Master Plan Citizen Oversight Group - 2026 - Regular Meeting

both sides covered. Yeah. Good. All right. Welcome everybody to our fifth meeting. We're going to continue discussion on environmental element review number one. Before we proceed, I wanted to thank everybody for the open and spirited discussion we had last month. It's critical to the process that everybody contribute and it really helps frame where we're going and how we get there. So again, my appreciation for that. Um, is the mayor available or If not, we'll continue. Staff, would you complete roll call, please? Chair routin. Vice Chair Loy here. Member Avery here. Member Baker here. Member Batty. Member Boomer Schllegel here. Member Borne. Member Clark here. Uh, member Clayton here. Member Coleman, member Dler. Member Helffrey, member Rubis, member Jackson, member Conn. Member McCutchen. Uh, member Mets here. Member Pick here. Member Rambo here. Member Ren here. Member Shiken here. And

Mayor Garitano here. Will we have a quorum? Mr. Mayor, would you like to add anything to their discussions, please? Well, I'm glad I made it just in time. Well, uh yeah, only to to say that we're greatly appreciative of all your help and I know this takes time from your busy schedules and uh especially as the weather is warming up. Um you know, it's nice to be outside. So, thank you from behalf of the city. Thank you to all our staff members for being here. And uh yep, I think at this point I'm going to hand it back to you, but you keep up with the good work. Thank you. At this time, Michael, if you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stand indivisible with liberty and justice for all. At this point, we'd like to have a motion to accept our add to last month's meeting minutes. I make I have one correction just on the last page where it talks about the next meeting date. It has the date of last meeting. So, I make a motion to approve with that change. Do we have a second? All in favor?

Joe, you want to start us off with our environmental element review number one, please? Well, Mr. Chair and members of the group, I'd like to also extend Department of Planning and Parks. Thanks to all of you for attending. We recognize that role replay is intricral to a successful update of our faster plan. Without you, so very to us and we want you to know we appreciate it. First of all, I've got just a couple of housekeeping matters and with permission of the chair, I'd just like to go over them briefly. First, if you tried to review the recording of meeting last month, we didn't. There was technical difficulty. So, the recording wasn't available. So, the minutes are the only record we have from the last meeting and we apologize about that. You depend on the recordings substantially to kind of go back and help us to make sure we get the motions correct. maker the second themselves. So it was unfortunate. It was um couldn't be helped. So from that perspective, we offer our apologies. So if you were looking for the recording, that's the explanation. Every once in a while, even the best of us have a tough day at the technology stage, said speakers. Tonight again, as always, we have some drinks for you in the refrigerator. I believe there's soda, water, and tea. If not, no tea. So, soda and water, and then we have coffee. So, help yourself. We have some snacks as well. So, if you haven't those, please don't hesitate. And anytime during the meeting, feel free to go through.

Um, I know those may be a bit unscripted, but as you know, we started out our meeting schedule back at the end of January of this year, and we tried a few things. Obviously, we thought that maybe the post-it notes at the start with any impressions of what the discussion thought would be for that particular meeting might be beneficial. We also thought about doing videos um to kind of introduce the topics and we produced one for the environmental element and then at the end of the meeting we also tried to engage everybody back into the group get an understanding what you were feeling what you were hearing what you were thinking. All of those things probably unto themselves are well worth the effort. But what we found too is is with two hours once a month those things may not be in our best interest to achieve the goal we want and that's to talk in detail the chair just mentioned about the goals and objectives and policies of the six individual elements and then ultimately the land plan. I think and this is not necessarily shared by the mayor, the city council or any of the rest of the key members under planning parks that you deserve an explanation why we kind of transitioned more to a traditional meeting setting so to speak where we talk about the things that are on the agenda and we want you to feel regardless of how we get there whether it's post-it notes or the round table at the conclusion or somewhere in between one person talking benefit of all is not what we need. We need all of you to basically participate. Um don't feel bashful if it's your first time or if it's your 30th time. We need your input. I think as Mayor Geratano has mentioned on several

occasions, he was very selective and he pickic because he wanted a good mix. And so I apologize for kind of going to more of this format instead of maybe having more of a 2025 presentation of videos and this and that and the other. We are on a bit of a time frame and I'd like to ensure that you all have the time we need to hopefully do the job we've forgiven and policies of the environmental elements. So saying all of that, as chair just mentioned in his opening remarks, this is our fifth meeting. And in some regards, I look back and I think, did we achieve all we want? And so I just want to do a summary so that all of you can kind of maybe relax a little and think, okay, maybe we have made a made progress. So the first meeting was purely just an introduction. There's 20 some odd people in the room including a department of planning for parks team members and then all of you we know some some of you know each other some of you don't some of you know us some don't but we thought it was important to start creating that group dynamic and the meeting was intended to be more fun than let's say blowing up our se sleeves and getting to work. The second meeting we had several key issues we needed to talk about those dealt with the process for each of the elements the information that would be provided for each of the elements so you have an understanding of that more importantly and finally the endorsement of the survey the public input and as you know that was a critical need our third

meeting we spent just doing that talking about the public's input and the survey completion did a wonderful job kind of going through those questions, giving us your feedback, and we almost got 800 responses in a three-week period. So, success was written all over that survey. And that's what at the end of the day, when we get through all of this process, we'll go back to that and see how we did. That'll be our report card, so to speak, if we're listening to the citizens, and if we're not, why we're not. And then finally our last meeting we started with our goals, objectives and policies for the first element. I think it was an important meeting because we created I would consider the process. We talked through a lot of different things at the start. Took us a bit of time to get to the point where everybody felt comfortable, but we all of the goals, all of the objectives, and that's where we'll start tonight with some of the rewrites. So with that I do want to mention that our process at least in terms of the department is we do our best we direction we proceed but at the end of the day the four of us collectively have to look back we write something we words smmith it we write something we edit it we write something hopefully bring it to you in a form that's acceptable. That's not to say it is. And so don't feel hindered by saying I don't like the wording of this particular goal that you provide. Or if it's just words smmithing, this word would be better than that word. That's what we're here for tonight. If it's okay, great. But also remember, this won't be your last

time to see it because you'll get all of it back to you eventually in some final form. That's where we'll go from there. So you'll see it again. Talk about it once, you'll see it in what we believe it's you'll see it took. So saying all of that are there any questions, any explanations I need provide to you, we want you to enjoy the process and that's kind of where we started, but also is a working meeting. So we have a charge to complete the certificate explanation. So any comments any questions on anything I've said besides Mr. Chair with your permission I'll start with the goals. Thank you. So as I mentioned just a second or two ago, we did fit through all the goals and objectives. Um from the perspective our first two goals that are in the system plan were recommended to me and you all with that and there was no change from each of those two that means going to the third goal. The department identified that for revision and the department's perspective on this particular one was the use of prudent use of natural resources of the city. The department's perspective was it almost it almost encourages it's a statement that's more proactive to use versus preservation or somewhere in between. The group concurred and tonight we're recommending something that reads to this policies and regulations should reflect site sensitivity for each

property with its future use as facility. So the department's underlying theme on this particular statement, it's a bold statement was each site's different. Don't treat them as they're all the same. So each child has its its own character. Not all children are the same. And what we're saying is something very similar. Each site in W but has its individual characteristics. They may be developed but they are our policies and regulations should treat them with an individual perspective. like think to do that but we certainly wish we didn't talk about each one or we can go through all the goals back Mr. chair and the vice chair. Would you like to do it? We can stop here. I can take comments on I would like to see us skip through the goals. Um the next one was the encouragement or the city to pursue public sanitary sol. We had a discussion at our last meeting that probability of that is very very slim as it would require the metropolitan and St. district not only to go into an area that's been annexed but unserved since 1976 but to complete the annexation of all of the city of Wwood then build a plant build mains build pump stations and all along the way in the rural area disturb it significantly. So the group agreed to remove it. It's not practical. It's not necessarily what is in the best business to the rural areas and there are other approaches to

ensure that wastewater is treated high of so we removed it. In terms of legacy sites we wanted to retain it with no change and I did mention we have the most properties in the city of Wildwood. um those properties are still listed on the super fund site and we've taken steps to ensure that if those sites are going abing those sites forever to be in the development cycle protection. So we recommended no change. Um we talked a lot about uh noise and why the department originally presented to the group those two items as a single goal. The recommendation from the group by both motion and consensus was to make them separate. So tonight you have one that all all basically states manage ambient noise levels to protect community health and quality of life. Mayor Garitano can speak to those. We're doing a lot to address road noise. And then the other goal manage lighting observe wildwood's night sky as well as protecting migrating birds and other wildlife. So we've created two new goal statements based upon one suggested change. And then the next item on goals is we talked about just the climate change and the effect of climate change is heavy on local weather. And I don't need to spend much time telling you that we've had a doozy of the start of the year weatherwise. We had a significant storm, winter storm in January and we've had now two if not three tornadoes pass through the city of Wildwood. Is it a climate change? Is it just a quick year? I don't know. But we talked about resiliency. Miss Keefe had a good suggestion. Miss

