City Council

RECORD OF THE COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI F ebruary 3,2026 The City Council convened in a Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 3,2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of City Hall, 200 North Second Street, St. Charles, Missouri, with President of the Council Michael Galba presiding. The Honorable Mayor Daniel J. Borgmeyer and Members of the Council were present as follows: Justin Foust, Brian Gould, Bart Haberstroh, Mark Hollander, Steve Hollander, Denise Mitchell, Bill Otto, Vince Ratchford, and Mary West. Absent: None. City Clerk Kimberly Hudson was present and performed the duties of that office. File #49417 The meeting was opened with a moment of silence and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by City of Saint Charles Leader of Tomorow Charlie McRoberts of Bamwell Middle School. PRESENTATIONSiAWARDS/PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT Randy Schilling, representing St. Charles Main Street Foundation, I 19 S. Main Sheet, St. Charles, Missouri, spoke in favor of Item #15 - an appeal of the Landmarks Board's determination in Case No. D-2025-020 (900 Main Street) regarding the Demolition of Building 90 within the American Car Foundry Complex. Scott Shipman, 2095 Bayonne Drive, St. Charles, Missouri, spoke in favor of Item #15 - an appeal of the Landmarks Board's determination in Case No. D-2025-020 (900 Main Street) regarding the Demolition of Building 90 within the American Car Foundry Complex. Nathan Abshire, representing Steel Shop Athletics & Events, 300 Monroe St., Troy, Missouri/49 Lawrence St., St. Charles, Missouri, spoke in favor of Item #15 - an appeal of the Landmarks Board's determination in Case No. D-2025-020 (900 Main Street) regarding the Demolition of Building 90 within the American Car Foundry Complex. I  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI February 3, 2026 Jassen Johnson, representing ACF Revitalization, 900 Main Street, St. Charles, Missouri, spoke against Item #15 - an appeal of the Landmarks Board's determination in Case No. D-2025-020 (900 Main Street) regarding the Demolition of Building 90 within the American Car Foundry Complex. REPORT OF THE MAYOR Mayor Borgmeyer complimented the Convention and Visitors Bureau on a very well attended event at the Foundry Art Centre this past weekend. He also reported that the Ftte de Glace and Chili Cook-Off events, held over the weekend, were well attended. Additionally, the Duchesne High School Gala was very successful and raised a significant amount ofmoney. Appointments to Boards/Commissions/Committees A motion was made by VINCE RATCHFORD to approve the following appointments: Board of Appeals o The reappointment of Karl Leiber, a builder whose term would expire February 2026, for a term expiring Fe bruary 2029, CVB Commission o The reappointment of April Moxle)r, a business owner who will represent Downtown, whose term would expire February 2026, a term expiing February 2029. Frenchtown SBD Advisory Board o The reappointnent of Julius Keith Lutz, a corrtmercial property owner in the district, whose term expired January 2026, a term expiing January 2029. Main St. SBD Advisorv Board o The appointment of Gregory Upchurch, a business owner who will represent North Main Street, to fill the vacant position formerly held by Joe Ancno4 whose term expired November 2025, for a term expiring November 2028. 2  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI F ebruary 3, 2026 ruSTIN FOUST seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken \4/ith the following results: "Aye": Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hollander, S. Hollander, Mitchell, Otto, Ratchford, West and Foust. "Nay": None. Absent: None. Motion passed. File #49418 Larry Pemey. Director of Public Works, provided an update to the Council regarding the recent snow event, outlining both the challenges encountered and the department's successes. He also reviewed the Public Works Department's procedures for managing snow evenrs. The Council thanked Mr. Pemey and commended him and his staff for their effective management of the event, noting that the communication provided to both the Council and the public was outstanding and greatly appreciated. ANNOLINCEMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBER S/MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Justin Foust read the following statement: Nonprofits are the heartbeat ofevery strong community, we are so lucky St. Charles has so many amazing ones, I have spent most ofmy life involved in nonprofit work and am very proud to be a part of some of the very best right here at home. One project I am especially honored to lead here in St. Charles is the Legacy Maibaum Pole project in Frontier Park. Over the past few years, my dad, Dan Foust, myself, local community partners and the St. Charles