[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6094290,"mediaKeyId","2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6","parentId",2844461,"title","Council tables Dyer Road rezoning after hours of public opposition; substitute adds remonstrance","audioSeconds",1766,"startMs",389000,"endMs",2155000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6&start=389&end=2155","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6/thumbnail_389000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6094290/St-Charles-County/Missouri/Council-tables-Dyer-Road-rezoning-after-hours-of-public-opposition-substitute-adds-remonstrance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094290-e97bb144947701ef35804dffff02e5ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134838&Signature=aBmmCBGnEEvuFmxbpuvjOr59ctUPx3H8AnskyhmLUIUjTfkKr9ycnO8OWuRmKtRv~mBdoeyGRC~XLkORb9VM8zaJG9Db7r2Ok4sMmx9mF2EQXhZw-pZaAZ-7kA4xLthIS0xmBzBpCKtUHfGuQkv12V5sg4KDE73i3nyIdPYJt6QoDAMcM5EA3VYMrQFIPBNbKDPt8joIE8t1EJvoPkHzHpM4MahMOvT4wtwYHR4ao3CZxmDx8HAm2EZ7MqW-QC~suiWJWzWlverNCyUvBpmtO0OSoEKPnEfIWENXFyXrDzZ6-icMjAy4qKM0D7ot5CziEdKxLXDDGMTatStl-2~H-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Charles County, MO","date","2025-04-02T08:26:20.06Z","article","St. Charles County Council on March 31 voted to table amended bill 53-69 — a proposal to rezone land near Riverdale from agricultural to R1E single-family residential (application RZ25-01) — after residents urged the council to reject the plan and the council accepted a substitute measure adding a petitioner remonstrance to the file.

The remonstrance, the council was told during debate, requires a higher threshold to approve the rezoning. Council members accepted the substitute bill placing that remonstrance on the record and then voted to table the application at the applicant’s request so the developer can revise plans and consult with stakeholders.

Neighbors and residents used the public-comment period to urge rejection of the proposal. Scott Dyer, a Riverdale resident and local real-estate business owner, said the community had tried “petitions, PNZ voting us down” and that the plan did not fit the area. “I think the area calls for 1 acre lots, 3 acre lots, and 5 acre lots,” Dyer said. Jessica Cook, a St. Paul resident who described farming and restoring a property in the area, said “high‑density housing is not honoring the land,” and asked the council to preserve larger lot sizes.

Former law-enforcement officer Paul Hilton pressed the council on emergency response capacity, saying he had waited for backup and that “if you’re going to put more homes in an area that the public safety is not there, the public safety has to be there first.” Ray Weatherall also described traffic congestion on Highway 79 and called additional housing “premature.” Josh Sekowsky said the applicant had previously changed proposals and that tabling shortly before a vote felt like a tactic to blunt organized opposition: “That’s the intention, is a cooling off period.”

On the council floor, members debated procedure and fairness to residents who traveled for the meeting. Councilman Baker moved to table the bill “at the applicant’s request” to give the applicant time to rework the plan; the motion was seconded and carried. Council members explained that because the developer intends to change lot sizes and other elements, the identical‑application one‑year resubmission restriction would not apply if the developer returns with a different plan. Council staff and members also noted that adding the remonstrance meant the vote would require a supermajority rather than a simple majority.

Council statements emphasized different priorities. Council members who supported tabling said the remonstrance altered the legal posture of the request and that allowing the applicant to revise it could resolve the district representative’s concerns. Other members and several residents said tabling shortly before a scheduled vote without wide notice was unfair to those who had traveled to attend and to the district councilman representing the area.

The council said it will notify the public when the item returns to the agenda. Councilmembers stated that the next posting could be as soon as three days or up to two weeks, depending on when the applicant seeks to bring the item back and whether changes are described as substantial.

