Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wildwood council debates scope of special-counsel report and timing of NID disclosures
Summary
Council members sharply questioned whether a special-counsel report addressed all concerns about a Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) and why some related materials were first published only after a recent election. Staff said refunds are ready pending bond-counsel calculations and that the report found no ordinance violations for the named candidates.
The Wildwood City Council spent a large portion of its June 8 meeting disputing whether a special-counsel investigation did the thorough review some members expected and whether the timing of NID-related disclosures influenced the 2026 election. Council members who called for an expanded review said the special meeting that prompted the investigation was intended to resolve multiple outstanding questions about NID fees, collections and how the city handled related communications.
Council member Cliff Albers said he was surprised the special-counsel report did not include certain emails and other materials the special council expected to be considered. “I think there was many emails sent on the matters before, during, and after things with the election,” he said, urging clarification of what had been submitted to special counsel.
Council members asked City Attorney John Young and City Administrator Lee whether the special-counsel inquiry had answered the specific issues the council had raised. Young described the motion passed at the special meeting as a request to “seek special counsel to investigate the matter of confusion,” and said he had reviewed the video of that meeting to confirm the charge. Mayor Garrett Tomlin repeatedly emphasized that officials must not use official authority to influence an election, citing the city code that prohibits interfering with elections, and said staff sought to act “with integrity” by holding off on publishing materials until after the election.
On the substance of the NID accounts, City Administrator Lee told the council the NID ledger was closed in 2024–2025 and that staff had identified four delinquent accounts. Lee said the city has funds available to return refunds to eligible property owners but is awaiting a final calculation from bond counsel to ensure refunds are distributed correctly and account for the still‑delinquent parcels. “We currently have four individuals that are delinquent,” Lee said, adding that one is pursuing a legal challenge and an HOA includes additional parcels; staff expect to finalize the refund list within roughly a month.
Several council members, including members who joined the special meeting, said they were disappointed that the special-counsel review answered a narrow legal question (whether certain fees qualify as a tax) but left broader procedural and communication questions unresolved. Multiple members asked that staff provide additional documents or that the council revisit the matter if new information emerges.
Public commenters attending the meeting criticized the council’s handling of the issue. One resident called the process a “circus” and urged council members to apologize where appropriate. The council did not take a formal additional action on the special-counsel report at the meeting; staff indicated they would follow up with requested clarifications and a timeline for the refund calculations.
What happens next: Staff will provide the council the bond‑counsel refund calculations and the list of affected parcels (staff estimated the list would be ready in about a month). Council members who remain unsatisfied can ask for additional review or refer specific outstanding questions back to special counsel or staff for investigation.