Oktoberfest Committee have worked to bring a lifelong standing vision of Joe Daus founder of the St. Charles Sister City program, his vision is finally becoming a reality. This project would not be possible without the partnership with Craftsman Industries on design and construction, the full support ofthe St. Charles Parks and Recreation Board and the generous contribution from the St. Charles Parks and Recreation Foundation, St. Charles Oktoberfest, St. Charles Jaycees, First Capitol Lions Club, and the St. Charles Sister Cities. I reached out to those groups, and we were able to raise $70,000.00 in a few weeks. This pole costs a lot ol money, and we are seeking support from nonprofits. You will hear more shortly how you can help too. We are also working J  RECORD OF THE COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOT]RI February 3,2026 closely with the St. Charles Historical Society to help tell the story of St. Charles through this landmark. When nonprofits, communiry leaders and volunteers come together, anything is possible. We cannot wait to unveil this legacy project in September at the St. Charles Oktoberfest. If you would like to a be part of this, go to the St. Charles Parks Foundation website, click on Legacy Project/Frontier Park and there you witt find a brick campaign. You can purchase a brick for $250 or $100 in the name of your business or family, this is the best way you can support this project. Thank you to the community and the nonprofits for stepping up and I can't wait to see this final project in September. Councilmember Michael Galba expressed his appreciation to the Public Works Department for their outstanding work during the recent snow event, including snow removal and response to water main breaks. He remarked that, while traveling for work during the event, he observed that no other municipality matched the City of St. Charles in snow removal efforts. Councilmember Galba also echoed the Mayor's comments regarding the recent events at the Foundry Art Centre and F6te de Glace, noting they were wonderful community events. In addition, he shared that he attended the St. Charles Fire Department's 2025 Awards Ceremony and was impressed by the dedication and camaraderie of the department members, stating he is proud of the City. PUBLIC HEARING Council President Michael Galba announced the Public Hearing will now be held. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the regular order ofbusiness continued. A. Case No. CU-2025-26 - (Sazon Tacos & Margaritas) An application for a Conditional Use Permit per 9400.220(C)( 1)(a) for Liquor Sales associated with a permitted Restaurant use within the "C-2/EHP/FSC-HD" General Business District within the Extended Historic Preservation District and within the Fifth Street Corridor-Hospital District overlay (T4-NMX Neighborhood Mixed Use) located at 416 S. 5th Street. The subject property is located in Ward 2. (RCA Attached) 4  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 B. Case N LL-2026-03 - Approval of a Liquor License Application for Cristian A Sanchez Gavier d/bia Sazon Tacos & Margaritas, located at 416 S. Fifth Street (Ward 2) (RCA Attached) C. Case No. CU-2025-29 - (Arzolas Fajitas & Margaritas Ronald Webb) An application for a Conditional Use Permit per 9400.270(C)(l) for Liquor Sales associated with a permitted Restaurant use within the CBD/HDD Central Business District within the Historic Downtown District located at 142 N. Main Street. The subject property is located in Ward 1. (RCA Attached) D. Case No. LL-2026-02 Approval of a Liquor License Application for Ronald Webb d/b/a Arzolas Faj itas & Margaritas, located at 142 N. Main St. (Ward 1) (RCA Attached) I] Case No. PDA-2025-02 (Hummert Intemational) Ar application for an amendment to the 370 Corporate Center Planned Development - Industrial District (Ord #11-45), specifically to add a new land use to be titted as "interior manufacturing and processing of soil". The subject properties are zoned PD-I Planned Development - Industrial District and located in Ward l. (Council Bill 140s7) CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by BILL OTTO to approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. MARK HOLLANDER seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: "Aye": Otto, Ratchford, West, Foust, Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hotlander, S. Hollander and Mitchell. "Nay": None. Absent: None. Motion passed. 5  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 A Approval ofCouncil Minutes and Reports l. Council Work Session of January 13,2026 File #49427 B Receipt of Reports from Boards, Commissions and Committees l. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of December 8,2025 File #49372 2. Audit Committee Meeting of August 19,2025 File #49399 3. Saint Charles Parks & Recreation Board Meeting of December 17,2025 File #49376 4 The Housing Authority of the City of St. Charles Meeting of November 19,2025 File #49384 5 The Greater Saint Charles Convention & Visitors Commission Meeting of December 11,2025 File #49388 6. Landmarks Board Meeting of December 15,2025 File #49377 C. Receipt of Director of Administration Reports D. Approval of Contracts and Easements 1. Change Order No.3 with PCX Construction for the Riverside Sanitary Trunkmain Project in the Amount of $33,598.82 for a Total Contract Amount not to Exceed $2,968,672.70 c24-102 6  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI FebruNy 3,2026 2 Contract with Morton Salt, Inc. for the Purchase of Bulk Road Salt for the City for 2026 in the Amount of $ 1 1 I ,1 I I .00 c26-038 E. Preliminary Plats F Miscellaneous l. Report of the Court Administrator of Monies Collected and Deposited - December 2025 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CON SENT AGENDA RESOLUTIONS BILLS FOR FINAL PASSAGE Director of Administration Larry Dobrosky provided a PowerPoint presentation relative to Council Bill 14054 which included an overview and deal points of the project. A briefdiscussion followed the presentation. Councilmember Ratchford read the following statement: Over the last several years, the City of St. Charles has owned the Riverpointe site, and despite its prime location, it has remained dormant. Holding the land hasn't produced jobs, tax revenue, or new amenities for our residents. That's why we're looking at a partnership through Bill 14054 because doing nothing is not moving this community - forward. This agreement brings a $55 million investment in dual-branded hotels, a high- end restaurant, and a rooftop bar. It creates more than a hundred full-time jobs with a combined payroll of over three million dollars a year. And it generates new tax revenue for the city even during the abatement period, with significantly more once that period ends. 7  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOT]RI February 3, 2026 The incentives in this agreement are structured to protect the city. The developer only receives reimbursements after the project generates the new revenue that funds them. The city pays nothing upfront, and it pays nothing unless the project performs. Reimbursement is tied to actual results, not projections, and if sales tax benchmarks aren't met, the developer must make up the difference. Our general fund is never at risk. This project also serves as a catalyst for the entire Riverpointe district. It brings new hospitality, dining, and entertainment options that support tourism and help attract additional development. The CID and TDD funding mechanisms ensure that needed infrastructure improvements benefit the broader community, not just this site. It's important to be clear about the impact on schools, libraries, and other taxing districts. This land is currently city-owned and generates zero property tax. Under this agreement, those districls will receive new revenue during the abatement period and full revenue afterward. And because this is a hotel-driven project, not a residential one, it does not add students or long-term residents who would place additional demand on school or library services. It adds revenue without adding burden. In my opinion, this development will not happen without the incentive package. The financial realities of building hotels, restaurants, and public-facing amenities on a long-idle site require a true partnership. We've waited long enough. This is our opportunity to tum dormant land into a thriving hub of jobs, revenue, and community activity, and to do it in a way that protects taxpayers and strengthens St. Charles for the long term. BILL 14052 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE RECORD PLAT FOR THE NEW TOWN AT ST. CHARLES PLAT FIFTEEN-B/SIXTEEN-A, A SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOUzu (SPONSOR: MICHAEL GALBA) Passed "Aye": Ratchford, West, Foust, Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hollander, S. Hollander, Mitchell and Otto 'Nay": None 8  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 Absent: None Approvedby the Honorable Mayor on February 4.2026 and is known as Ordinance 26-013 BILL 14053 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF TINDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO A JOINT COOPERATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORT REFERRED TO AS TIIE METROPOLITAN PARCEL DRUG TASK FORCE fSPONSORS: BILL OTTO, MARK HOLLANDER, VINCE RATCHFORD, MARY WEST, DENISE MITCHELL, JUSTIN FOUST, BRAN GOULD, MICHAEL GALBA, BART HABERSTROH AND STEVE HOLLANDER) Passed "Aye": Ratchford, West, Foust, Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hollander, S. Hollander, Mitchell and Otto "Nay": None Absent: None Approved by the Honorable Mayor on February 4, 2026 and is known as Ordinance 26-014 BILL 14054 