Votes and formal motions on 53‑69 are recorded in council minutes and in the actions list below.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","St. Charles County Council Meeting - March 31, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","St. Charles County Council on March 31 voted to table amended bill 53-69, a rezoning request near Riverdale, after extensive public comment contesting lot sizes, traffic and public‑safety readiness; the council earlier accepted a substitute that formally attached a remonstrance to the file.","taxTitle","St. Charles County, Missouri","taxId",2594,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6094277,"Council approves multiple resolutions and ordinances; key votes and outcomes at a glance",675,4465000,5140000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6&start=4465&end=5140","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6/thumbnail_4465000.jpg","/articles/6094277/St-Charles-County/Missouri/Council-approves-multiple-resolutions-and-ordinances-key-votes-and-outcomes-at-a-glance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094277-b6f3a3119cc3f643fb37bd7d0b492c7a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134838&Signature=OyV2f6L47FmfzDyd53LrDEJriEWFNyODXCJHUfMAR3Fg0QxwwbBF9qZ1LDFhwPG6HKIOC6Vzq1l9o9aFomiGrWiM-x59MKIAQ-A0erFL4Rtzm~HfmD8Bud0pVMXAWNDFWM9GIuyb8QVNMZOL17BxE59TuVaAcD3l88mlGFgoNB34gF4ic-o-h8CDaIb1ayEjcAgHvx~DkIV-fzzvfHXiVKeAIzgXP6uZBATm2pWXhA0QeL~bg6j98WUppa4sUb6HHnRMYPiXA5E9GKs2qdDUUOK0heuvy9jpRRn6mY~eL6jhZ0n5Fo5dtCSdD7byRyi4gIQstdZ6jba1xcw0R~VYxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","St. Charles County Council acted on a package of resolutions and ordinances during the March 31 meeting. Below is a concise list of each item taken up and the council outcome as recorded in the meeting minutes.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 25‑03 (Blue Shield public‑safety designation): Passed. The council adopted a resolution declaring support for the Missouri “Blue Shield” program and affirming a commitment to public safety and partnerships that could make the county eligible for state public‑safety grants.

- Resolution 25‑04 (intent to issue bonds for radio equipment): Passed. The resolution stated the county’s intent to issue tax‑exempt obligations for up to $16,000,000 to finance emergency radio equipment for the county’s radio communications system and authorized reimbursement for prior expenditures consistent with bond financing procedures.

- Resolution 25‑05 (nonbinding projected tax rates): Passed. The resolution authorized nonbinding projected tax rates for the county’s general and special funds for 2025 as required by state law (Senate Bill 711, 2008 reference in packet).

- Bill 53‑70 (vacate a platted utility easement at Crystal Hill Terrace): Passed on final reading.

- Bill 53‑71 (accept election efficiency grant funds — $57,141.56): Passed on final reading. Ordinance authorizes receipt of grant funds from the Missouri Secretary of State for election efficiency and amends the election services fund budget.

- Bill 53‑72 (WIOA intergovernmental agreement): Passed on final reading. Authorizes execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development for PY24 WIOA 25% rapid response business funds (contract P0992500089).

- Bill 53‑73 and Bill 53‑74 (MOUs with U.S. Marshals Service): Passed on final reading. The council authorized memoranda of understanding for short‑term joint operations between the county police and sheriff’s departments and the U.S. Marshals Service.

- Bill 53‑75 (personnel administration amendments and 2025 budget amendment for Community Development and Highway positions): Passed on final reading.

- Several introduction‑stage bills were presented for future consideration (examples include grants and easements, a naming ordinance for the county firearms training center, and recognition of the Greater St. Charles Convention & Visitors Bureau). One personnel reclassification bill noted on the agenda (bill number referenced during meeting) was withdrawn by its sponsor at request and concurrence.

Procedural and consent actions

- The council approved a consent agenda after items requested for separate votes (port authority item, registrar records item, two circuit clerk items) were pulled; the port authority item passed after a recusal; the registrar item was debated and handled separately (see article on election records).

- Bill 53‑69 (rezoning application RZ25‑01 for Dyer Road area) was moved up on the agenda, a substitute bill adding the remonstrance was accepted, and the amended bill was tabled at the applicant’s request (see separate article on that item).