Kee and I kind of coordinated and we talk about consider the city's resilience to changing climate and planning, developing and allocating resources for such. So, it's we're elevating it to not only do we need now budget items for snow and ice removal, we're getting very close now to having a budget item for tree removal because they're all over our roads these days. And then finally, one from Dr. Rambo. We talked a lot about non-native things and the use of them in wildwood and then just the invasives that have taken over many of our roadway park property and individual wilds. We talk about resist non-native from proliferating in wildwood and co invasives from the community. So those are the goals I think. At this point, if everybody agrees, I think it would be good if there's any comments on the goals to this point that everything that Joe just discussed, any modifications, comments, send changes. Yes, ma'am. I guess my I I like everything that's done. My only thing that I might um point out is for the new goal around climate change consider kind of a passive word. I don't know if we have something a little more and I it doesn't need to be a strong word. I don't know. I just that comes off to me a little passive like maybe address or include. Yeah, proactively consider. I mean, I agree that has happened and it's been a very tough year. Having spent a lot of time in my

basement lately consider what we have address include included one of the standards wherever you use implement that's another word we use often so I'm fine with address or I prefer the staff yeah I'm not see the most appropriate do the input. So, we'll take the suggestions. We'll basically do our review and then we'll let you know when we come back. So, at the next meeting, we won't talk about any of this again. We'll have the environmental element which we hope we design, but you'll get a final copy to kind of put it away and then come back to but thank you. Any more comments on goals? Do we have a motion to accept these goals as is? Make a motion to accept. Second. Seconded. Michael. All in favor? I I. And that motion, I assume, includes changing that word from consider to something more correct. Mr. Chair, vice chair, Mr. Commission, I'll jump into the objectives. Please as mentioned in my preliminary comments, we did complete the objectives. Uh the first environmental damage the department have recommended revised the concurred and the proposed 40 would be development practices within wildwood must reflect current best practices too many practices in there sorry and ensure

regulation rules and codes consistently reflect such so there's two components to that uh best practices is a standard term we see it in planning, engineering, and any of discipline in between. And best practices usually mean keeping keeping up with the times, meaning don't do a set of regulations, leave them there, and then just be satisfied. And um I think we want to ensure we're consistently on the front end of new regulations that protect the environment. So that's the intent of the word. The next objective had to deal with wastewater that the group agreed to retain it change. Similarly, the next one remaining soil and formatic based vegetation through recommended to retain with no change. Watersheds has the primacy of planning purposes. The group wholeheartedly agreed to retain it, but wanted it to be a bold statement because they felt it was more of a bold statement than an objective. Um, older storm water management facilities need to be upgraded. The group agreed to, excuse me, that's a new one that it should be added and they like the way it was worded, so they recommended no change. Um again here we had the um support as an objective we had support enforcement efforts relative to dark sky noise abatement the group wanted that split into two and that's what will happen um so there'll be two new objectives for the most part saying support protection of um to address noise abatement and to protect

women's sky Okay. And then finally, another new item was implement steps protocols with funding for resil resiliency initiatives. The group uh agreed that that should be an objective and supported the current wording as presented at the meeting last month. So, uh several existing objectives were retained as is. Several new ones were provided employed by the group and this proposed public discussion. Is that adequately address your concerns regarding tree removal? I think it does, but again, I'm here to listen to all of you tonight. So, I'd prefer to hear from you than say yes. Just had a a thought on the older storm water management. Some of these need to be upgraded. Is there a way we could put some wording in there as to exactly how we're going to address that issue? Are we going to inspect existing uh subdivision retention bonds or or just how is that going to happen? I think it's a wonderful suggestion. I think if we if you'll hold that thought till we get to the policies, I think there's something good. Thank god. And if we'll add something if it's concurrent and could you address existing watersheds have primacy for planning purposes originally it was considered for removal. What's your positioning that? Well as an objective I think it's too broad and so from that perspective I didn't think it belonged in the objective category. You all gave guidance at the last meeting and suggested yeah it's probably too broad for objective but it's about eight goal and yes because we have nine watersheds within those individual

watersheds we have systems of streams and creeks and peral drainage waste and everything kind of evolves or in water. Um and that word if you had the opportunity to read the environmental assessment from the original plan or the one done in 2006 that was the key element given climate change and that was predicted in 1995 when we did the initial assessment that our soils our slopes our vegetative cover that's going to be our number one environmental problem. So I think retaining watershed as the primary primacy of the planning per for planning purposes is key. So I think it's a great bold welcome addition that you have a recommendation regarding the storm weather over the new item. Uh after it says extreme weather preparedness, I would offer including and recovery just one word perhaps would address the needs. Thank you. And having said that, I would make a re motion to Oh, I'm sorry. I did that. I am done. You do that now. a motion to approve it. Go ahead. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to be able to eliminate a lot of the existing storm water retention basins by incorporating a series of regional storm water basins. There are certain areas uh within the city uh in particular uh behind the movie theater's a large storm

water detention basin. And as you travel to our look to the west, uh there's a rather deep ravine there. And in previous studies, uh done by, I believe, JR Grimes, Civil Engineering, they believe that a uh like a town lake could be established that would be able to retain the runoff for believe it was a couple hundred acres at the time. And it would not only eliminate some of the retention basins that are proposed and some of the developments, but it would also add a feature to the town center by creating literally a town lake. Um to do this is not simple. The property is in private hands. Uh part of it I'm very aware of. one mechanism that might be considered. I believe that would be a not too sure it's a neighborhood improvement district or what's the one Joe that incorporates sales tax soon. the sit maybe maybe a community improvement district where upon someone maybe who's familiar or knows the owner of the movie theater would consider adding a sales tax component to the sales there to help fund doing something of that nature and that's my comment well I would defer to first and then I can give a perspective then ask other team members including there just do we have any flexibility on issues that impact are impacted by MSD we do okay they are a good partner

generally um they when we started our watershed erosion task force for the first couple of years they had an individual one of their engineers ers participate at each of the meetings. Um they were intricral in um describing some of the steps that they were taking to help fund storm water at a local level. That's prop s that passed in April of 2024 I believe or 23. So we have a good partnership but general rule of thumb is we can always be more restrictive than MSD but never lesser. And so if we're looking at as long as we address flood channel protection, flood plane management and water quality, I think we'll be in good shape. Does what Ed suggested come within those parameters of Well, if we step back about 27 years, the original child center plan that was proposed by Andre Dani included regional storm water basins versus individual ones on each of the development sites. And their position was, as much as Mr. just described basically you're saving more land for development which was a key element in their proposal. What we had in town center the better in terms of homes, businesses, etc., etc. And then you're basically putting all of your eggs in one basket, meaning that for the most part you're creating a feature, a water feature. So that was positive from their perspective. What we found though is um when you when we went to the first set of property owners and discussed the potential of purchasing the property to basically flood it um they were like well that's great but

they wanted to charge the same price as if it were commercial development. And so going back to city council even in those early days and saying, "By the way, we'd like to flood this property, but we want to pay $8 a square foot for it, which equated to hundreds of thousands of dollars." They're like, "Uh, no." And so it kind of stalled there. But I think the objective addresses it because the facility that Mr. Con just mentioned is an older storm water facility and we're looking at ways to upgrade it. Maybe the policy becomes how do we do that and that's something again Mr. Rain just had mentioned too it's like okay where do we where do we implement and that's generally in the policy statements at least give that direction. So it's up to you. Wow. Yeah. We we paid a nationally recognized expert, Dr. Hammer, to produce a natural resource protection standard document that's quite significant and meaningful and helpful. And um his position was in the in the western the less developed western half of the city, let's say, or 2/3 or whatever it is. Um the best way to um to capture runoff is sort of a source reduction perspective. The the the um the woodlands are natural sponges. The fields are natural sponges. you can't get any better um retention because nature has developed that over countless eons to do just that. And so uh if we do um a lake or lakes or ponds or whatever that the intention would be to allow more development because the

