which that covers things along the lines of the J turns, the left turn lanes, the Village Green, the Manchester Taylor project. Um it also has to include anything we have to do with uh storm water. I mean it that includes the costs that would be associated with our storm water tax. I not storm water tax but storm water projects we have. Um so that said all of that included uh we've got just too many projects over the course of 5 years. So we did in the in the committee meetings that administration public works we also had this at planning and parks. We went through a process to create almost like a matrix that would grade these individually and then slowly but surely um kind of have some filter at the top, have some in the

mid-range and then really using the master plan um using the strategic plan and using cost. It it factors in quite a few different scenarios and it goes through each one and tries to try to bring some math um or just some general statistics to our our current plan to bring it down to size. Um, quite frankly, if these cuts weren't made, then we would be looking at a negative fund balance in the next couple years within this fund. So, that said, that's why these projects are being proposed for being cut. Uh, the department's available to answer any questions. I did want everyone to review this. The only changes tonight um would include the there was a brief description change within the uh Green Pines Park third node, and I just want to make sure I called that to everyone's attention. it had some additional resident input and wanted to make sure I clarified that public input process that occurred at the beginning of the process. Thank you.

All right. Um we're going to open up to see any questions. I did see council member Farmer and Utenberg and then McCutchen. So go ahead, Council Member Farmer. Uh yeah, I don't I guess I don't necessarily have a question because we've talked about this a lot at our various committees, but I do um want to applaud you guys for coming up with this matrix and scoring system because I think it helps us from getting what we had, which was like I don't know 20 something million dollars worth of projects on a something that has $3 million. So um I I think that [clears throat] this is a great way to move forward. I think it's also a great way if we have projects um that come forward moving forward. I think it's an easy thing to apply that matrix and scoring system to help us understand, you know, where these things fall before things just get kind of thrown onto a spreadsheet somewhere. So, um I don't I mean, if people have conversations they want to have, that's fine. Or I'm happy to just say let's make this unfunded list so we know what's going on and move forward.

Yeah, that said too with your permission, mayor. Just wanted to add in that this that actually, you know, kind of raised a pretty good point that maybe in the future with capital projects that they they go through this matrix process and they they visit the three standing council committees um just the score. It's it could be a for action item, but it's an up or down vote of is this score accurate for each project that could come to us in the future. And that would make us analyze, okay, well, you know, how many cap how much do we have in that year that we plan to budget? I mean, it it could apply to 15 different projects, but it's instead of having almost like a summary sheet, if you will, for any major capital projects moving forward, instead of saying, let's just, you know, let's go put a grant out on this project or whatever it might be, we would have to say, okay, well, if we put a grant on it, that means we're obligated in 2029, let's just say. Um, I think it could be helpful to show that upfront and then also try to incorporate as much cost as we can. I mean, including construction, engineering, etc. that goes with some of these projects.

And I think it's important for future councils and our citizens to understand. Even a lot of times when we agree to do like a grant funding project because these things are stretched out so long, we might have thought we were going to spend $300,000 and all of a sudden it's, you know, $2 million and we don't have a lot of recourse to pull that back once it's out the door unless we're going to give up funds. And we've all been made very well aware if you do that, the likelihood of getting funds again is significantly reduced. So, I I think that kind of a a conversation about how we're doing these things every time is important. It shouldn't be should be a pretty easy thing to run through the process and figure this stuff out. Let me see. Can uh I do I did have a quick question. Is it a followup? Okay. Because I

Yes. Uh so not a problem. Uh the the color categories are tied directly to the tier in which they were assigned. And this goes back in the budget document. There's a matrix that breaks it out. The green is tier one and the phase two of the internet that is a little bit tricky just because we did just hear about uh AT&T being prelimin preliminarily awarded funding to address about 400 addresses. So that helps with this this that project in general. But um yellow is mid-tier, which means they collected less than half of the total points that you could you could get through the process. And then red is um well below. And how we looked at it was you filled it out, you had the point score total. And then you pretty much just filled in the 3 million that we had available minus any grant revenue you had. Um and then once we got the 3 million, what else? You say you get the 2.9 million. What can you do with that 100,000 filling it in there? So bouquet scored high. That said, it had to get postponed because it was an $850,000 project. And by the time we got to that second, you know, second level, that second tier, um it just it couldn't it couldn't be done without going over uh having revenues expenditures exceed revenues, sorry. With the internet access project that we have listed here and the funding that you think AT&T is going to provide, what would that net cost now be

for us the city? For us, the city right now, I think it'll all be funded um per Okay. So we can take that one off this list and scratch it out and that gives us 1.3 some odd change million to apply to other projects further down the list. Correct.

Uh technically yes, but in the sense that you still have to just base it off the revenues we have. So for just for instance the current fiscal year, I mean we have luckily we have a lot of grant revenue expected next year. Um, but quite frankly, it's one second, let me pull this up here. But it we are a little bit at like $5 million, but the majority of it is offset. The 2 million is offset by grant revenue. So overall, we've got about 3 million coming in. Actual net expenditures against the capital improvement sales tax fund account is about 3 million as well. um with that's why these are all on the unfunded needs list because in a in a perfect world we would be able to knock all these out. But the reason why we threw them into the the grinder if you will being the matrix was to be able to assign a score to them, get them in a list and then kind of funnel them upwards and then put a hard line where quite frankly we where revenues then were less than expenditures. I mean uh expenditures were less than revenues.

I'm going to ask another question. I'm sorry folks, I'm being dense on this. Um, you have this column here about the grant funding, but we don't know which grants we're going to get at this point in time. Correct. That is correct. So, the No, but the with the matrix are you talking about or with the uh with the unfunded needs with the paper? With the paper. Yep. So all of these um if it doesn't have secured uh grant funding tied to the project then it didn't have grants included. That was the way it was looked at. But okay there when you scored them out there was a component that said um

well it was the the title of the criterion was expected grant funding and the idea behind it was you know you get the highest score if we already have locked in money for that project. That's that got a nine. Um, and then if it had a high likelihood, so a project that we know if we go out and do a grant uh grant application for it, we'll get X amount of funding, then that would score a five. If it's something where we know of grant funding is that that is out there, we just don't know if this project would fit, but it could, then it would be more of a three. And then if it's there's no way there's going to be grant funding for this project, it'd be a zero. So that tried to take that concept into consideration when assigning these scores. And that's just one of many criterion.