This roundup summarizes roll‑call and voice‑vote outcomes recorded in the meeting. For full text of ordinances, resolutions, contract numbers and the formal roll calls, refer to the county clerk’s published minutes and the official ordinance/resolution documents.","On March 31 the St. Charles County Council approved several resolutions and ordinances covering public‑safety designation, bonds for emergency radio equipment, tax‑rate projections, grants, intergovernmental agreements and personnel changes. One zoning item (bill 53‑69) was tabled; an elections‑records destruction item was handled separately.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6094281,"Facilities director outlines 75 active projects, ESCO savings guarantee and courthouse upgrades",689,2849000,3538000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6&start=2849&end=3538","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6/thumbnail_2849000.jpg","/articles/6094281/St-Charles-County/Missouri/Facilities-director-outlines-75-active-projects-ESCO-savings-guarantee-and-courthouse-upgrades","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094281-858a29767440b6cb871b68fc93d5c669/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134838&Signature=C~CqW~E-0UirVKTowMWscP7CtvwqSrUQZFM1k~xU-fETTaWycNFVydAuG~p4cQ5EzwbZ8rr~ndDUyUp51QjwQ0BxD2o4eBL536YSUn~BHUMAzitPlyGYsrIgM1FOVuToUJNwpudSGiMW0GJagHQLYK4VhLVgLTTf5s0tGoGMl9Z9L9GDez6HAMiTB8UpMiHF3XYjEgfYIveryMW57omek9uNW0P1uDh8lW064Rn7pS69kizwm5tyddAH8LHghn2Kw6JGE8CZ9mdlBcvblnuPmK4r1PoQkasUphsd9NynHR1q281hUIbS0hjHiTXCqsP~3jzSsoXjh4hwvl7UzPivBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Christine (Facilities director) presented a department overview to the St. Charles County Council on March 31, detailing active projects, energy‑conservation work and maintenance backlogs.

Christine said the facilities team manages about 17 county buildings (parks and some other departments manage their own facilities) and currently oversees approximately 75 active projects. She highlighted four remaining ESCO (energy services company) projects that the county expects to complete this year; the ESCO program carries a guaranteed savings figure of $7,500,000 over 15 years. The department is replacing generators and UPS systems at the police department and the juvenile justice center and taking on several major roof replacements following a season of hail damage.

Planned site work includes reconfiguring the Elections Authority parking area to improve traffic flow for absentee voting and to address ADA access. Facilities said it plans a paint and exterior refresh at the elections building and will evaluate circulation to reduce queuing. The department is also addressing window and stained‑glass restoration in the administration building and concrete and stair replacements on the Jefferson and Second Street sides of the building.

In the courthouse complex, facilities said it plans a clerk’s‑office renovation to create room for two jury courtrooms and intends to upgrade three elevator systems. At the Justice Center the county completed phase 1 work (kitchen and storage in one housing unit), began demolition for phase 2 (mental‑health and substance‑abuse housing areas) and anticipates design work later this year for direct‑supervision areas. Facilities also described a funded firing‑range expansion (20 lanes) supported by the FBI that will include lead‑reclamation features and a public‑address system; county police may also use the range.

Christine provided activity metrics: over the last 12 months the department processed nearly 5,000 work orders and recorded more than 10,000 labor hours; a recent three‑month period showed about half that annual volume concentrated in a shorter window. The Justice Center, Courthouse and Administration building accounted for the largest share of requests. Christine said the department had logged nearly 900 snow‑response hours during the recent winter storms.

Council members asked clarifying questions and were told the presentation was the first in a planned series of department briefings to improve council familiarity with county operations.