runoff that used to be captured by the soontobe developed areas is now has to go somewhere. That's all okay. Um because uh for example, I have a whole lot of sort of bottomland. It's not in flood planes or whatever, but someday it's going to be. I have offered that up in the watershed erosion task force. Hey, I'll even pay for it. tell me what to do to make this um um retention quality um area and um it can be a sort of a demonstration project for the city. I'm not I'm not trying to suggest that again, but I am saying that there are pe rural folks out in WS one and W six that would be happy to um provide that some of their land in exchange for a lake and um pro you know providing the you know it it doesn't become a public lake. It doesn't have to be a public lake. It could be, you know, their own lake, but um the intention is to manage runoff. Um and then if they want to stock it and fish in it and so on and so forth and look at it, um it's it's kind of up to them. So there there's some power there. What I I wanted to get folks thinking about that, but what I mostly wanted to do was are what are we doing with Dr. Hammer's natural resource protection uh um uh document? Well, later on in the policies we say to retain and continue to use. If you're not familiar, our natural resource protection standards is a matrix of five soil and slope variables. The the implementation of that is done by a soil scientist that does actually goes through the site and does a field

investigation. They basically look at the soil depth, shape, profile, um, and then obviously two other factors and they come back and map those and then there's a percentage and the percentage tells you how much you can use that particular soil component. Some are 100% protected, some are 20% protected. the the challenge or the the art is then we look at how best to basically use most of the least protected soil that's suitable for development that is not the most suitable and then we create um a map from that that guides where the houses will be where the roads will be etc. So make a long story short in wildwood that's generally means you're on the ridgetop with your development and you're off the side slopes, the valleys and the drainage areas. And so pretty straightforward, but it it it inevitably um reinforced what the founders of this area from hundreds of years ago did. put their homes on the high off the high and they used the lower areas for their roads because there was less grading associated. So we have a policy that says retain those and implement them as we have in Cameron's um the the those natural resource protection standards. Yeah. Okay. I didn't I didn't that didn't jump out at me in the document. I my recollection is it's in here. If I stated that wrong, I apologize. Was not evident and it doesn't say anything

about hammer or it doesn't say that name. But um well, Dr. Hammer did do an update of the assessment in 2006. We did not. In 2015, he wasn't in the area any longer and accepted a position with EPA and I believe was out on the West Coast. Um for the most part, Dr. Hammer was integral in the start of our watershed task force as you know but it ultimately has chosen not to participate. So the good news is soil doesn't change overnight and so soil characteristics of profiles that this area as I say in policies we'll talk about retaining that. Here's the bad news and Spooner Schlaggel actually may have it one of the few. So once we define that protected area there's something called the final resource protection line and the area behind it preserved for perpetuity. It's 100% preserved. So people buy a lot acre in size and they get to use a quarter of an acre and the rest is protected. And so I've been asked many times, are you going to pay me for that? It's like, well, no, the city isn't because this was here long before you bought your lot and if you didn't understand it, it's not necessarily the city's fault. So does have a downside for some people, right? Can can I make a comment just really quickly? Um the uh this has always bugged me and I think there's a much better way for the city to do it, but I just haven't gotten any traction with the concept in in the in our threeacre in our non- urban 3acre minimum zoning. Um if somebody comes in

and wants to buy um let's say 30 acres, they can put we'll generally let them put eight or nine homes and then the rest of it is taken up with with the infrastructure associated with supplying those homes, you know, the the roads and so on. and so forth. And then they have the um the resource protection zones. Um it's very difficult if there's a house here surrounded by a couple acres or a house here surrounded by a couple acres. It's very difficult to manage runoff and and and protect the environment in in many other ways. And it's always more visible to have that eight or nine homes on that parcel. much better solution from an environmental perspective is um is kind of like what we're doing on the the the newest development that's not even done out there on um off Allenton Road, Allenton and Highway 100, which is put concentrate the homes on the ridgetop as Joe suggested and then everybody could have their their three acres or it could be the whole thing could be common ground in, you know, designated as a resource protection zone in perpetuity. And the folks, you know, maybe would only own one acre, but the um but the um um the density remains the same. It's threeacre minimum and um and we're we're doing we're making much better progress in protecting the resources than if we just have a sort of a mindless threeacre minimum uh subdivision. I think we'll probably talk about this later on. um in future uh meetings, but I really want to, you know, focus on that when the time is right because I think it's the right thing to do. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. The approp the same density, but um they're hidden. You know, if if you do it right, okay, there's 10 houses here and they're on a culde-sac and they have

less driving and they're closer to their neighbors, but then we drive by and we don't have to see them because they're surrounded by trees. So, and and and there um is a lot more vegetation to uh to soak up the rainfall. So, it's a win-win win-win. Anyway, that's I'll get off my soap so soap box now. I apologize, but um um it's was worth bringing up. How does a team feel about adding a investigate the feasibility of a shared runoff component? I'm going to just share what I've heard over the years. I'll ask the department to kind of maybe elaborate a little bit more. I've seen where we've run into I guess I you remember more of the issues. Um I think of Lake Chesterfield. That is a lake that was created by MSD I believe and it is collecting runoff from multiple different neighborhoods. The problem that we've seen is that the lake has lost water couple times even completely drained but uh it's part of Lake Chesterfield subdivision. No one else is coming in fame for it even if it's coming from Cherry Hills or other places. So there that kind of highlights sometimes an issue when you have these shared situations. Council member Farmer Ward for will share that they have a pond that they collect water from neighboring subdivisions except to his own, but yet they're responsible for maintaining it. So I I've seen heard these stories over the years where we have something similar to this kind of shared approach. But I think what scares me more is that MSD has moved more towards these bio retention basins. Um,

Windso, this neighborhood has one of those, one of the newer neighborhoods. They're not cheap to maintain. They're very expensive. Small neighborhood, I think 38 homes, pays by annual fees about 500 or something like that because they have to get them inspected and, you know, maintain them. And I have an old neighborhood of 62 homes. We don't have to maintain ours. Ours is a pond. We pay 160 bucks a year. So all you know, so a lot of that money of course goes to our towards other expenses, but I think there's a huge cost in getting them inspected. So I wonder if we would fall under that if we start to explore um you know something that is this kind of you know shared would we be required? Are we looking at that we'd have to basically support this kind of bio retention basin approach or are there other options? But then the other thing is ultimately the cost. So obviously the city is not in a position today to really find a way to cover those costs. Other cities have done a park and storm water tasks. Maybe that's a tool. But that's if there is a tax proposal, not an easy one for no one likes taxes, but uh we need you need to have a good case. So J is what I said kind of align with would we be stuck with MSD's rules that these would have to be bio retention bases or well typically I would say yes and you're on point your concerns about maintenance and cost

but most recently we had kind of a I would call it change Fisher frictos doing a small subdivision next to the villages at Brighton called we too were frustrated by the process that was administered by MSD in the city relative to the bio retention in the villages at bracket leaf there's seven of them um we had fisher fto redo them three times and I still don't think they look the standard as the rest of the subdivision so in the new subdivision fisher fto is doing a lake and putting a fountain in and putting trails around it and it'll save the same serve the same purpose as managing run but it's an amenity now instead of something that we're trying to figure out how to make look better. So I think we can I think we if there's a desire to look at storm water changes um we can add objective. I think there's a goal already in there about storm water. I think we can add an objective and I think we can add a policy be more specific to concerns of bio retention maintenance cost and solutions that kind of tie in with our pol the next area we're going to visit in the policies. Let's I would suggest maybe put a pin in that and let's see how the policies work out then maybe I think that would be it. I I'd be very interested in how it evolved like the city then put itself in the business of almost acting as a kind of maintainer or supplier of storm water collection service. Does MSD have jurisdiction in the non develop where they don't have storm

