Council orders short-term fixes and an engineering study after city hall geotechnical report finds drainage problems

Wildwood — City staff told the council that a geotechnical study found water pooling at a rain garden immediately adjacent to City Hall and saturated “fatty” clay soils under the rear foundation, and council members approved short-term repairs and a phased engineering study.

Tom, a city staff member who presented the findings, told the council, “So we, back in 20 24 November, approved 3 different unique repairs with 2 different contractors.” He summarized work completed on the clock tower, the police-station roof and a second‑floor dormer, and described ongoing seepage behind the building: “That has caused over time that water just builds up and slowly pushes up against our foundation.”

The council agreed on two near-term steps. First, staff will solicit quotes and, if warranted, proceed with a limited repair scoped to restore the foundation drain at the rear rain garden and related localized fixes intended to keep water from migrating under the slab. Council members described this as the top priority to limit additional foundation heave and interior leaks. Second, while roofing contractors are on site to install new gutters and dormer flashing, the council directed staff to have them complete any additional minor fixes identified during that work if they can be done within staff spending authority so as not to lose momentum on repairs already started.

Why it matters: the UES forensic/geotechnical work documented missing foundation drainage where the rain garden meets the building, higher water saturation and expansive clay under the rear slab and evidence of movement in building crack monitors. The report recommended excavating near the footing, installing the missing drain pipe and aggregate buffer, and — if necessary — more invasive foundation remediation. Staff said removing and reconfiguring the rain garden so water is routed away from the foundation is the least‑disruptive approach; the other recommended option — excavation and replacement of foundation soils — would be far more intrusive and costly.

City staff and council members stressed balancing immediate, lower‑cost measures against the risk of large capital costs. Rick Brown, the director of public works, summarized the engineering recommendation: “The best way is to try to address the water and keep it out from underneath the bottom of the building, the slab.” Council members urged quick action to avoid escalation: “If we get a million dollar repair bill for the rain garden, I don't think we're going to care about $3,500 for the water heater,” one council member said, expressing the urgency to limit further damage.

Council direction and votes at a glance

- Accept minutes of prior meeting — motion by Council member Farmer; second by Council member Brose; voice vote recorded as approved with one abstention (member said they had not attended the earlier meeting). (voice vote; tally not specified in transcript)

- Short-term rain garden/foundation drain repair estimates and contractor work authorization — staff directed to solicit estimates to install the foundation drain at the back rain garden and to pursue repairs judged likely to reduce water pressure on the foundation. Council made a separate direction that on‑site roofing contractors finish identified repairs while present, so long as those additional tasks fall within staff authority; if costs exceed contract/authority, staff to return to council. (direction; no formal roll-call tally recorded)

- Phased engineering engagement to produce a design/cost plan (phase 1 conceptual study, phase 2 detailed design/bids) — motion to engage an engineering firm with a phased approach, not to exceed $100,000; motion seconded and approved by voice vote. Staff estimated the initial engineering work would take one to two months after engagement.

- Continue LEED certification requirements as needed during repairs — council motion to preserve/continue LEED certification requirements where practical; motion seconded and approved by voice vote.

What the study found and proposed actions

- UES geotechnical/forensic work: test pits in the rear rain garden showed more saturated, fatty (expansive) soils near the foundation than at interior locations; core samples showed higher moisture near the back janitor's closet than in the community room. Crack monitors showed up to ~5 millimeters of widening on second‑floor cracks in winter testing.

- Primary finding: the design called for a footing/foundation drain and a rock aggregate transition between the rain garden and the footing; that drain was either missing or not uniformly installed. Without that drain, water pools at the rain garden and can migrate under the slab, saturating expansive soils and causing heave and outward wall movement.

- Recommended next steps from the study and council discussion: excavate/re‑examine the rain garden at the footing, install the missing drain pipe and aggregate buffer, and regrade or reconfigure the rain garden to direct water away from the foundation (potentially routing toward the parking lot or into existing retention capacity). Staff said MSD (Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District) coordination will likely be required for any substantial reconfiguration.

Costs and short‑term maintenance items mentioned in the meeting

- Council approved a not‑to‑exceed budget of $100,000 for a phased engineering engagement (phase 1: conceptual report and estimated costs; phase 2: design and bid documents if needed).

- Staff reported smaller operational items on the maintenance list: a quoted $3,568 part to prolong a large water heater's life, a rough $10,000 estimate for full water‑heater replacement, and a roof‑cleaning quote of about $3,328 for the north roof face; council members said those items should be weighed against more urgent structural needs.

Community and operational impacts

- Police precinct and city staff continue to operate in the building, and staff emphasized minimising operational disruption while pursuing repairs. Council members discussed relocation or longer‑term disposition of the building as one possible outcome if remediation proves economically infeasible, but no decision on demolition or relocation was made.

- Councilors also discussed private development nearby and plastic/expansive soils in the area; planning and public‑works staff noted that geotechnical reports are standard for development approvals and that as‑built and geotechnical sign‑offs are required during construction for new projects.

Sources and direct quotes in this story come from the meeting transcript. The council and staff agreed to immediate near‑term repairs where practicable and to return to the council with engineering recommendations and cost estimates for larger work.