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. CHARLES, MISSOURI, TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE RIVERPOINTE COMML'NITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND RIVERPOINT AAA, LLC. (SPONSOR: MIC HAEL GALBA) Passed 'Aye": Ratchford, West, Foust, Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hollander, S. Hollander, Mitchell and Otto "Nay": None Absent: None Approved by the Honorable Mayor on February 4,2026 and is known as Ordinance 26-015 9  RECORD OF THE COL]NCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI February 3,2026 BII,L F INTRODUCTION The foliowing Council Bills were Introduced: BILL 14055 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 25-086 BY AMENDING CERTAIN REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS FOR THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 (BUDGET AMENDMENT #1) (SPONSOR : BART HABERSTROH) BILL 14056 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. CHARLES AND THE REJIS COMMISSION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR CERTAIN SECURID LAW ENFORCEMENT DATABASES AND OTHER I-AW ENFORCEMENT-RELATED SERVICES IN AN AMOL]NT NOT TO EXCEED $57,095.00 (SPONSORS: BILL OTTO, MARK HOLLANDER, VINCE RATCHFORD, MARY WEST, DENISE MITCHELL, JUSTIN FOUST, BRIAN GOULD, MICHAEL GALBA, BART HABERSTROH AND STEVE HOLLANDER) BILL 14057 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011.45 FOR THE 370 CORPORATE CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT _ INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2OI4-202, SPECIFICALLY TO ADD A NEW LAND USE TO BE TITLED AS "INTERIOR MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING OF SOIL." (SPONSOR: BILL OTTO) l0  RECORD OF THE COLJNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI F ebruary 3,2026 ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION Discussion and Possible Decision Reeard Whether to Aooeal the Landmarks Board's Determination in Case No. D-2025-020 (900 Main Street ) Related to the Demolition of Buildins 90 within the Ameri can Car Foundry Complex Councilmember Justin Foust announced this developer is a client ofhis business and while he has no direct involvement in this transaction, approval of this item could result in additional business for his agency and because this creates a direct and particular interest, he will be abstaining from this discussion and vote. City Clerk Kimberly Hudson read the summary on RCA City Attomey Holly Magdziarz announced to the Councilmembers that to be clear, before them tonight is only the decision of whether to appeal this decision or not and not the merits of the Landmarks' decision. Director of Administration Larry Dobrosky stated that Item 15 is a Council discussion item and that staff s technical review related to the Board referral has been completed. He acknowledged there have been varying comments regarding the process and noted a need for clarity. He asked Director of Community Development Zach Tusinger to provide an overview of the applicable process and code provisions to ensure the Council is working from a common understanding. Mr. Dobrosky emphasized that staffs role is informational only and not parl of the decision- making process. Following the overview, staff will step back to allow Council discussion and remain available to answer any questions. Director of Community Development Zach Tusinger provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding Code Section 400.1280,400.1310, exceptions (400.1300) and possible code updates for future consideration and a briefreview ofCase D-2025-020. 1l  RECORD OF THE COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 Councilmember Denise Mitchell reported that, upon reviewing the Landmarks Board meeting, she noted a handout was provided to the Board which outlined information presented by the applicant. She stated that she did not see this document included in the packet. Councilmember Mitchell explained that the handout referenced a cost estimate of $4.6 million to bring the building out of the 100-year floodplain but indicated she did not see any supporting documentation explaining how that figure was calculated. Mr. Tusinger responded that he is familiar with the document referenced by Councilmember Mitchell and confirmed it was not included in the original Landmarks Board packet; however, he does have a digital copy available. Councilmember Mitchell linther stated that when the Landmarks Board evaluates the technological and economic feasibility ofa project, it is expected to review supporting financial information at the time of the meeting. She expressed concem that receiving information immediately prior to the applicant's presentation makes it difficult for Board members to fully review, analyze, and ask informed questions. She noted that the $4.6 mitlion figure is a significant component of determining economic