water facilities? For the most part, west of Route 109, they have no jurisdiction and that's entirely the city of Wildwood. We do use their set of standards as our base model. So in terms of facilities out there, we try to basically given that it's primarily three acre lots of greater size. We try to basically capture all the storm water because the lots dispersive there. So it doesn't need to go to a centralized facility. We do that through a call box sumps, rain gardens, umed soils, which are not great either. What we're trying to do is treat the water at the source. Now, I do not want to get off the lot. So, do the rules require specifically at minimum of three acre lots or three acre density? Well, for years and years, it was a threeacre density, not a minimum three acres. um during the tenure of the last mayor, he did not support what we call a overlay district and for the most part wanted it to be a 3acre minimum. What that does though, as Dr. Rambo explained, it spreads the development out over the course of the entirety of the site instead of clustering it in the area most suitable for it and preserving the areas around it. We were told by Jonathan Barnett, Dr. David Hammer, and many others. From a live wildlife standpoint, contiguous undisturbed open space is best. Even three acres if you just if you basically disturb each three acre lot. It's not necessarily the most most effective for reserve management and the environment more contiguous undisturbed areas are. So

that's why the department's always been an advocate of our overlook district as well as Jonathan Barnett. There's a great study. It's called the Ka Ka Valley study. It was the most in-depth study that was done back in the 70s I think about overlay districts, clustering of units, etc. And so for the most part, that's what we used as our guide. We've even made the overlay district more difficult because now it requires 11 votes a super majority instead of a simple majority and so it's all hard order now areas to apply it. Any more comments on the objectives? I would like to make a motion to approve the objectives as mine is in addition to storm water if we get there once we get into it. Wells. Sure. Policies are going to reflect the storm waters here shortly. Exactly. Do we have a second? All in favor? I. All against. And that includes the in extreme weather preparedness and the addition of camera cover. Yes. Yes. Vince, if you'd like to walk us through policies. Well, Jody, do you have any openings on those? Well, we have a bunch of policies uh that you can see or appreciate any of them. Please if you have questions as I said at the start Travis Ellen I along with Mary for so what we're looking at is revising the first one and then the next four combining correct that's correct so with your permission

is by the highest standards for spar m management I think it fits real Well, too I just discussion concluded that highest standard may be bio retention. So I think we need to revise the wording to ensure that whatever that highest standard is it doesn't become an imposition on homeowners in terms of maintenance and the cost of maintenance and certainly at the end of the day doesn't become the scar on the landscape that the Senate basins and the villages are. So I think it needs to be revised to ensure that they're not creating impositions on our homeowners. I think that's just it most appropriate. I mean it's a terrible system. I'm going toalize for a second by the highest appropriate standards. That allows some flexibility on planning. Got it. Thank you. Any other questions on the first policy? I have a uh the city is in the process of developing a new storm water master plan. I wonder if as a part of this we should incorporate that somehow such as implement the city's storm water master plan once adopted or something along that. I don't think you need parallel rules. Well, this is the higher this is the higher plan and generally when you're developing these lower plans you want to kind of integrate it all the way up. So um so I'm just recommending that we put it in here that we implement whatever plan um is ultimately adopted.

Mr. Vice Chair, if I could. So I read it now as apply highest appropriate standards for storm water management consistent with the adopted master plan or something akin to that. Yeah. And I think we need to adopt the other plan that will actually reference the master plan versus the other way around. If if this is the higher level authority when you develop your storm water plan, shouldn't it reference the policies of the master plan? Well, typically be the under way actually. Fortunately, they're both called we have a master plan. recalling the the EPA has something called a storm water management master plan. So there's an over terminology. So I guess what I concur with Miss Keefe, we want to apply the highest and most appropriate standards, but we do the storm water management master plan under the guidelines of the EPA. I think it should reference it in that in that in that policy some way. That way that should be the driver. Yep. And I think to your point, I think we shouldn't contra contradict ourselves in any of our rules. That's just crazy. So, whatever you guys need to do to make it all chill. So, just as a footnote to all of this, we have nine watersheds. The cost of the plan $1.5 million and we can't afford it. So, where does where does the where does the aesthetic component that folks have mentioned and the financial component that the mayor specifically mentioned go? Does it go in the watershed erosion master plan or does it go somewhere in the policies here

because we wanted we want the highest we want to apply the highest standard the highest feasible standard but we do I mean those are I don't know which one has uh primacy but you know the the cost the the cost burden and the aesthetics are equally important. I think I concur and if we don't capture it in either this policy we're discussing now or a future one later on because we do have quite a few about storm water I think then I would recommend we add a policy that's that talks about once we have the facilities with the highest and most appropriate we need to look at ensuring that they're aesthetic feature and low cost in maintenance how we do that that's that's a strategy and something for another day. Maybe the word balance is appropriate. Yeah. So, let's go a few. You got it. You got You got it. That's And let's see where we end up. But that's another one we need to put a pin. That's two. Mr. Vice Chair, I can explain. Yeah, if you would. The the combination of the next four. So the next four policies talk about recognized differences terrain soil sensitivity of sites protect drainage ways steep slopes highly erodable soil must be perfected and then sort of protected standards collectively in the department's perspective and I should say this is solely the director there may be other departments but I think we can combine those into thinking policy that basically says implement the resource protection standards to basically address sensitivity to sites, protect

marine waste and steam slopes and highly erodable soils. I say that because in the resource detection part of the tables, drainageways, steep slopes, higher river and soils are all 100% protected. So what we're saying is basically the first three are addressed by the fourth. Okay. But from the perspective of department I think we can emphasize resource protection standards and achieve the other three policies. Anybody have differing comments or thoughts on combining those? Moving on to the overlay district application. Staff has uh recommended retaining. Any specific notables you'd like to mention or any thoughts? Well, Dr. Rambo stole the thunder, but he No, you're fine. I I'm glad you did. The more we talk about that, the better we'll all be. But again, it's controversial because so we could not do town center development without the overlay district. Plain and simple. Think of it as a developer comes to the city and say, I want to develop in town center. I want to do x amount of homes. You all think of, okay, there's a house on a lot. But that house on the lot is served by six different utilities including storm water. We have public space requirements. We have that specification for roads and streetscapes. So by the time it all gets put together, it's very difficult to actually get a lot and a whole lot. And so the overlay district allows all of those factors to function as a team. and

that's town center. Suburban areas quite frankly right now we only have three properties that remain in suburban areas. So I don't think much about those quite frankly in the rural areas. Dr. Rambo has hit the nail on the head. We have an approach that allows someone to basically build a development instead of having three acre lots that with the taxes on that they can only use a quarter acre instead of a oneacre lot and then have the resty common draw that's not taxed. I think we're doing our buyers a service and I also think we need something better for the environment. Past administration didn't believe that and made the standard higher. I would argue we need to retain it and eventually we need to address the legislative actions that make it difficult to apply. So where does the requirement for supermajority how that's in council rules or it's in the zone or it's a regulation. So we can still endorse the overly concept without addressing the legislative component of approving it. And to me, if this group as as a body endorses retaining it, I think that's a strong statement. The city because a developer certainly could say, "No, I don't want to do that." And exactly. It's just additional option where well, and we talked remember Woods Avenue debt development. There's no possible way they could have done and they didn't do anything. But three acres, the terrain would not allow it. But you could have taken 30 acres and bunched up 10 houses and be fine. But you're basically leaving it as at this point. Yeah. Yeah. I I think the uh you know it's a tool that's available and sometimes it's appropriate for the land like in the example that you

described, right? If you have 30 acres of land and you're trying to do three acre lots, um, but let's say half the land is not really conducive to being developed, then that gives you the opportunity to do something still with that land. So, I think there's there's definitely uh uses for that, but I don't it's also important because it's very much ingrained in our residents that Wildwood has three acre lots. There are people who believe that Town Center should have three acre lots. I've had people who have stood in front of their home at onetenth of an acre in the town center upset that we're not following the threeacre rule. But yet they're they own a tenth of an acre. Yeah. So I there is a and then this is something I think the department has heard me there's there needs to be a better kind of re-education of what is this three acre lot rule because otherwise the PRD could be misleading. Right? someone sees a cluster of one and a half acre homes out in let's say rural area ward six and they'll be calling Rob saying wait a minute you told me you there were threeacre lots well I wish enlightened them yes so I think there's but but you know you acknowledge that's what would happen and then all of a sudden it would be like oh the master plan follow so the tool I think is a very good tool to have we've seen it in cases like I think there was Auburn Ridge. It was a proposal years ago a lot of attention but the PRD was going to be used to to be to develop that site but

at the time I think that's what Eric Dunage is alluding to that they kindly stuck to the threeacre rule and nothing happened on that site and I think it still is for sale to this day. So, I think it's just there's an educational component that, you know, it's it's there, but it's it's also um it's got to be done for the right reasons. Um we just had a meeting uh about a new proposed development on the south side of um Highway T St. Alvin's road and um the lots are only 200 ft wide and they're putting big old fancy houses on them right in a row and the lots go like six or seven 800 feet maybe behind most of the back I would say the back twothirds of the lot is either flood plane the actual drainage way or a pretty steep hillside and that play that place is tailorade for doing just that and if we can do um if we if we if we it's again it's a win-win because they don't have to pay taxes on three acres. They only have to pay taxes on one and um we've preserved more of the environment and we've preserved the drainage way and so on and so forth. And I think the the more examples that we can point to of successes, uh the better off we'll be with this with this Scott. Okay. Well, if we don't need to discuss anything else on that, I would we'll move forward with it being retained. The next two items are being recommended to be removed unless someone would object to the removal based on uh the department's recommendations. I would move on to the next one which is maintain improve tree and grading codes.