So when we're looking at this and we're looking at the lemon green versus the pine green color, then we need to decide what we want to keep on the budget with the money that we currently have. Correct. That is correct. But depending on the project you add back in, we may have expenditures exceed revenues. Exactly. And I could and I my plan is tonight if anybody wants to add something in I can show how that affects the overall bottom line.

Okay. And my last statement is of all the things in the lime green color I'm going to move that we get the streer road sidewalk segment from where there is no sidewalk to where there is on the city of Ellisville. That's maybe a/4 of a mile to a third of a mile segment. And I don't know how that's represented in segment C or segment E or F, but I think segment C is the one for the construction. So those three projects, they the big thing that's holding those up is that legal debacle, if you will, that we're dealing with currently. And

okay, we we wouldn't be able to proceed with it until we get that done. Fine then. All right. I spoke for my residents who for many many many years longer than Wildwood is Wildwood has been creating a path along Striker or walking in the street on Strucker. So, Council Member Henberg, um, just a further clarification to the color coding here. The items in red, I guess it is, are those I understand they're the lowest priority. Are are you dropping pursuit of those projects or are you

They can stay They'll stay on this unfunded needs list. They're just no longer listed in the 5-year capital because when you put these in the 5-year capital, that's when we have that, you know, last December, we had a pretty large discussion here where our capital improvement program, we had way too many projects budgeted, and it was over a 5year period, like 10 to$15 million of money we just didn't have. Um, that said, we wanted to go in and make sure we were accounting for how much revenue we had in the pocket each year and then adding it back up. So, this isn't necessarily saying these projects don't exist anymore. It's listing out the explanations in the unfunded needs document is explaining why they may not kind of a summary of why they might not have the highest score, but also giving the council an opportunity today to say, "Hey, we'd like to make sure that we get X, Y, or Z done. I'll tell you if we can um if there's anything severely holding this back, like a legal consideration that might be that's very not all of these projects, but if one does that, you know, if we can't get an easement, then we can't get an easement, which does tie into a few of these. Um that said, overall if we add any of these projects back, typically it's going to put our expenditures over revenues for any given year. So this this document can still live and go with us, but overall it's taking projects out of the it's putting it on a separate document instead of the capital improvement plan. So that makes it so we're quite frankly it's not it's no longer being funded. [snorts] That it's true.

All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Uh, next I believe we had is it council member McCutchen? Yes.

So, excuse me. So, I want to talk about the Green Pines Park. Um, those that you have been around for a while knows the two plus years it took and the over 20,000 residents from all wards to be able to get the first two nodes of the park. We had asked for three. It was planned out, but the council at the time did not want to fund the whole park. Um, so the park has remained on the um capital fund projects for many many years. It gets pushed back each year. Um it it's only $200,000 and in comparison to some of the projects that are in our budget, that is not a very high price. Um, and I really don't know any additional funding that we spent on that park other than maintenance. And the trail that is being uh constructed alongside the park, that is not part of the park. That is a um [clears throat] corridor that the trail corridor that's being planned that will take residents from Highway 109 up to Highway 100. It's just another segment of the trails that we have within the city. the trail is not the same or part and parcel of the park and there is a good possibility that we will get a grant for this park. Um there are many many grants that are available. Um we did spend a lot of our time this year for the village green grant. we can we are at the top of the charter um I guess requirement of the monies that we can spend for the village green otherwise we're going to have to go out to the voters and ask for additional money. Um this is this third

node um brings in uh more swings. The city does not have a lot of swings and there's a great significance developmentally and having swings. that swings hit every um section of development there is. The back and forth helps kids organize their brains and it helps them be able to connect um I don't want to be technical but a a d a dendrite to another dendrite which helps make these pathways which helps the children um progress forward in in their development. There's also motor skills related, there's social skills related. So, M um and again it wasn't just two uh 2,000 plus W five residents. It was was residents from W 7 and W 8, W 4, W three that was also um requesting this park in the third node. Um, according to the strategic plan, it states that no new parks were to be constructed, but current parks were to be enhanced and um for this Green Pines Park is extremely popular and um part of the budget goals said submit grants application for the improvement of popular park facilities. And um we had or Joe had somebody come in and do a a consultant piece on on parks. The Green Pines Park only needs two additions to it to meet those requirements where most of the other parks need more than two additions to it to meet the goals and safety. I don't know exactly what the name of it is, but Joe can tell you. Um, so and and Green Pines is an all

all-inclusive park. So what I'm asking here is it's been pushed back every year to every every year. Now it's being taken out completely. So, I understand if no one feels comfortable adding this back in for 2026, but I implore you on behalf of the residents, not just Ward 5, but all the residents in the city who come to this park to play to put this back in for 2027. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for that. Um All right. All right. Well, next speaker I do have, unless you have anything else, uh, would be council member CR. We don't have like, it's already spoken for, but there is we get about $3 million in revenue each year from our halfcent tax. No, no, no, no. This this is its own fund treated separately, and what's being presented tonight is balanced. It is accounting for how many projects we have and what we have available. and anything else is covered by grants. So this is a balanced 2026 capital improvement budget. So are the remaining years that are included here. Well, we get well we get like with reserves or with we get that's that's each year. So any any purchase you make within the city of Wildwood, there's going to be a half cent tax of 0.05% that goes directly towards our towards our capital improvements. It just that source that's the only source it comes from and interest income on that that fund. We have approximately I'd say like six million or so in reserves there for this fund which is separate than our general fund. They're all listed in

Joe.