infeasibility and, in her view, should have been included in the packet materials. Staff reported that a recent flood wall study estimated a cost of approximately $1.2 million, which was referenced in the staff report. Councilmember Mitchell stated she was surprised the Landmarks Board did not inquire further about that estimate, as it directly relates to what measures could potentially make the project economically feasible. Councilmember Mitchell concluded by stating that, in her opinion, much of the Landmarks Board discussion focused on what the overall project could become, rather than on whether the specific building in question could be preserved or adapted for an altemative use. She reiterated her request for any supporting documentation related to the $4.6 million cost estimate. 12  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI February 3,2026 Councilmember Denise Mitchell read the following statement: Tonight, I am asking the City Council to appeal the Landmarks Board decision approving the demolition of the ACF Building 90. This request is not about opposing redevelopment. It is about process, transparency, and whether the Landmarks Board properly applied the criteria required by our code-specifically, whether it was demonstrated that preservation of this structure is technologically and economically infeasible. city staff reports clearly indicated that Building 90 is structurally sound and capable of rehabilitation. Those reports were prepared by qualified professionals, reviewed by the city Building Commissioner, and presented to the Landmarks Board. However, the meeting itself did not meaningfully engage with those findings or with the required analysis of technological and economic feasibility. Instead, much of the discussion focused on what the proposed new development could be, rather than whether the existing historic structure could reasonably be preserved. The focus then shifted to a late-delivered and complex presentation from the applicants', which was handed out on the night of the meeting and was not included in the original agenda packet. That matters. Staff s formal recommendation was clear. After reviewing the structural engineer's report, scope of work, and detailed cost estimates, staff concluded that Building 90 is structurally sound. while the applicant's appraisal suggested rehabilitation costs may exceed end value, staff identified significant lactors that were not fully accounted for, including recent redevelopment within the ACF complex and Frenchtown. Based on this analysis, staff determined that the future value of Building 90 may make rehabilitation both technologically and economically feasible. Staff also addressed floodplain concems in their report, which were cited by the applicant as a primary justifrcation for demolition. while Building 90 is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and sits approximately 1.2 inches below base flood elevation, contributing historic structures are exempt from floodplain elevation requirements under both city code and the National Flood Insurance Program, provided historic character is not compromised. This 13  RECORD OF THE COTINCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSO(IRI February 3,2026 exempti on exists specifically to encourage preservation and is used broadly throughout the country. During the Landmarks Board meeting, the applicant distributed additional materials indicating a $4.6 million cost to address floodplain issues. I did not see that these materials were part of the original agenda packet, and I did not see any supporting documentation or explanation for how that figure was calculated. It is also important to note that the City has already studied flood mitigation solutions for this area. The City's Frenchtown Levee Study, dated December 3,2021, evaluated multiple flood protection scenarios for the Frenchtown neighborhood, including the ACF complex. phase One of that study-the Lawrence Street segment-was estimated i12021 at approximately $1 to $1.2 million and would provide flood protection to the ACF facility, removing it from the floodplain entirely. While this phase has not yet been executed, it has not been ruled out and could be accomplished through a public-private partnership. If implemented, it would eliminate flood insurance requirements and physical flooding concems altogether. Given this context, it is unclear from the record whether or how stalf s floodplain analysis, applicable exemptions, and previously studied mitigation options were fully considered alongside the late-distributed cost figures during the Landmarks Board's review. Importantly, Building 90 is not vacant. It is cunently occupied and operating as an indoor sports facility and events venue-both viable, revenue-generating uses. This directly challenges the claim that the structure lacks economic viability. For these