What you s do you have a suggestion for revision, Mr. Unich? Well, again, it's a very general policy maintain and improve tree and grading codes. We probably would like to maybe refine that just a bit because improve is a very general word. What does that mean relative to this? And for the most part, it could be many components, but I would like just the opportunity to maybe refine it to to basically be a little bit more specific since it is a policy. Would you see it being more restrictive than our current policy? I would not see it being more restrictive because I believe our current policy which both our grading code and tree preservation and restoration code have been updated at least twice if not three times in the last 10 years reflecting things that are happening out in the environment because we need to. But I guess what I would say is it's just very very general and I think it's as a general statement it's not a it's not a it's not something that can be applied easily. I could go to city council and say, "We need to maintain our maintain and improve our tree of grading codes." And they're going to look at me and say, "Well, how I'd like to give a little bit more to them, more descriptive." Yeah. Okay. Any additional comments on that. Moving on to uh stabilized Cox Creek, which is probably a couple pages in and of itself, but you're recommending that be moved as an objective as opposed to a policy. Yeah. very general statement. I think it's a great policy because Cox Creek is this most stressed of the nine watersheds. We spent the first two plus years of our watershed erosion task force identifying all the problems along it. Miss Deppler lives in one of the areas where Fox Creek is basically a challenge and she can explain it better than I what she experiences nearby and what some of her neighbors have dealt

with. But I just think it's a great objective but probably too general as a policy. Would we include a goal within our if we're making it an objective? Do we hope to accomplish something during this period of the master plan 10 years? Well, in our in our goal statements, we talk about preserving the environment. Again, a very general statement, but I think that's inclusive or under the umbrella state. Great. I have a question. Sorry to sorry to back up to the tree and grading code. I guess I'm just not super familiar with that, but is there like an example you could that would come to mind as to where this would apply? Um, well, I think one of the examples I'd like to give is grand trees. So, our original grading, our original tree preservation and restoration code um had a definition of too. Uh it was done by an arborist, but as we found it was not necessarily as descriptive as it needed to be because there are grand trees and there are specimen trims, trees that create a community landmark, so to speak, may not have the diameter or breast height or whatever the definition might be. And so we went in and basically created a definite specimen trees to protect them with the same level same level as grant trees. Okay. I asked this question because on my culde-sac there is a rental property that's managed by an LLC and two or three renters ago the woman didn't like how many leaves were shed from these majestic oak trees. Um so the property management team came in and was going to chop three of them down which would have drastically changed the look of my culde-sac. and in my opinion my entire neighborhood and my neighbor and I and two other neighbors came out that day

and were like you are not cutting these trees down and we like fought them tooth and nail but you know they they got scared and left and then the you know the property manager came out and talked to us and eventually ended up just raising the canopy but that was something to me that was just I was shocked that that was something a company could do without some sort of You really can't I'm glad because I don't know there was a few kind of choice words Oh, we're sorry. Just be advised, we now have a full-time city arborist on staff. His name is Mike Walsh. He's great. He's responsive. I wish I could emulate his responsiveness, but he'll get out there. If you call him, he'll try that day. If not that day, the same day, he'll come out and stop things like that. Or if you have a question about your own trees, how to build best manage them, maintain them shares expertise. So that came from one of our one of our goals, objectives, and policies of a long time. Excellent. He doesn't just know trees. He loves them. He does. Yeah. Um, moving on. I may the next one is like a tour of his office. We'll be glad to do that with you. Much he loves them. to revise and combine the waste um inspection standards on the on-site wastewater treatment systems. First off, these are the systems that are not connected to the uh sanitary sewer system in MST. Correct. No. So, little bit of background and I'll do this quickly as possible. When we first incorporated, there was a discussion we held with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the department, St. Louis County Department of Public Health, and then finally St. Louis County Department of Public Works plumbing section. And collectively, they all readily admitted

that if there are 10 septic systems in operation in the city, mine are probably not functioning at design levels. And so it's like, okay, how do you address that? Do you have 10 end of pipes or do you basically combine them all with one end of pipe? Imagine you're only having to deal with one pipe versus 10 of great idea and we implemented it. Now we have a group of centralized wastewater treatment plants that are maintained by homeowners associations. Generally speaking, have not been maintained well. So instead of 10 end of pipes with x amount of effluent, we have one end of pipe with a whole lot of wood. So and I'm looking for input. Well, the question I had, you know, earlier or last month's discussion, we kind of removed ourselves from the recommending that private systems ultimately get into public systems. So then that's kind of the question I had if we're we're we're distancing ourselves but but not we're still keeping our foot in it or so are we in it or are we not? Well again remember these on-site systems are maintained by the homeowners association. The practicality of having MSD come to the rural area to serve it is not only fiscally in my opinion impossible. It would be very very destructive. I can give you examples. We can do a tour of Cox Creek where MSD put in a new main along Cox Creek. They've created more erosion problems than we we we ever had along Cox Creek. So, I'm just saying that the problem here is we're trying to enforce state requirements to a homeowners association and creating issues along the way. I actually think

from the department's perspective, individual systems cause each lot with a system of inspections and inspection a occupancy inspection of single family dwellings that are owner occupied. We need to place the burden on individuals, not the necessarily a homeowners association because that's just generally three of the homeowners necessarily want to take them to. So there's a way to manage wastewater fluent on an individual lot basis, but it requires us for the most part to say we are and then to create an occupancy permit process. So when it does change over, we get the chance to look at we do it now for rental properties, but we've treated the owner occupied homes as the third rail and the subway. They just stay away. And I think it's wrong. Yes, that's exactly the system we had down at my property on Table Rock. No inspections while I lived there, but when I sold the property, they hit me and had bring it up to standards. Yep. Will do that, too. in zero process inspection process which I think is wild because there's things that we had to fix in our ball and home from GFCI grounded outlets get me started which are like just such basic safety things that like when we moved into our new home at the time I had a six-month old and a two-year-old I'm like oh my gosh I've got to do this all over again just because I now know the hazards and it's controversial I'll admit that and that's why we've stayed away from it even when we did the rental reoccupancies, but it may not be necessary in the

suburban areas, let's say, east of Route 109, but we've got to get a look at these systems out in the rural areas. And to do it just based on complaints, that's usually means that raw fluent coming out of Endpipe. And that's that's the worst case scenario at that. I'd rather see some way we could make the u the homeowners or the HOAs maintain the system all along so it maintains the quality of the run. But how can we do that? Well, there is a way to do it. MDNRS permits these centralized wastewater treatment plants and they're supposed to receive month yearly reports. But when we remove this proposed at Pond Road 100 by Chain Family Homes, a group of residents that were opposed to development and partly because of the wastewater component went around and basically looked at all of these and they weren't functioning. So my comment and my question to MDNR is what's going on and the response was we're short on staff. We can't keep up. So like I say, we can't expect MSD to solve the real problem of wastewater treatment. It's just too expensive, too invasive. We tried wastewater treatment plants in everybody's panda. So what's left? It's not question. Would the department entertain combining that being number one? We just talked about skipping over the household inspection one for a second. And then the following two, they seem all those three seem to be all related to waste waste uh wastewater management. Would that accomplish the objectives? If there's a decision on the group's part for us to take a look at combining those, we'll do our best and bring it