Yes. And that's why I want to present this. I mean, if there's Tell me if I'm wrong. I mean, I last year in December when this was presented, we had

an imbalance. There was too many projects on the list. And it was pretty clear from the council's perspective that hey, we'll approve this, but you we've got to get this thing under control. So that's why we introduced this this process and introduced kind of slowly like here are the steps, here are the criteria to rank it against. And quite frankly, if anybody wants an Excel document version of it, I'd be happy to share it with you. I'd be happy to compile all of the council's information on all these projects and then I can or someone else can do a compilation of how many what the scores are for each one and we could do some type of average score for each. That's the idea of having a process at least in place that would So for for tonight though and I think council member Farmer do you want to add something because I think yeah

you just gonna kind of help explain this in general. So, we h we get about $3 million a year from our sales tax. That is what we generally have been using for our capital improvement budget. Last year, our capital improvement budget was, I think, in the range of $24 million or something like that.

Not for just that year, but it was like it was over $10 million, but a lot of it was covered in grants, but it it just was not sustainable. Right. So what we did was we we ran all of the projects that were on the entire capital improvement budget, everything for the five years out. They ran them through the matrix and they scored them and and the ones that scored high and were in this green tier one have to get done kind of a level, those are all approved to move forward. So this list that we're talking about right now, these are items that fell off of that list because they didn't score high enough or, you know, wouldn't be able to be funded. So, as an example, this Bokeh Road one scored a

690.

A 600. All right. So, scores a 600, it's $825,000, which those two numbers don't really line up. So the question that is being asked of us is if there's a project so like council member Kutchen if if your desire or even you know council member do well if your guys desire is to move one of these items onto the funded list you can certainly advocate for that you just have to then explain which funded item you want to take off to have it replaced because there's only so much money that's what we've been talking about all night. So having just some unlimited document of projects that everybody thinks are really cool are not ever going to get done and they put us in a pretty bad spot. In this case, like I was explaining to my counterpart here, I'd love to get the striker sidewalk thing done, too. We don't have the legal ability to do it. And if that legal if that legal factor were to change, then this score changes and it's very possible that in 2027, this now becomes a green item with a higher score. That's what's keeping that score down. So the question that's really being asked is, is there a project on this list that you feel is grossly miscommunicated or needs to be put in there? And if there is, that's fine. Then we need to go, you need to go to the list of approved items and take whatever amount of money you want to put on, take it off to balance the budget. That's how it works. If there are other projects that we want to explore going to the reserve for, we can certainly do that. But that's not the conversation we're having right at this minute.

I mean, thank

thank you for that explanation. Yeah. So therefore, yeah, if if you're looking to make a change, then this would be the time to do it. Otherwise, then we will keep it as is. Council member Galani. Yeah, I was going to bring up just one thing related to the internet internet access project phase two. Um, I know obviously we've been working on that and there's a lot of residents that are looking forward to that. I wanted to circle back to something I brought up about 5 years ago when we first started this whole thing with the internet deal. And at the time, my argument was the fact that I don't believe it's the city's responsibility to pay for people to get internet that don't have internet because it doesn't affect everyone in the city and all that. We went through that whole debate and discussion and at the time we were receiving significant amount of about 8 million bucks from the COVID um relief federal funds. That's the only reason I approved that to move forward at all. Um because like I said, everyone who doesn't have internet bought their home knowing they didn't have internet and I don't think it's the rest once again. However, I talked about it back then and we dropped that conversation and never revisited it because we got all that millions of dollars from the feds to do what we did. Now we're into the phase of the project where we don't have any more money and we've got to dig into our own pockets to finish this. I brought up back then and I think we should look at it again is the folks that have received internet as part of this this endeavor. There ought to be some type of access fee that's paid to the city and it's nominal, you know, 50 bucks a month or something like that. It to have highspeed internet access in a situation where they never had it before. And now if we did that, we could recoup the monies and be able to budget for letting the rest of the folks get the internet and make sure the whole city is has internet and those folks that didn't have it that have it now can pay a small fee to help reimburse the cost to the rest of the taxpaying residents of the city and everybody's happy. I just wanted to

revisit that and bring that up. we don't have to go through it right now, but it should definitely be something that's on the table to be looked at. Um, if in fact we're looking to try to finish phase 2 and phase three or anything else moving forward.

So, this this document here is saying that phase two and it's not necessarily giving up on the internet. It's saying that we had recently learned and this could change. It shouldn't change, but if it did change, we would have a different conversation. It would definitely cause a change in the score. Um that said with the internet for phase 2 those addresses we had just gotten confirmation that AT&T through the state program the bead program have gotten provisionally awarded. We don't know exactly what the cost is to at uh to the state for AT&T but we know there's 400 addresses and based off the reviewing each address there is a very limited number. There's a couple out in the western portion of Wildwood but it's very min minimal that are not covered within this state program. So if they are able to come to terms with AT&T, that should effectively take this whole issue and take it off our plate. So that

yeah, that's why

and and the one thing that could come back is that AT&T gets provisionally awarded, the state had someone fall through the cracks or something like that where they didn't have someone listed as eligible. That could still be a little list of, you know, less than I think it'll be down to less than 50 properties in Wildwood after after AT&T gets approved. Yeah. Okay. So, C, Council Member Marshall.

Yeah. Just to kind of add a little bit on to what Council Member Farmer talked about is if we can get grant funding, then it automatically moves up into the green category in the next budget year. So, it's not like they're falling off. It's just that there's no grant. So there's no reason for us to allocate it in this particular year. So if a grant comes through, then it would move it back up into the cycle for the next time or for the extra reserves that are there. Council member uh Vanic,

um admin public works uh committee. Uh we once saw that the roundabout at Old Sten Ridge was on the unfunded needs and um now it's not there anymore and I'm wondering what happened to it for the actual memorandum that was included. No, he he wanted to know where is it on the list? It's not included on this list and we can we can put it on there. Um if the council I I didn't have it included on the uh the administration of public works document but if you'd like to add I mean the council we can have it added.