reasons, staff concluded and I quote-that "Building 90 has not been found to be technologically or economically infeasible for rehabilitation and staff does not recommend demolition." Separately from the core issues, the whole procedure raises serious concerns about transparenoy. As I mentioned earlier, Additional materials were handed out the night of the meeting, which meant the public, Council and Landmarks Board had limited time to review them and ask questions, and severe weather reduced attendance. Some of the public thought the meeting might be cancelled even due to the amount of snow we had. Unlike public hearings, no letters went out t4  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 to stakeholders located around this property. As a result, community members were unable to voice concems on a project of significant scale and permanent impact, especially only having seen an agenda posted just 5 days earlier. This whole process did not inspire public confidence, and needs to be looked at. in my opinion There are broader implications as well. Continued loss of historic structures jeopardizes our Certified Local Govemment, or CLG, status. As a CLG city, buildings like this are eligible for historic tax credits specifically designed to bridge financial gaps in rehabilitation projects. Missouri recently increased its state historic tax credit for cities ofour size to match the federal program. These tools exist for situations exactly like this-to help make preservation economically viable and often "bridge the gap" that developers need. Just weeks ago, this Council adopted a resolution supporting our new Comprehensive Plan. Pages 72 through 79 clearly state our commitment to honoring our historic heritage and preserving architecturally significant structures. If we meant that commitment, we must be willing to uphold it here. A quote from page 79 states: "The city's historical heritage represents valuable and ineplaceable assets to its identity and national recognition. Stewardship of these resources should be strengthened to ensure they continue to influence future generations." We have received letters urging us to pursue this appeal from many respected citizens and stakeholders. Our own City Preservation staff has repeatedly identified this building as historically significant and economically feasible to rehabilitate. This appeal is not about stopping progress. It is about ensuring we follow our own standards, respect our process, and protect assets that----once lost----can never be recovered. This is the Council's last opportunity to prevent an irreversible loss. Once a contributing historic structure is demolished, it is gone forever. No future development can replace it. In closing, staff stated that Building 90 is structurally sound, historically significant and both technologically and economically feasible to rehabilitate. The Landmarks Board did not fully engage with this analysis, nor with the supporting materials and background provided. Additionally, the process surrounding the decision raised significant concems about transparency and public participation. Pages 72-:79 of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the city's l5  RECORD OF THE COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI February 3, 2026 commitment to preserving histori c resources as valuable and ineplaceable assets. The stafl s review, along with the broader context, provides critical information for the Council to consider in evaluating the appeal, and I ask you to vote yes on the appeal. Councilmember Vince Ratchford read the following statement: The ACF complex is at a crossroads. With Main Street soon extending through the area and connecting up to 2nd Street, redevelopment pressure is coming, and the decisions we make now will shape this district for decades. Building 90 known to many residents as the Steel Shop - - sits at the north end of the complex and has served the community for years through youth sporls, toumaments, ftade shows, and other events. It,s a building people know, use, and care about. It is also a defining physical presence in Frenchtown a landmark structure that anchors - the north end of the ACF district. Removing it would fundamentally change the landscape, and in my view, not for the better. The only question is whether the City should file an appeal ofthe Landmarks Board's decision. I believe we should. There are several reasons for that. First, the Landmarks Board meeting took place at the tail end of a severe winter storm, and attendance was noticeably affected. Many residents who use this building especially families involved in youth sports simply could not safely get to the - - meeting. We need more time for public feedback, and an appeal gives the community a fair chance to be heard. Second, the ordinance requires the Board to determine whether preservation is technologically and