back to you for comment after you do that. Okay. Well, we we close to that. So I just have one quick question. We kind of skipped over the stabilized Cox Creek and you had a suggestion to make it an objective and we kind of passed over that and I just wondered how you wanted to make it a standalone objective or make it part of the one that is you know watershed primacy for planning given its condition. Miss Deppler, I would say it needs to be a standalone and I actually think um and this is a shortfall on my part as the director of the department, we probably need to add a policy or two as well specifically just for Cox Creek. Okay. Yeah, I mean I I agree. I agree with that and I was just, you know, wanting to make sure it didn't get buried in something else. Yeah. If it it became part of the primacy of the watershed, it wouldn't have the standalone importance, right? But I think the shortfall on the part of my on the department myself was I didn't I don't think I had a policy or a polic policies basically addressed three and a half years work of what the federal erosion test was really question about the the fluent we're talking about. Is that unrealistic to think that the city could not maintain a permitting and inspection process? Is that just way too much work? It has been again Mr. Mayor of your permission. We have 10 people in the department of planning, an administrative assistant, two people there are parks and recreation. Um,

enforcement officers, Melanie and I, the assistant director, director. Melanie and I are busy enough doing what we have to do to manage the department and all the components of the board's commissions, etc. That leaves two code enforcement officers to address nuisances, tall grass, and everything in between. We just didn't have the time and we failed. And so to us, we are not. And I'll tell you, the state isn't much help and the county isn't. We ask them to help us with septic inspections. We have to basically go out to a publicity to do it for us. We pay them. So it's it's a problem and I'd like to solve it with all of you and thrive in our soul. It's just like we're falling. Can I ask a question? Oh, sorry. I I think uh you know what you're saying is what I was thinking that you know and I you'll probably see me go back to this a lot so I'll be the one that keep an eye on the checkbook. So, uh, I mean, yeah, we could do anything. Well, sure. It's just a matter of how do we find a way to fund it. Maybe the program funds itself if there is something like that that, you know, people pay for some type of inspection so that it can pay for the resources behind the scenes because that's that's what I I worry is we we've already got a lot on the plate of what the folks at city hall. So, uh, you know, you have to figure out a way to pay for it because that's a salary, you know, if it's an additional person dedicated to that. And yeah, we're we're basically balanced at our budget at this point. So, we don't

we don't have the luxury of a real estate tax or excess cash coming in. So I I would say, you know, anything's possible, but we just have to think about then how how does the program pay for itself. Yeah. My thought is raw sewage. Raw sewage is probably pretty high if not this list. And if we have to rob Peter to pay Paul, maybe we do that. Yeah. Um uh my question is this Joe. How many group how many shared systems do you think we have in the rural areas today? Like roughly roughly 10 or 100? Oh no, it's probably somewhere in between 12 to 15. Okay, that's what I thought. And um I pay 125 bucks a year for a yearly. They come and change my big old filter and they check my agitator and they look at my UV light and they look at all the fancy special stuff that I have in my treatment plant that most folks don't and it's $125 times that um $1,250 or um maybe it's $1,500 to $2,000 it costs the city to have a company like Show Me or something like that come and do the inspections on on a on a a scheduled periodic basis. and um just farm it out. And I'm not talking about a lot of money because as Mayor Joe knows, I evangelize as much as any other council person about the realities of our revenue uh situation, sales tax, and so on and so forth. But I think that would be a very cost-effective thing to explore because I believe in group systems. I think they are much better than having a system one and 10 is going to overflow at any given time and some of them are pretty poor

field installations and all those kinds of things and it's much better to do it as a group thing. So have you as as you go forward and look at combining these I would suggest you went upon that concept as as well. Thank you. Is there any way to handle this? Similar to like if you have a sprinkler system and you have to have a backflow, you know, test submitted to the county annually. I mean, you could do something like that. So, the home homeowner would be responsible for the, you know, inspection. That seems pretty reasonable compared to paying the MSD your annual or monthly bill. and Miss Deppler and Mr. Rain will look into that. Thank you. Great idea. And you know, uh, as Joe was mentioning, we we were looking at a property inspection and the city really focused that on just rentals. But even when it was under discussion as a rental inspection, we got feedback because people did not realize it was only rental. They thought that it affected private property. Um so that is that's something that we need to think about is how it gets communicated out or maybe if the scope is narrow that it's only for those systems that are septic maybe that's because relate to what director just mentioned we've had properties even here at W 8 that have failing systems uh that you know cause an inconvenience to the neighbors but I think I Guess until somebody complains really, right? There's not much that we do for that. That's kind of why I pulled out that

part about the existing inspection of injury. It seemed like it crossed over, ran into that discussion once again of reoccupancy of owner homes. Is was that the intent or is it separate or I think from a public acceptance of being our residents of all the I think that we've not had success in convincing people that owner occupied reoccupying inspections are critical. So in this case, as the mayor just mentioned, maybe a intermediary step would be appropriate. That be on the sale of a home, the city requires an inspection report on the septic alone. being that those same areas and this is critical for all of you to understand those areas are also using groundwater for potable purposes and it seems like that's a narrow enough focus that it would probably have a different perception than I think what was previously every home's going to be inspected at change of occupancy and if your well isn't cased appropriately or if the casing's cracked that's when you get into the concern about where's that affluent going and is that affluent treated appropriate. Then would on the sale of the house then would we kick in the annual or semianual bianual inspection fee and service from your new employee? That's a big question Mr. Rain but what I would tell you is she's we don't if if the group ultimately agrees to this and we need to kind of study this a little bit more. But if we are if we forego a reoccupancy of

occupied dwellings and just look at inspection the time of sale of septic systems and how that is funded that that I'm going to defer to Miss Ripto. She's she's done this reoccupancy stuff much much more and in three other communities besides Wildwood. So she's our expert. Um to be fair, all of those other communities do not have the septic that Wildwood does. Um but we would require private inspections um to just proof of documentation that it's been inspected within, you know, x amount of time if it was that situation. Um rather than having someone on staff that would go out and do inspections. And it's my understanding that St. Louis County won't even do um inspections. They require proof of past inspection. Um, and so that's kind of how we were handling it through our rental occupancy is that we need proof that this has been inspected with them. The city the city can maintain a list of inspectors. I'd like to add to it. I've sold several homes with septic systems. Um, almost they always fail and I think the concern would be with the company that you're hiring to come in and do the inspection. would they have a vested interest in failing it? I mean, that's, you know, so it would need to be an unbiased opinion, but also we find a lot of um I thought you were going to touch where, you know, the well and the septic have to be x amount of feet apart or there's a contamination concern. That happens a lot. Um, and I know septic systems have come a long way, but if people are living off old septic systems, they're just they don't they don't have a good life. So, just my input on the whole thing. I think it's important and I'm not trying to minimize that. I just I'm

hoping to add a little side thought to it. Well, your firsthand experience is appreciated by the department. Absolutely. So I say we were all surprised when all of those from the state down to the county all said, "Yeah, none of them work really." It's like, "Yeah, that's good to hear." That's why you put the house on the ridge. Yeah. Gravity. Okay. So I would reinclude at that number two then in there with the revision that it be strictly to the private sewage system inspection and then if I think combine those four with the appropriate language would anybody have any thoughts on that? Is that something the department could massage? Certainly, we'd be glad to try and send it back to you all. You're up to you. And then the next two you've considered removing regarding extend public water connections were feasible and the offer recycling incentives to the construction industry. I don't know that we need I I welcome discussion on it, but the department has recommended removing them. I would unless someone opposes we can agree with that. Move on. Just if I may, please, Mr. Chair Loy, it makes sense to basically consider public water connections where feasible, but might defer those that live in the rural areas that are on power well. People love them. They say it's better water and obviously from their perspective, a less charge. So, what we found is just a resistance in the rural areas to public water connections because they feel that They're getting a quality food source at a less cost. And by the way, the aquafer