Yeah. I mean if the county came up with well I already contacted Mr. Klesa. He said it's not going to be part of the cycle for next year. So I know that the I remember the discussion at admin PW and the motion was that you know if in a future time there was monies that became available for that project that it would be incorporated just like we're doing now it would be almost reintroduced to the capital improvement sales tax fund at that time. Um that actually does make sense to add it to the unfunded needs list. I would just I'd ask for a motion from the council if we can add that add that to the list. Is there possibility of scoring it has it been scored? Yeah,

road has not been that. Well, we've done two applications for federal funding. Yeah. So, the idea would be you certain certainly it can be added to into the matrix and then the matrix scores it out and then talks then it you know ears out where it's at. So

the other piece of this is, and this will be probably down the road a little bit, but we're we're also having a conversation about where if there should be like a level, a scoring level where it just goes like there's there's really no point in pursuing this because literally every project is going to be scoring above, you know, whatever the threshold is. Like a couple of these I think came in at like the lowest ones were like in the 200s, I think. I remember 300. So, um, so yeah, so the idea would be you could say, "Hey, I'd like to, you know, have this consideration in there. It'll go through the scoring process and then obviously because it's a county road and all that kind of stuff, it'll probably be on the unfunded one." Sure.

But then it's there and then you know the score and all that kind of stuff. And then just like with the streer sidewalks, should something change, Sure. then [clears throat] that score can change as well. But yeah, you just want to add it to the So could I make a motion then? Sure. Sure. So, I I would like to make the motion to add the roundabout old state bridge road to the unfunded needs list. I think you just you might want to say you'd like to have you would like to have it scored. Scored. Yeah. So, you'd like to have a potential roundabout at Old State and Ridge Road scored for consideration to move onto the unfunded list. What you said? There we Can I have a second?

So you making a motion on that was your second made by Council Member Crayons. Colleen, did you get it? The motion? Okay. All right. So with that, any other discussion on the matter? All right. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed or abstain? Motion. Uh just to return real quick, mayor. Um the we're adding this score in. U we will run it through the scoring sheet. what committee just since this is the first project we've ran to this official process I think it's a good thing yeah we'll go to add that makes sense just wanted to make sure okay all right um then any

I would suggest I don't know if you need a motion for this but you know with any one of these kinds of projects so I would recommend that like a road something that is admin or public works is there something that is what they're planning start there yeah any Council member McCutchen.

Um, so I I would like to make a motion that the Green Pines Park be added to the 2026 budget items with a caveat that that a grant be attached to it. I heard what you said, Joe. and and if if not a grant in 2026 that it goes and stays on the budget for 2027. I think I think what I heard though is that we're going to if you're asking for it to be in the 26 though you do have to come up with what is the item that's coming up.

I understand but I can't do that at this point. That's why I'm making the motion that I'm making. I I don't I can't sit here and go through this right now and give you that give you a takeaway. think according to what I had heard earlier we need to find how to keep a balance 26.

Yeah. Right. So I mean I would say Deb if like obviously we're going to have a conversation again when we approve this thing. So right now it sits on the unfunded list. I don't I don't know what the process is to look at grants or things like that. I just guessing that it's probably not going to get a grant in the next six weeks. So, I would say, you know, your best move would be to say, I'd like to look into grants for I guess it would be 2027 and then see what that score results in. I mean, you can certainly you can certainly try and then, you know, you just come up and say, you know, okay, I want these three projects or whatever it is, the total 200 grand or whatever off and then you can put it to a vote. Maybe it will succeed. I don't know. But that that's that's kind of how the process was envisioned.

I and I understand that. But then given the discussion that we had in planning and parks to take what what was it 3 million what was it out of reserve funds yeah 350,000 out of reserve funds to cover some of the projects um for operating well same thing is what operating budget you get okay so Okay, I I'm going to relook at the budget and I'll get back to you.

Okay, sounds good. Then, uh we'll come back to that in the coming meeting. All right, what else you got there, Tom?

Goodness, I made the mistake here. Uh okay, real quick. Wanted to go over the uh road and bridge fund for fiscal year 2026. I did want to give our director of public works a quick shout to be able to kind of go over a couple things, but it really is just a routine maintenance items that are traditionally covered. It's going to include a 2026 annual concrete street slab replacement project. It'll include some resurfacing, asphalt street resurfacing, and truly it's going to be more so patching and overall it's a budgeted it's it this is one of our better accounts that we can kind of keep an eye on because um the revenue sources for these are both a motor fuel sales tax. uh that's been very helpful and has increased this revenue source over time and then also a small um tax that's assessed within the county and that's then distributed to the city. So both of those in of themselves pretty much allow us to do a lot of our street maintenance program within one fund. Uh we typically just keep an eye on what the amount is and then we'll we'll actually create the scope for how much road we're going to resurface and how many concrete slabs we're going to replace. Uh it's been very helpful in that way that it's not as kind of scope creep if you will for capital improvement the capital improvement sales tax fund. Um that said it it's a balanced budget for 26 and um overall it's been helping us very much. It's uh anything Rick you want to add? But I don't have too much there.

Anybody have any questions for Rick on that? All right, seeing none, then we can move on to the next. That's the roading bridge fund. Questions? No, we're good. Do you have a question? Oh, it's being passed around. Oh, okay. Um, okay.

All right, we're good. Yes, that's all right. Next, we've got the and I briefly discussed this earlier, but just wanted to mention it. The town center sewer fund. Um, this account was made specifically to extend uh sewer system out past Manchester Road. And that said, um, we did take out bonds. We redeemed them in 2023. We have less than five folks that have not paid their assessments. They're delinquent. And the city is currently working to get those delinquent assessments. And once that's done legally, we need to return that money to the people that paid into the pot. So that's why it's showing a $350,000 expenditure. The city plans to retain 90,000 until all individuals um pay their late and delinquent assessments. And at that point, the remainder would be transferred out to the individuals that have paid into the system. So just want to make a quick note there. But overall, that is uh pretty straightforward as well. The hope is that we can close out the fund in total in 2026. It's been a year of chasing people down to try to get that last little bit of payments. It's It's [snorts] been a large effort, but happy to report that we're down to less than five. Answer any questions. So, if anyone has Yeah,

that's my Marshall. So, I I do remember when we put that in, but I guess it's a legal question. Um, the people who have paid diligently over the 20 years, can we hold their money back until you get the delinquent ones or not? legally in we had to submit a notice. We did submit a notice to those folks and uh right now at least from what bond council has stated, yes. But that said, you cannot that those funds can't magically like you can't transfer them to the general fund or anything. They're treated in this town center sewer fund and then they're transferred not even um oh we can talk a little bit offline, but they are transferred to those folks that own the property uh right now currently. That's where the check and paid in the money to start with.