Direct quotes, project scopes and timing were presented during the council meeting and are recorded in the minutes; specifics on contract awards, firm names and final bids were not included in the presentation and were listed as follow‑up items for staff to provide to the council.","County facilities management reported ongoing mechanical, site, roof and restoration projects, said a 15‑year ESCO program guarantees $7.5 million in savings, and described repairs and renovations at the Justice Center, courthouse elevators and elections authority site circulation improvements.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6094285,"Council pulls election‑records destruction request from consent amid public concern, approves amended request",2737,1541000,4278000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6&start=1541&end=4278","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844461-d539b9c1dcc1934dd7cce33429aba7f6/thumbnail_1541000.jpg","/articles/6094285/St-Charles-County/Missouri/Council-pulls-electionrecords-destruction-request-from-consent-amid-public-concern-approves-amended-request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094285-ef827d34248db86d8e6dca853bb753ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134838&Signature=Kj47Q-k3wIPWID14QTePOhWn5cQcgQfP3X99yCrxDKfzvL9Tz6WZB-1i2jB~9Fvo7pS2e39kLsdasd~R8tXFbfvZph~E~Iuf9woipeO~mSdhQ-tup3PKhW4PWAVA~2yMRPCH6vCyzo63-z7DjJCQmvpmZMQsu8VBNtZ9Jq9T9Pz4Fdg7VxX6j0JNjawNnPUSIpaH4DBXqZL2JfjWKwP7E5rBqdkCuTFbKKo7Q0mcVexFJc1PCCelJnkwX8MRjDLNb5j~SqcKfRzqRqcvBW5t6XL01btm4kqJUs3hp1PQb8v8Zlk6S1muxwrJjuRdynIX3SS2ow68~BGyOWilFK-OlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","St. Charles County Council on March 31 removed a records‑destruction request for county election materials from the consent agenda after public commenters raised concerns about destroying ballots and related materials and asked the county to preserve records for further review.

Arnie C. A. C. Dinoff, who identified himself as the County Public Advocate, asked the council to delay or remove sole‑source vehicle purchases and to preserve election‑office records. He requested records related to records‑destruction requests for elections and community development and asked for reporting under county code sections he cited. Jim Kozlowski and Teresa Linsnick described specific concerns about the handling and verification of absentee ballots and asked that records be retained for review; Kozlowski said he had seen ballot‑related envelopes and thumb drives listed as part of preservation requests and argued that federal law and practices required preserving certain election materials.

Council discussion focused on the scope and timing of the registrar’s request. Council members and staff said the consent agenda item as originally written included older election records that some residents find controversial. County administration clarified it had removed the 2020 election records from the consent package after members and the public raised questions. Council members debated reasonable retention timelines; some members suggested an eight‑month or one‑year delay to allow for review and Freedom of Information Act requests. Others said the request included records dating back several prior election cycles.

After discussion the council voted on the registrar’s records‑destruction request brought forward for approval excluding the 2020 records, and the motion passed despite at least one council member voting no. Councilmembers said the goal was to balance routine records‑management and storage needs with public confidence; several members said they would notify interested residents when records are scheduled for destruction and would allow access where legally required.

Speakers reiterated desires for transparency. Jim Kozlowski said he had reviewed instances where older voter‑registration entries and signature matches raised questions and asked to inspect envelopes and transfer media used with tabulators. Teresa Linsnick said both Democrats and Republicans had expressed distrust in recent election cycles and urged the council to preserve evidence “so we have the evidence.”

The council approved the remainder of the consent agenda and handled the registrar item separately; minutes record the removal, debate and final vote. The council directed staff to coordinate public notification before any scheduled destruction.","After multiple public speakers urged preservation of ballots and related election materials, St. Charles County Council removed a registrar records‑destruction item from the consent agenda, debated retention timelines and then approved the registrar’s request for destruction with one recorded dissent; members agreed to notify the public about the","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council tables Dyer Road rezoning after hours of public opposition; substitute adds remonstrance

Council approves multiple resolutions and ordinances; key votes and outcomes at a glance

Facilities director outlines 75 active projects, ESCO savings guarantee and courthouse upgrades

Council pulls election‑records destruction request from consent amid public concern, approves amended request