out here is probably the best in the Midwest. Yep. It's clean water. It was abundant water and it really does work. If anyone's interested, the DNR test well is the next property over from my own. It's right along Highway 100. And um uh they have a complete breakdown online and you can see the water level at any given day. You can see the quality and all kinds of cool things on the DNR website for for all of the test wells around the county. So it's if you're a geek like me, you might enjoy looking at it. Let's make a comment and we talk about you know deep wells and that you know my home is on a deep well and I forgot what development went in but after they went in and put in or maybe it was one of our neighbors that put in more wells I had to drop my pump another 100 ft down into the well it happened to some folks uh near six flags well a bit of a story in 2007 I don't know if you'll recall we had a terrible drought that started in the early spring and through all of suffering early fall areas out west were particularly hardhead and the area the and the lot's hardest hit were older homes that had shallow wells for the most part they were dry and so we proposed some things along the way that did not receive any support. One of which was to prohibit irrigation on large lots off of potable wells and would have thought we were basically saying something bad. Um,

and I had an example I won't use for but make a long story short, we didn't want people fooling their filling their pools with groundwater. We didn't want people using groundwater for irrigation and we had some basically recommendations about well we took it out to the public in the midst of that terrible time and they said no. So we didn't include anything this pitch relative to that. That's just a thought for you all to have. So, like I said, we've been down this road. It didn't go well. That's why the department's recommending remove. The point may be to the department, well, why you giving up? Well, we do have a good aquifer. We do have an abundant aquifer, but we have people that don't appreciate. So, maybe I don't know. Legally, it would be tough because Missouri is a repairarian state and you draw all the groundwater you want to and the the moreover a lot of people think of the aquifer as a lake underground and it can vary 150 ft because it's really only about 30% water and the rest of it sand and shale and so on and so forth. And if your well is in the wrong spot and somebody is above you on the water table, they're going to suck yours dry and then you know they'll still have plenty of water. So one of the worst case scenarios we experienced was Six Flags over Mid America opened a water park. Yeah. They used to get their water from a municipal source, the city of Eureka. They decided we can do this less expensive. So they drilled a bunch of wells and they were basically ran dry the area around Allenton and Hen Roads and a lot of people there had to basically go deeper. So the state of Missouri doesn't

necessarily see the issue of probable water supply from an aquifer as important as we do. But to your point, is it realistic that we can impact it? And no, we don't think we can at this point. We It just hasn't worked out. We've tried all kinds of things and we get resistance. So, I guess we could keep it in there, but I'm just saying practically speaking, residents in the rural area like their wealth. I think you made need to make the statement that you've tried and failed and you know, here's the reasons why it's a good idea and we can't get any trash. I mean, it's worth stating that explicitly, I would think. I don't know if anybody else agrees. Well, certainly as we basically have moved forward and as we did with the goals and objectives, Dave Raft in the house, why you did what you did, but put that in there. We tried. It's not been successful. That's interest more important goals or objectives or policies. Fair enough. Um the next excuse me the next one is extend public sewers and portable water to town center and pond historic district. What areas have I understand the historic district but are there areas of town center that don't have access to sewer and portable water? Yes. And so you're thinking we just said we didn't want it there. Why are we saying we want it here? It's all about population density and size of lots. So, we have areas in Town Center that are on septic systems that don't function and they discharge onto the streets and we need to stop that. Great.

No. So, that's why we're recommending a really good thing. Yeah. Any questions about retaining that? Um the verbiage writing after 2016 the city did offer to address the policy. It sounds like uh that was that wasn't successful. Did we need to approach have the same goal if you will but approach it in a different manner. I would defer that to the department. But what we did is we actually um this is more in the area of the pond historic district walnut Maple. We went out and offered to create what we call a neighborhood improvement district and they basically take fonds out fund the improvement and then individual property owners part of the reassessments that they get from St. found um Rockwood School District, Living Word Church, which are on individual on centralized wastewater treatment agreed to it. The rest of the community did not. And so we tried it, didn't work. The group basically said residents didn't want to pay for what they thought wasn't necessary. That's the range. Going back to a mandated annual inspection process by a private party and puts it back on for is that feasible? Yes. And with Melanie now here having worked in three other communities and worked through these types of inspection processes did a wonderful job with our rental reoccupancy for the rental. Um I think we can do it now. I actually think they have the opportunity to do something like that if the group endorses it as part of the updated master plan.

The last of the existing ones on on the next page protect groundwater and the aquifier resources. That seems pretty like common sense. Amen, sir. Yeah, you kind of skipped over the one about offering cycling incentives to the construction. Well, if you you drive by a when we when we did this, there was a lot of new construction of homes involved. You drive by, you see remnants of 2 by4s, every kind of thing laying on the ground. Uh eventually that gets all put into a roll off and then halt to a demolition landfill. our goal and we tried we worked with homebuilders association of greater eastern greater eastern Missouri forget the name my apology and we offered to is there something we can do to make this and the response was not very positive and it became more of a discussion about how do we enforce it and that's when it kind of turned to maybe this isn't just something maybe it needs to be borne by the intra industry started there managed there and successful there versus coming from the city of municipal government. So it's a laudable laudable policy but I was just curious. Good ideas just fall off the floor sometimes. The next four items are new recommendations. um just from previous discussions from last month, right? You want to review those, Joe? Yes. The the the first two relate

to the discussion that Dr. Rambo started at our last meeting about the proliferation of non-native plantings and wildwood, uh the growth or the explosion of invasives and the problems they're creating. So, these policies the these policies are new and they reflect what came from our objectives. And so they're they're not strongly worded that you may want them more strongly worded, but I think what from evasive removal, I think the key there is to promote and assist in funding. So we could help neighborhoods, we can help large property owners. Um how we do that, I don't know. That's why it's a policy, not a strategy. Landscape and plantings guide would be a good, you know, getting that corrected. And just as a sidebar, uh there's a group of council people and other volunteers that are updating our tree manual and Melanie has gotten very far along with a draft of it. It's great. It talks about all the steps we need to do to better basically encourage natives and basically get rid of learning bases. But I think we need to help where we can as a city. Those two be combined together. It could be if you'd like. That's what you I I I'm at the I think the department is at the discretion of the group. If you'd like to combine them, that's great. And didn't the state passed some legislation regarding invasive? Is this consistent with that or uh the state has a a noxious weed um or uh um uh list and you can't you can't plant them. You're allowed to kill them even on other people's land and so on and so forth. But the problem is um as oneam one example there's only a couple

there's only maybe a dozen on that list. One of them is um ironweed. Beautiful purple flowers. And in through the month of August and into September, if you're looking for a butterfly, find an iron weed because they are all over it. It's just a spectacular plant. But cows don't like it. And so our focus was kill the things that guys don't like in their pastures because the cows won't eat them. And um it it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the things that are invading our yards like honeysuckle and so on and so forth. But are honeysuckle on the list? No, no, no. Nope. Nope. No. Okay. Uh that's all it's all weeds and honeysuckle or you know a for you know, you know, actually a woody plant, but um but uh yeah. So my suggestion would parallel that one. combine these, strengthen these two, the landscape and and plantings guide. And um we might even suggest that um that the uh uh builders follow the landscape and plantings guide for all new construction. And instead of putting in more calorie pairs, which are horrible, horrible, we can put in something. But they're beautiful for two weeks. Yeah. Beautiful for two weeks of the year, but uh apart. Oh, they're terrible. terrible state or the county that has the buyback program for that like native staggered lot per year but I can't remember if that's yeah for example that that will prohibit the sale of them in the state after January of 2029 so even though it's prohibited for by for sale in the state uh does mean that they uh can find a way to get it in. You can

mail order them. You can get them from Exactly. So, I think that we would cover the hard by what we have here. Okay. And through the work that they're doing with the the guide that they're building control over, as bizarre as it sound, if there's someone that had an affection for these plants, the purple ones you mentioned, could they challenge that? Oh, wait. Not the because that's on the state list. But let's say that if we enact it regarding honeysuckle. No, I love my honeysuckle. You can't make me enforce the invasive plants because it's not on the state list. Yeah, we have a problem with that because people like they don't like it anywhere else. But they like it because it screens them from the road and they don't realize that there are fast growing native or non-invasive plants that you can cut the honeysuckle down, kill it dead, plant alternatives, and three years later your road is blocked again. People don't want to go through that. I guess can we have it more can our rules be more expansive than states? Okay. I look at this uh area of promoting you know a good balance of of plant system. How does or should it even uh uh include wildlife management? Because it's it's all interrelated with uh having a a good uh balanced uh wildlife, sustainable wildlife and a sustainable uh you know ecosystem with the plants. And maybe that's throwing something out there. Maybe it's addressed someplace else. But I look at that as you know the total environment including plants and animals. Yeah. the deer management we didn't reference in this. We sure didn't. That's good. Yeah, especially since we have a pretty expensive policy regarding deer