It's the current property owner. So, whoever owns that property today, even if they didn't pay in, if they own the property that paid in, they are the ones that get How long do we allow them to be delinquent on it? Past the 20 years is up now. We It's been past 20 years and that we've sent multiple notices and there are a few folks that have not paid. Um, so what do we do? You go to uh you take legal action. When do we do that? That is the plan we have in 2026. Nice. All right. Next.

All right. [snorts] All right. The other two account uh funds are u our TGA funds. Those are really the there's 650 thou uh 600,000 being transferred over to help fund our route 109 BA project that was budgeted in fiscal year 2025. So that's just being carried out in accordance with that uh directive. And then overall those funds are set aside. Um in 2025 originally for the right-of-way acquisition for Main Street, the Main Street extension, there was monies about $75,000 from the east and west TGA funds that were expected to be spent. That said, the project that was being the development proposal was not approved in that area and the right-of-way acquisition did not move forward is something the city does have planned for fiscal year 2026. Um the idea was that that expenditure would be placed in that transfer. If we were going to use TGA funds, it'd be more appropriate to do it once you have uh construction beginning. So that said, um that's really the main thing with the TGA is that there is monies being transferred out to go towards Route 109BA pursuant to what was approved in 2025. Um other than that though, there are no revenues anticipated at this time and the only expenditure is a transfer. And then last but not least, uh we have our deer management fund. And what was included in tonight's proposal, uh not nice proposal, tonight's budget budgetary documents was White Buffalo's fiscal year, well operational budget for 2026. So we can all give everybody a second to open that up. But in 2020, a little background here, in 2023, um the city council, we kept having the issue of this being a pretty high expenditure to have within our general operating fund. And then once we were, it would really throw off every other operation we had. So, the council uh voted within the 2023 budget to create a deer management fund and to really create it with $1 million. Um that fund has been used since 2023.

So for the 2024 operations and 2025 operations to begin working uh towards that program and start paying for a couple things that go into it. You have mailings to the folks that go out um that we send letters to. We have the actual deer count uh that we do at the police department that really accounts for overtime cost and the cost that was associated with the individual that would assist us. Um and then you also have the cost for white buffalo. uh we wanted to include that tonight because it is included in the fiscal year 2026 budget, but should there be any questions or concerns, we'd be more than happy to to discuss that at this time. Um overall, the plan for fiscal year 2026 is uh they're looking to go into the southeast one region. That's the new area. And then the other side of it is they're going back into the NE1 and NE2 regions. Um not to do very much. The idea is to remove approximately 100 deer from the NE1 region, the NE I mean the SE1 region, sorry, and then about 50 deer from each other region uh for the NE1 and NE2. This year we also are looking at the SE1 and we're going to be expanding the border somewhat south, so quarter mile south of Old State Road and then a/4 mile west of State Route 109. that the goal of doing that is that deer do not obviously recognize borders. So, the hope is we can expand and get a couple more h uh properties that are over 3 acres, but then also we are able to go in and um try to hit these deer vehicle collisions directly on the head since the majority of deer vehicle collisions take place on our major roadways including 109, 100, Old State Road, Shepard, Streker, Allent. Those are the roads that you're typically seeing these deer vehicle collisions. So, the idea is to kind of sandwich those roads in and try to get as many deer as we can remove from those corridors. Not only that, um just a

quick note, too, is that this program, you know, there was an uh labidly labe uh there was a recent report of chronic wasting disease. So, we had nothing in our deer population that shows that there's a even a trace of it. We had a lot of the deer, all the deer are tested before they go to the processor and before they're donated to the zoo. And during the first year, there was extensive testing done um by MDC. But one note I wanted to point out was that pretty close to St. Louis County, there was one deer found with that disease. But it has been found that reducing the total deer population can help counter out counteract that uh that very nasty disease that we hope has nothing to do with St. Louis County, but um yeah. Right. answer any questions if Go ahead, Council Member Nan. Go ahead.

Um, and I don't know that this is the time to to do it. So, if it's not, then that's fine, too. But, I know Scott and I and multiple of us have had and then Men Public Works, we've heard from multiple people on the deer situation, and I guess it doesn't really have necessarily to do with the budget. Um, but I know some of us have discussed possibly doing a drone survey so we would get a better idea exactly of what the deer count is. And I I know that's a whole another conversation where we do it and we just do it in a confined area in one of the areas and I guess it relates to the budget in that obviously it costs money. would be finding the company that we want to do it. But then it would also perhaps change some of the costs based on how many deer then would be called. Maybe it would be more deer that we would find being called. Maybe it would be fewer deer. So it might save money. But I know we've done surveys and I think we've done them to the best of our ability. But I don't think anybody disagrees that it's we didn't do it the most accurate way. And I feel like going forward just to answer to the community and to us so we all really understand it to get some really definitive numbers going forward. So again, I don't know that that's something to, you know, get into the weeds about tonight, but I just wanted to

I think it'd be appropriate if that's what we're wanting to do in 26. Then we would the department would want to know that there is a budget item would be inclusive and original estimates anywhere between 20 to 40,000 for a deer a drone survey of you know a full area could be all three. Um that said I mean we could go we've been working with MDC to try to find a couple based off some feedback that was received and right now um that's a rough estimate. We've also had a couple leads on some folks that may be much more cost effective and we're looking into that now. Um I there's been one report of a dollar an acre which that is the hope that we can actually see that out. If that's true and it's good data then I think that'd be a great idea. Um but that's I think we would just need a plan for that type of expenditure.

So so one more followup. So is that only something we can do after this year's colony or can that be done before? That could be done before it can be done whenever. I think that what would probably be the best scientific way to do it would be to have it done coinciding with our manual collection of data so you can compare the results one to one and then if those are similar then you have your proven two points at the same time. So, I would almost say if we're going to do it, we would probably want to dip it in at the end of calling for 2026. Or if the council's not in support of it, that's fine, too. But we could do it anytime, but I would say do it at the same time as the other source and then be able to compare that data one to one.