economically feasible. That's a very specific standard. But the meeting raised real concems about whether that standard was applied correctly. City staff provided a structured, ordinance- based analysis and recommended a finding that presewation is feasible. In my opinion, that recommendation was not meaningfully refuted. At the same time, the applicant presented drawings and concepts for what they hope to build after demolition. While those plans may be interesting, in my view they are not paft of the criteria the Board should consider. Introducing future redevelopment concepts risk shifting the 16  RECORD OF THE COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3,2026 discussion away from feasibility and toward desirability, which is conceming. I would encourage all councilmembers to support this appeal so we can each go back and watch the replay of the Landmarks meeting through this lens and consider whether the decision may have been - even unintentionally - by the presentation that was given. inJluenced And there is an additional layer of context that matters. When Proposition C was presented to voters in April 2024, the City emphasized the historic nature of the ACF property - its early- 1900s buildings, its National Register status, and its role in connecting Historic Main Street to Frenchtown. We did not tell voters that historic buildings would be demolished. In fact, the messaging implied the opposite: that these structures were assets to be integrated into the City Centre Complex. Given that, the public deserves clarity and transparency about how decisions affecting these historic buildings are being made. Given the significance of this building, the community impact of its current use, its role as a defining physical presence in Frenchtown, the limited public participation due to weather, the procedural issues in how the decision was reached, and the expectations set during the Prop C campaign, I believe the responsible step is to file the appeal. That doesn't predetermine the outcome. It simply ensures that the Council can review the record carefully and hear from the public. I hope my fellow Councilmembers will support this appeal. Councilmember Bill Otto stated that the Council has received significant public input regarding the ACF building. He indicated that residents within his ward have made it abundantly clear that they do not support development if it requires the demolition of any additional buildings within the ACF complex. Councilmember Otto further stated that he takes pride in listening to the residents and businesses in his ward and he will be supporting the appeal of the Landmarks Board's decision. Councilmember Galba made the following statement: As we move forward to a formal roll call vote, I would like to add some clarifications. A vote in favor would be to appeal the Landmarks Board determination and if that is the result, I have t7  RECORD OF THE COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES, MISSOURI Februry 3,2026 asked our City Attomey to outline what would happen next. A vote not in favor would be to not appeal and accept the Landmarks Board's determination as is. Councilmember DENISE MITCHELL made the following motion: Pursuant to City Code Section 400.1310, I move to direct staff to file an appeal (on behalf ofthe City as an adjoining landowner) ofthe decision inD-2025-020 that preservation of Building 90 is not technologically and economically feasible. Councilmember VINCE RATCHFORD seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: "Aye": West, Galba, Gould, Haberstroh, M. Hollander, Mitchelt, Otto and Ratchford. 'Nay": S. Hollander. Abstain: Foust. Absent: None. Motion passed. Flle #49423 City Attomey Hotly Magdziarz stated the appeal will be filed by staff within the l0-day deadline to do so. After that, Council wilt have to hear the appeal within 45 days. The typical process is that we will reach out and make sure that it is a date that works for the applicant and all parties. At that time Council will hear the testimony, receive evidence from the applicant, from the Department of Community Development or any other interested person. The Council will be applying those same guidelines and standards to make the determination about the technological and economic feasibility of the project and then the Council will vote. The decision of the Landmarks Board can be reversed by a majority ofthe entire Council, so that will require six (6) votes. Council can then issue findings offacts to explain the reasons for its decision. A motion was made by JUSTIN FOUST to adjoum the City Council meeting. BILL OTTO seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion passed. The City Council Meeting adjoumed at 8:44 p.m. l8  RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT CHARLES. MISSOURI February 3, 2026 b Date Approved lvH City I Galba, Presiding Officer l9