management that we probably should have. Yeah, that's a pretty big omission. My apologies. No, no, no. Hopefully in 10 years 10 years from now, they'll say, "Well, that's no longer applicable. Deers are under control." So, let's hope hummingbird from a hummingbird theater to mice. I don't think we want to manage those two. So, we Yeah, I mean because it would be easy to argue, well, you haven't even included it in your master plan, dear management. Why are we spending a half million dollars to do? [Music] Yes. And I don't know what other animals should be included, but butterflies and bees and you know like have a positive you know as opposed to you know just getting rid of invasive species you know promote other that should be in the in the landscape and plantings guide you know. Yep. We'll take a look at that. I see quite a few suggestions here which um collectively we'll all work at figuring out how best to address them. We've got references to the landscaping and planting guide. We've got new constructions to follow city requirements in terms of natives and others replacement tree program. Um wildlife management component, deer management. uh and then something more positive about promoting environments that are favorable to butterflies, hummingbirds, whatever that that descriptive might be. So, I think there's a lot of things we could do to address your your suggestions and direction.

Uh the last two, improve education efforts with property owners. Um, so that's a good I think that's a very pragmatic great idea. I don't know how it fits into and I think that goes back to let's say deer management for an example. We have people that feed the deer drives the neighbors crazy. It pro obviously counterbalances the efforts of our deer management. So I guess yes we just I think and we are addressing that this mayor and city council have engaged now a new communications manager. She's really very good and I think you know we can do more to educate our residents why we have the rules and regulations we do and the benefits that they do and their neighbors derive from it as well as the environment. Can I just hear you or should you bring up all Yeah. Yeah. I think the more we can educate on what the master plan is, what's the town center plan, the rules, I mean, right now we've already made it illegal to feed the deer, but you know, we don't necessarily have people driving around trying to catch someone feeding the deer. So uh so yeah the more education better uh it will be although I tell you you guys have an abundance of resources if people will just read them. I mean yeah it's but you got to promote them. You have to promote them. You're right. But they are they're available. How is that enforceable? Because I can think of about five people in my neighborhood that just like don't worry. Yeah. I mean, we go up and like knock on their doors and let them know that they're being a bad neighbor, but one of my neighbors has named every deer that comes to our house. Call them by name. Tell them tell them they have to get tags for them. They're

going to name them. They have to have tics. Okay. I call them by name, too. Well, be careful now. I would like to make a motion that Well, we I want to make a lasted one. Joe, consideration of building code changes for stronger storms, so on and so forth. Isn't that a St. Louis County requirement? That's not necessarily a Wildwood requirement. Can we make it a Wildwood requirement? And then we're in contradiction with St. Louis County. Does that work? It wouldn't be contradictory, but we can always add. example was it's funny you in 1994 before the incorporation vote one of the key issues that was debated at length in the community was the fact that the county didn't require roof help as part of roof so if bywood shingles on top that's when my house was built and so the incorporator said we're going to require it and St. county who we contract for public works services relative to the building code review inspections for them said sure use it we'll be glad to enforce it so okay and we could do that in a lot of different ways um we just recently did something reg relative to um fire retardant relative to the subfloors itself I'd like please and there's a shaded box there that says new other. I would ask have we missed something? I know you've given us a lot of suggestions on things that we've identified that are new. Is there anything else?

you could you know we've talked I would and maybe this isn't the appropriate placement be some should we put verbbit or does should the master plan include verb regarding um the financial viability of the city well we have an element that talks of community services I'm talking about I mean should should As we're talking goals and should we have an objective of having x x percentage of reserves of that is already covered. Yeah, there is a policy that I think we're actually even required by the state we have to have like certain percentage of reserves that can run the city. We we actually far exceed that. uh and in fact the admin and public works committee I think either through there or they had engaged with uh financial consultants with the city to look and determine what's the right number that we need to have because we do have a good grid healthy reserve uh way more than what you're required to have. So, we're we're just trying to make sure it's like not too much. We can put that money to where uh keep the right amount there. So, I think that's already covered. Uh it might be either documented. Yeah. Any other new suggestions? Well, it may not be under the environment um heading, but um just the discussion that we've had off and on all night about uh informing the public and educating public and so on and so forth. I think at somewhere in this plan that should be

an explicit goal over the next 10 years. We want to uh inform people about deer management, wildlife management, about um landscapes, about grand trees, about the um Scott and the wisdom of that and about maybe even about our tax situation and structure in the you know city finances. So that falls under the second from the last one. Yeah, that's why it's Mr. Lee has no with your permission chair. Go ahead. Well, thank you. I just wanted to add to the uh the financial component and yes we do have significant reserves and we do keep u approximately about 25% of our uh operating in a contingency and that is required by the state. Uh the other component would be that we do have a significant amount of reserves and right now we are currently looking into how much is good and uh one of the aspects we've been looking into is the risk to infrastructure caused by storm damage. Um we're working with our insurance company now to really identify what's covered, what's not. Uh the main concern we'd have would be, you know, a bridge, you know, would come down or something along those lines. But also with these major storms, especially flash flooding events, uh Wild Horse Creek is probably the the scariest on my list that keeps me up at night when we have a really large rain, which ties in perfectly with the environment. um just based off the fact that that is the most uh prone to flooding when we have these flash flood events and you really just don't know where it's going to go. The other main consideration would be that triple meander um which most individuals if you've you know been working at the task force or anything along those lines very well aware um if that were to ever go we would have a uh a natural disaster here in Wildwood. So I will say we have about 15 million in unreserved funds um that is coming out of our last fiscal year. Uh that said, um you know, right now we're trying to determine, you know, do

we want to keep it more at the $3 million level for the operating contingency or increase that amount? Um just to ensure that we're we have it in there if we need it. Okay. Do we have a motion to accept these asis plus the adders we talked about for staff to come back with modifications? Make a motion. We approve. Do we have a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I. All against motion. Thank you. Okay, moving on. We're just about out of time. Do we have any public comments or any comments from our Zoom attendees? Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee's raised his hand once again. I'm sorry, Chair. Thank you. Um, the only other thing, and I just want to echo what's been said tonight that uh, dear management, I I I would I do very much support having that front line and center for the environment. I know it's been uh I know Dr. Rambo has been instrumental in those efforts, but um, we've been doing quite a bit to curb it. And you know, one of the goals of the department uh has been to educate our residents on why it is very important to not feed the deer, but also why it's important that we have, you know, a professional organiz organized outfit come out and do strategic calling is what we have called it versus um you know, a lot of the times there's misconstrules out in the public that will, you know, kind of say, "Hey, we should just have these managed hunts." Well, those do occur in our uh some of the public parks, especially by the county and the state. But that said, you know, to go in and have a targeted effort to help reduce deer vehicle collisions, but also help go ahead and there's so many so many things. I mean, the ticks and the amount of the

environmental degradation that occurs just from the amount of deer we have. We it it is a ma major problem that we're curving. Um but we're still most likely sitting around that 70 deer per square mile mark on the areas that we've studied. Thank you. staff thoughts on next meeting date. If you'll notice, it's July 22nd, so about six weeks or so from now. So, the intent would be is to potentially not only have the revisions to the policies, the environmental element, and all of the goals, objectives, and policies for planning element. I also would like to offer to you the community service ones. So maybe asking for may we start the meeting a little earlier or maybe go a little later so we can maybe make make up for that big gap in the six weeks there. Thoughts on six o'clock start or 9:00 finish? Who prefers what? Same. Six o'clock. Thank you. I know it's an imposition, but uh I think we've got our process down and I think we can get a lot accomplished and it gives us as to four a lot of time to basically catch up on some of the get us a little head on the elements so to speak. Thank you. Okay, we cover the next element. Yep. It's done. Closing remarks. I just want to thank everybody for hearing. We talked about it in start of the meeting how important it is and we got a ton of diversity and good every bit of it is good. Every bit of it's different. So really appreciate it and go a great meeting tonight. That said,

motion make a motion to adjurnn. Well, so I second. All in favor? I I