Okay. And and I'll know we have a couple of folks that have their hands up. Uh I saw Council Member Mabberry, Attenburg, Robleski. I don't know if there's anyone else. Uh Vanic, Rambo. So, just to keep us on track, uh because the agenda topic is related to the budget tonight, um I I don't want us to veer off, but I do think it's worth that we may want to have a separate conversation or a meeting that's open to anyone who wishes to be a part of that conversation. I think there's a good exchange of some ideas and I know that some folks have been having some conversations and so you know anything that obviously helps improve you know uh the the efforts of the city I think is always greatly appreciated. So let me uh go to I think it was Mabberry Attenburgg Banic and then Rambo and again let's not oh and Robski too. That's uh but yeah, if we if we find ourselves getting too far into, you know, into the weeds of just that, we'll we're going to veer off our agenda topic tonight. Go ahead.

Microphone.

Yes, thank you. It would be whether uh the drone study that's under contemplation is going to occur for the deer that are called this fall and next spring or if we're somehow not doing that now we're going to shovel it off till next year. It because I'm hearing what doesn't sound like definitive. We got plans. We're going to be talking to people. We're going to implement it because that's the smartest thing to do. Well, currently for that's what we're trying to get direction for tonight is and we had planned to have uh the draft agreement with the proposal incorporated in the November meeting for the city council as legislation. That said, we've already sent out an initial letter. We haven't necessarily confirmed everything because we haven't gotten a full deep throatated uh endorsement that hey, we're doing year three. Um that would be helpful tonight so we can begin. We've already sent out letters to the preliminary area saying that you could be included, but we want to begin sending those letters and making contact. It is an intensive effort to get folks to sign up. We've had over 275 residents sign up and say they're willing to participate. That is pretty significant considering what you're asking them to do. Um, and it it doesn't happen overnight. You have to send multiple letters and spend hours and hours on the phone with them. So, I would say the sooner the better on direction. 275 residents are willing to participate in conducting drone aerial studies.

No, we're willing off there. Sorry, I was saying I was referring to the actual polling operations themselves. 75 properties are willing to have their properties uh they've they've filled out the form in the past or they've indicated that they're interested in some other way and and of that that total then White Buffalo will select the best of the best to put their canopies and their sharpshooters in.

Yep. That's typically how it works. They will they'll go out and make sure the site is perfectly safe and it's in a good shape to be able to actually get the app. You need them evenly dist. That's the big problem here with being able to do this at at all. You need even distribution of sites, which means you have to saturate these residents with letters, with communications, because if you don't get on top of that early, then you're going to find yourself with pockets that haven't been addressed. And if that occurs, then you're just going to remain with pockets of deer that you you're going to be spending the money to not have the effect that you're want.

Okay. The the brunt of my question here is that we will be able to counter and answer uh to what I think is satisfactory the the very voiceful and impassioned residents who want to make certain that we include the technology of drone uh counts. um to to quell their fears that we're not providing accurate data and that we're either taking too many deer, which is what their allegation is. Um so that answers that. It's it's on the works. It's it's in the pipeline. Whatever our budget I'm looking at is going to include an allowance for that up to $40,000 for this calling season. Is that what I'm gathering?

We would need to add funds in the current budget. It wasn't planned. That's then that's what I'd like to make a motion for if that's what it's going to take. And then we take that money from reserves if if that's it doesn't need to come from reserves. There's already a fund.

Well, the fund so how it was in 2023 when I said they split it off the council split it off from the the general fund. What really happened was there was a a declaration that this is now going to be utilized. Doesn't create revenue other than interest on the actual sitting balance of the account, but this is going to be used for deer management and deer management alone. U the the idea behind it was to make sure that this this objective didn't get dropped off in future years. That said, um the idea would be that we would add that in. It doesn't necessarily have to have a reserve tied to it. There's just a fund. it would reduce that total amount of the fund that you would have for the full five years, but it could be done.

So therefore, is is motion appropriate then to allocate the money from that fund or All right. Do you want to go ahead and put that motion on the floor? Okay. So the motion then would be appropriate is to allocate uh or uh not to exceed 40,000 from the deer fund for the use of

uh for the use of a drone survey of the deer population. So that would at least allocate the money in the budget there for that purpose there. Motion made by council member Mayberry. Second. We have council member uh nyan. Um, we have a motion now on the floor related to that. So, any discussion related to that motion? Council member.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, just to tag on to the um comments from council member Nyian and um in regards to the motion from council member Mabry um having done some research on this, some information that's been published by White Buffalo indicates that a drone survey utilizing thermal imaging equipment is the most accurate and effective way to do a deer count in any given area. uh spotlight checks tend to be ineffective and inaccurate because they don't account for the random distribution of deer in a particular area. Uh another advantage of using the drone technology with the thermal imaging equipment is they can identify deer in areas with a lot of vegetation. And as we all know, throughout Wildwood here in various wards, we have residential areas that include a lot of vegetation where deer may not be spotted using the spotlight method. So, it's just to I guess my comments are just in support of um Council Member Mab's motion. Thank you.

All right. So, thank you for the the discussion on the motion there, Council Member Farmer. Yeah, I think I I think it's a good idea. Um I don't think it should be anywhere close to $40,000, so let's hope it isn't. I would suggest since we've spent the last couple years focusing on any one and any two. I agree with uh city administrator Lee that when we do our normal deer count, that's when we want to do um the drone for that specific area. I would also suggest going back to I think it's any two whatever the first year any one was the first year any2 and now we're in SE1,

right? So, I think we do we focus the the count wherever we're going because I know we're mixing that up a little bit, but I also think we probably want to go back to any one and double check that with the data that we had just so we can have some kind of extra counts. And then the goal being I think we can pretty quickly figure out with math how far off we might be on these accounts or accurate we might be on these accounts. And for those of you guys that weren't on the council at the time, the the million dollars that's been advocated or allotted to the deer program, I can't remember where it came the exact reason, but it was like a windfall million dollars that just literally showed up one day and that was why we used it to lock in this five-year plan. So, the goal with this is to was it? Yeah, it was charter settlement something. The ideal the idea was to be able to do this five-year plan to see how this is going. And then I would expect probably when we get this data back in the spring or whenever it is, we're going to start to have conversations about how we want to manage and maintain that moving forward so it doesn't just all kind of drop off the list. But I think the drone thing is a great idea because um you know we've had a lot of I don't know if it's misinformation or disinformation or confusion or whatever you want to call it. Um but you know we've had some people say that there are only 60 years left in part of our town which

there are six that live in my front yard. So I don't think that that is correct. Um but yeah I think it's a good thing to do and and um I would just say let's try to do it as equitably as we can to cover those two areas. And that's I mean can we get can the department get a little clarification because if we want to do a drone survey at the same time as as we do the other survey that's fine. I think that could be incorporated and I think having that meeting would be suffice too but if we want to do the drone survey prior to coing operations this year that that can't happen. I mean we cannot do coing operations and then we'd be fine. said the idea would be when we're going to do our normal counts after the call and then I would I would personally I would focus on the area that we were working

most and if we can add on the other area to double check those numbers great but that is an after the important part that can be done all right thank you council member Robleski is related to the motion okay we'll come back to you um on this side here Banick or Rambo no not related to the motion Okay. So, if it's related to the motion, this is a good time. Yep.

Yeah. So, um, as everyone knows, this is an enormously complicated topic and I can make it even more so quite easily. So, I think the mayor's suggestion is a very good one that we have a separate meeting to discuss this sort of thing. The technology is not a panacea. it can't that drone surveys can be more accurate providing a number of criteria specific criteria are met. They are going to be costly. It's I feel like it's putting money towards something that is ancillary to the the problem that we have with an overpopulation of deer. I'm confident in the efforts of the Wildwood Police Department and of Sergeant Brad Brad Wendling in counting the the deer. there's just a margin of error that's made greater by the realities that we don't have roads everywhere. We need to count the dang deer. Um the uh drones will certainly help with that if we find the right company and it's at a reasonable price point. I don't think we need to spend 40k on on anything that's not directly related to removing deer. But if it provides confidence to the specifically to the 2% of our population who are actual archers and came to complain about about the counts and so on and so forth, that's all great. Um, I feel very confident that the data collected will be real close to the distance sampling data that we've collected because it's a scientifically valid method that's been used for decades before drones were developed. And so my my my real point here is um um the drones will will have their own set of problems and if we overlay them with distance sampling we can um come up with a really great count because a drone a thermal imaging drone if a deer was recently laying down it will count that

as a deer because of the heat. If a deer is laying next to someone's heat pump in the dead of winter, it will not count that deer because it thinks it's a heat pump. And sometimes they count goats, they count they would count my dog certainly as a deer, etc., etc. So, so, so there are, um, there are tricks of the trade with both methodologies. Um uh duplicating effort everywhere would be a senseless waste of money but duplicating the effort in one specific chosen location would make would be smart because we can allay the people's fears of the you know of miscounting and and so on and so forth. So I I just want basically I'm reinforcing the suggestion that we have a separate discussion about this because it's comp complicated.

Great. Thank you. All right. Uh, I don't see any other folks that wish to speak on the motion on the floor. So, therefore, uh, is everyone clear on this motion or do you need it repeated? Could we have it repeated, please? Okay, could you go ahead? Do you have it? Um, the motion was to allocate funds for the drone survey, but not to exceed $40,000. Yeah, that's that is the motion. That was uh for next year, right? Yeah. Wait, April. I think Council Member Mabvery wanted it for this year, but I'll let him speak. after the calling. So, it'll be it'll be in 2026. Are there going to be deer shot? Oh, wait a minute. New year. Yes.

Let's get some clarity here because I think council member um city administrator Lee answered a question earlier about it could be done potentially before the calling this year. It would be very difficult. So, doing that, I mean, we have to get an agreement put together. We'd have to probably put I mean, depending on the cost, we'd have to put together an RFP, an RFP for it. Then, we'd have to give that the proper due notice time. We'd have to get two readings. We'd have to get that approved by the council and all of that while we're truly we need to be contacting residents if we're interested. If we don't want to do year three until we have this data, that's fine. When is the calling scheduled to occur? January like the beginning of January should be when it will start. So,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The the the end of archery season is January 15th and they start um putting out bait in January. The culling is probably going to occur in March, I would. Yeah, that's ex Well, calling will happen. It'll be like late January. So, paid out January. Yep. Yeah. Appropriate be appropriate for 2026 because you might be able to still be all right.

Is that what I'm hearing? which makes it feasible which makes it feasible for this culling season. Main thing is just thinking of the staff strains here because we have to get a lot of people signed up. We have to line up and the road count with the it can't happen after they call the deer. Yeah, that's correct. Well, we you can technically do a a population count with on foot, but it's not going to be helpful. I think it will it will be it will answer some questions, but overall we that time that we spend doing that is going to waste money because we're not going to have enough parcels included in in this upcoming year.

Okay. Well, anyway, I think anyway the motion has to be for 2026 because that's what's on the agenda for tonight. Yeah, that's correct. So, um I I resend the motion as being useless or not applicable. We can discuss this at any uh after next January. All right. So, Council Member May, you're rescending the motion. Uh Council Member Farmer, you still want to keep it?

I'm going to make a motion to perform a drone-based deer count after the 2026 call, which will happen in the wintertime, right? Sometime after January. This will be part of the 2026 budget and we're going to take that money out of the currently allocated year fund and we're going to proceed with the 2026 year call since it was already allocated two years ago. Okay. So, we need a second on that made by Council Member Dodwell. All right. Any discussion on that motion? All right. Council member Mabry on the motion.

I'll vote for that because while it's too late for this year, it's still good for next year. But I would have really rather preferred we dig in and spend three months, which sounds like ample time to me. I appreciate that there's staff considerations, but we could contract out um as we do with a lot of other things the amount of work that it would take staff to coordinate that. But that's all really. Okay. Um all right. All those in favor of everyone clear on the motion now. All right. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Anyone opposed or abstain? All right. Back to before we had uh Council Member Robleski, you wish to say something?

Yeah, just one comment. Um my first question I think was answered by Council Member Farmer. I was trying to determine how long the plan is and he said 5 years. For some reason, I thought it was three before it had to be approved. Again, it's the number one thing that residents talk to me about is that they do not like the deer calling. Um, but the dr the second piece is hopefully if we get the drone data that then we can determine if they're with, you know, for future decisions of whether we really need to have it again cuz my area is feeling like they're not seeing the deer at all like they used to. and from walking the trails there's we're not seeing very much anymore which is part of the goal but for my folks they want to see the deer. So just wanted to make the comment that I'm one of the areas that's probably different than most that they want to see the program end.

All right, Council Member Vanic Mr. Lee met with the Missouri Department of Conservation today. Was there any information that was discussed today that would help help us moving forward? Is there any nuggets that they're going to be sending over all their contacts for drone survey companies was a big first step. That was the main thing and also just outlining the process for getting a permit for this for the upcoming year which we get approved and the target recommendation they

we'll write it but it was more so just going through the na natural process so that when we if we want to proceed as council with third year of the program that it can be done. Okay. And also uh how does this process move forward from here since there's so much interest in the community amongst the hunters regarding this? How you know uh is there going to be when's the next um meeting with the public where they can exchange ideas and blah blah.

The city was hoping to get direction on whether or not it's even going to be included since we've gotten some the department's gotten some mixed feedback from the council. So there was some concern about sending out notices to let to residents and then having it denied. Um that said, we can really have two different open house meetings and then a separate meeting with these different individuals. I think it would be appropriate to do it separately because those open houses really should be for folks that are looking to sign up to participate. That's the hope. And if not, and if it just turns into a discussion about dog program, I I I do want to emphasize how much time it takes to get people to to it's okay if we don't want to do it. It's just if we're going to do the program, there there is a significant amount of time to can like every resident at least take two hours of time to explain them to them the ins and outs. And then also having White Buffalo contact them, having the the part, the ranger, whomever is speaking on the police side to go out and visit the site. It just takes a lot of effort in order to make sure that property is safe. So, we just wanted to make sure that we we kind of separate the two because if we do one, it could scare off people that have signed up already that might want to sign up

in future city council meetings. Uh proving are there going to be any meetings where we talk about actually approving the money or approving the program? The idea, the idea tonight was with the budget being approved tonight. If if if that not approved, but if there was no direct problems with the budget as presented for the deer management fund, we would actually in court we would we would most definitely appreciate a motion to prepare legislation adopting the agreement with White Buffalo outlined in the proposal and that would go to a public that would not that would be introduced the next meeting and then it would go from there. But the hope is we got to get started by January. So, it's got to get a move on if we want to do it.

And sorry, unless you're going to tell me it would be way two two attending, I would suggest one meeting public and one meeting for our tree community. Yeah. Group separately. The idea was to I you think I think two's overkill nothing nothing meant there. The main thing was if there's any residents and what we did last year that was pretty effective because we got I mean it wasn't a million people but we ended up getting you know at least five from each meeting that ended up signing up at the end of the day which is meaningful when you you're really distributing

one's in person and then one we did virtually which was helpful for a lot of people kind of gave them that permission to join. All right. Uh I think we've uh this one quick final comment there.

Yeah. Um uh most of the objections that I've seen and every year a new crop of folks comes out and complains about the same sorts of things. It's because they haven't read the existing documentation and they haven't attended the prior meetings. And so um what I have seen happen is once we get in a room and share the actual information conservation department recommend recommendation of 10 to 20 deer per square mile and the fact that we have 80 or 90 per square mile and the fact that nature is very sparse and you're not supposed to see deer walking along the road every night whether you like seeing deer or not. It's not healthy for the deer. they're a lot healthier. Uh the remaining deer are a lot healthier um at lower numbers because they have better nutrition. There's lots and lots of points like that that seem to get across to people and um in the meetings that we've had. I always attend and um we get we always have some archery hunters that come and then after they the information is explained to them, presented to them neutally, they generally come around to our way of thinking and say, "Yeah, we we'll have healthier bucks to shoot in a couple of years if we if we do this cull properly now." And so, um the the the the archery community this year has asked Tom for a meeting. I'm happy to participate. I think it should be recorded in a public meeting and so on and so forth, but specifically intended to discuss the issues with the um archery community because we can recruit them for maintenance purposes. That's been in the plan from day one is open up more hunting opportunities for the archery community while we get the population under control and and reduce deer vehicle collisions and the tickborne diseases and all the property damage that happens and so forth. And so, as I said, this is very complex, but

I think sooner rather than later, Tom, you should try to schedule that meeting. If there's anything that I can do to take some of the burden off your hands, I'm happy to do it. Um, but it can be a free flowing, it doesn't have to be a big presentation. Just show up, guys, and we'll talk because it's going to be a finite group of folks. And then after that, we can have our normal town hall, which has always been very effective and very wellreceived and very cordial, and there's never any animosity and so forth. So I think we've got a good um a good program going. We just need to con continue with that.

So just a quick question and I that I think that's fine idea. Um wanted to just clarify though who all is going to join the meeting because if it's the whole council then we'll have it'll have to be just posted. Yeah. Yeah. I think uh let's let's uh we can decide develop logistics offline. And again, uh, just to be respectful of everyone's time, uh, because everyone's been in the same seat since 5:30. So, um, that I think that covers all of the work session agenda items here. So, miscellaneous, is there anything that anyone has under miscellaneous? Council member Farmer and Dodwell.

Yeah. Uh, real quick, um, those of you that were have been on the council before, you will recognize them. Those that you have of you that have not, um, I'm hoping to get, um, some surveys out by Friday, I hope. Um, that's just sort of our annual reviews of of Tom and Colleen, stuff like that. So, just keep an eye out. It'll be in your city email. It'll just be a survey and um, you know, answer it to the best of your ability. It all comes in uh, basically anonymously and then it gets tabulated out. So, feel free to be as honest as you possibly can be. That's the best best way to answer those questions. Thank you, Joe. Council member Dodwell,

I would like to take a moment of silence for um an ex- council member Terresa Clark who lost her son this past weekend. So, if we could do that for just 20 seconds maybe.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Alers. I think you've exceeded your limit for tonight.

Okay. You know, with that, I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn.