Save the Parks - St. Charles
A grassroots initiative to protect our public parks for future generations
📢 Important Update: City Clerk Communication
November 4th Update on Charter Amendment Petition Process
📅 Petition Transfer Update
Today, on November 4, the City Clerk informed us that they will pass on the petitions to the county election authority for review.
⏰ This is just one day before the 20-day deadline set by the charter.
📈 Signature Requirement Change
They also informed us that the number of required signatures was being revised upward, changing the base election used for calculation from April 2025 to April 2024.
Previous Requirement
4,648
New Requirement
4,836
📊 This increases the required total by about 188 more signatures than originally stated.
📋 City's Explanation
The City's explanation is that, according to the County Election Authority, only five of the city's ten wards participated in the April 2025 election, so they could not provide a total count of registered voters citywide for that date.
Because of that, the City decided to use the April 2024 election as the "last regular city election."
⚖️ Our Position
We disagree with this interpretation.
The April 8, 2025 election was a regular city election where new council members were chosen, and by the charter's plain language, that should be the correct reference point.
📄 We have raised this issue with the City Clerk and are taking steps to formally request all related correspondence and records to ensure full transparency.
💬 Community Input
If anyone has any questions or any suggestions, please feel free to share them.
🌟 Thank You for Your Continued Support
We'll continue keeping everyone updated as this develops.
Thank you again for all your hard work and dedication in helping collect signatures — your effort and support are what make this initiative possible.
Petitions Delivered – Next Steps in the Charter Amendment Process
Earlier this afternoon, our petitions for a City Charter amendment requiring voter approval before any city park can be sold were officially delivered to the St. Charles City Clerk's office. The Clerk accepted the petitions and has begun the formal review process.
🏆 This marks a major milestone in our community effort to ensure that decisions about public parkland remain in the hands of the voters.
💙 A Heartfelt Thank You
This moment was only possible because of the incredible support, time, and dedication of so many people across our city.
From volunteers who spent countless hours collecting signatures, to residents who shared our message and signed their names — this success belongs to all of you.
Thank you for standing up for transparency, accountability, and the future of our city parks. 🌳
📋 What Happens Next
The next steps are outlined by the St. Charles City Charter:
Step 1 – City Clerk Review
After submission, the City Clerk has 20 days to forward the petitions to the St. Charles County Election Authority for verification of signatures.
Step 2 – Election Authority Verification
There is no specific time limit for how long the Election Authority may take to verify the signatures.
Once complete, the City Clerk will issue one of the following:
- Certificate of Sufficiency (enough valid signatures), or
- Certificate of Insufficiency (not enough valid signatures).
🛤️ Possible Paths Forward
🌟 The Happiest Path
The petitions are certified as sufficient, and the City Council adopts the Charter amendment as written.
✅ Result: The City Charter is amended.
😊 Happy Path 1
The petitions are certified as sufficient, and the City Council places the amendment on the ballot (likely April 2026 unless a special election is called sooner).
If voters approve it by a simple majority:
✅ Result: The City Charter is amended.
🙂 Happy Path 2
The petitions are initially found insufficient, but we use the 10-day correction period to review or gather more signatures.
Once corrected, the petitions are certified as sufficient.
✅ Result: The City Charter is amended.
😐 Mildly Happy Path 1
After correction, petitions remain insufficient. We appeal to the City Council, which can overrule the Election Authority and declare the petitions sufficient.
✅ Result: The City Charter is amended.
😕 Mildly Happy Path 2
If the Council upholds the insufficiency, we can appeal to the courts.
The court may rule the petitions sufficient and return them to the Council.
✅ Result: The City Charter is amended.
😞 Unhappy Path
If all appeals are denied and the petitions are found insufficient, we would have to decide whether to begin a new petition drive.
🚫 Result: The Charter remains unchanged.
🤝 How You Can Help
No matter which path we take, the City Council will play a critical role in deciding how to proceed once the petitions are certified.
Contact your council members and ask them to support the Charter amendment.
Share this update with others who value our parks and community transparency.
💪 Public support and participation will continue to make a real difference.
🌟 In Closing
This milestone is something our entire community can be proud of. It shows what's possible when residents come together to protect what matters most.
Thank you again to everyone who signed, volunteered, and supported this cause.
We'll continue sharing updates as the process moves forward. 🌳
Upcoming Events
Court Hearing
Next court date for the charter case
Case Information: Missouri Case.net – Case No. 2411-CC01537
Morning
Farmers Market
St. Charles Farmers Market
Our volunteers are at the St. Charles Farmers Market every Saturday morning.
Our Campaign
The Problem
Communities across the country are facing the growing issue of public parkland being sold to developers and private interests, often without public knowledge or input. In December 2023, this occurred in St. Charles when Mueller Park was sold in a closed-door agreement between the Park Board and City Council. Currently, there are discussions underway regarding the sale of the developing Legacy Farms Park. Additionally, two councilwomen have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a voter-approved amendment that limits who has the authority to sell parkland.
Our Purpose
We are a grassroots campaign dedicated to protecting public parks in St. Charles, Missouri. Our initiative petition seeks to ensure that no city-owned parkland can be sold or transferred without the approval of the voters. Our mission is to safeguard green spaces for current and future generations.
Current Activities:
- We hold regular meetings to share updates and coordinate petition efforts.
- Volunteers are actively collecting signatures at community events, including every Saturday morning at the St. Charles Farmers Market.
Mueller Park: What Happened
What Happened?
-
In December 2024, Mueller Park (also known as the St. Charles Soccer Complex) was sold without public notice or input.
-
In Fall 2024 over 65 youth soccer teams (1,000+ children) played there weekly through SCCYSA, which had used the park since 1978.
-
Mueller Park was also used by local schools and teams for rugby, cricket, volleyball, football, biking, and more.
-
The sale transferred ownership to INVESCO Group, LLC (owner: Sidik Nuhanovic of Arnold, MO).
-
The Park and Recreations Board went into closed sessions to discuss the sale of the park and to keep the public from being aware. They have repeatedly said it was a "good deal". If it was such a good deal why did they hide it from the public?
-
The City Council intentionally kept it under wraps. The bill was fast-tracked to eliminate public input. Mueller park was labeled as surplus property on the bill (#13896) to obscure its status as a public park. The co-sponsors of the bill to sell the park were Michael Galba and Mary West.
-
No appraisal was conducted, the park sold for only $3 million — while estimates ranged from $6 to $10 million.
-
Meanwhile, the Parks Board approved $4 million to upgrade baseball fields at Wapelhorst Park adding turf fields (construction starting Aug 2025).
Why It Matters
-
Mueller Park (est. 1973) was built by volunteers, nonprofits, and sustained by taxpayers for over 50 years.
-
Over 100,000 people visited annually — it was vital piece of community infrastructure.
-
In current St. Charles city parks: 24 baseball/softball fields exist, but only 4 fields are usable for soccer (2 non-regulation at Wapelhorst, 2 shared at McNair Park with rugby)
-
Youth sports like soccer are being sidelined while public assets are quietly sold without transparency or input.
-
In St. Charles City Parks, baseball is currently prioritized over soccer and other sports, despite strong participation in soccer and other sports by city youth.
🛑 Save Our City Charter – Know the Case 🛑
Mary West & Bridget Ohmes v. City of St. Charles – Case No. 2411-CC01537
Concerned about the future of our parks and voter-approved protections in St. Charles? Here's what you need to know about the ongoing court case and how it could impact our city charter.
Case Summary
Filed: December 23, 2024 in the St. Charles County Circuit Court, this case challenges the constitutionality of a 2001 amendment to the city charter that granted the Parks and Recreation Board authority over parkland decisions and funding. Plaintiffs, Councilmembers Mary West and Bridget Ohmes, argue the amendment is invalid. The City of St. Charles agrees, raising concerns among citizens about a 'friendly lawsuit' that may undo decades of voter-approved protections without a public vote.
Key Parties
- Plaintiffs: Councilmembers Mary West and Bridget Ohmes
- Defendant: City of St. Charles, Missouri
- Denied Intervenors: St. Charles Parks and Recreation Board
- Granted Intervenors: Concerned taxpayers Sandy Bichel, Kathy Mudrovic, Mike Ryan, Terrence J. Slattery, and Anne Zerr represented by attorney Kimberley Mathis
Timeline of Major Events
Dec 27, 2024
City summoned
Jan 2, 2025
Park Board files to intervene
May 30, 2025
Court denies Park Board intervention
Jun 9, 2025
Citizens/taxpayers file to intervene
Jun 18, 2025
City files Answer agreeing with Plaintiffs
Jun 30, 2025
City files motion to disqualify attorney Kimberley Mathis
Sep 2, 2025
Court denies motion to disqualify Mathis and grants taxpayer intervention
Nov 6, 2025
Next scheduled court date
What's at Stake?
- Charter Challenge – Will the Park Board lose authority over parks?
- Voter Intent – Will court action override what 73% and 82% of voters approved?
- Representation – Are both Plaintiffs and the City working toward the same outcome?
Relevant Missouri Cases on Charter Authority
- City of Kansas City v. Chastain (2014) – Initiatives can't require spending without new revenue.
- Boeving v. Kander (2016) – Courts block mandates that impose unfunded obligations.
- State ex rel. Card v. Kaufman (1974) – Charter can't be changed to force spending.
- Doyle v. Tidball (2021) – No violation if new rules don't require appropriation.
Why It Matters
This case could shift control over our city's parklands away from a citizen-led Park Board to elected officials, without a public vote. Protecting the integrity of our Charter means ensuring voters—not politicians or lawsuits—decide how our parks are governed.
📣 Stay informed. Talk to your neighbors. Get involved. This affects all of us!
🏛️ Court Update: Taxpayers Granted Intervention in Parks Lawsuit
On September 2, 2025, the St. Charles County Circuit Court issued a significant ruling in the case Ohmes & West v. City of St. Charles (Case No. 2411-CC01537).
Key Takeaways:
- The Court denied the City's motion to disqualify Attorney Kimberly Mathis, allowing her to continue representing the taxpayers.
- The Court granted the motion to intervene filed by local taxpayers Sandy Bichel, Kathy Mudrovic, Mike Ryan, Terrence J. Slattery, and Anne Zerr.
- This decision means the taxpayers are now officially parties in the lawsuit, giving them a direct voice in protecting St. Charles public parkland.
Court's Reasoning:
- The judge found that Attorney Mathis never had an attorney-client relationship with the City of St. Charles that would prevent her from representing the taxpayers.
- The City failed to show that Mathis had obtained any confidential or privileged information that could create a conflict of interest.
- By allowing Mathis to attend Parks Board meetings without recognizing her as their legal representative, the City effectively waived its claim that her involvement was improper.
Why This Matters:
This ruling ensures that local taxpayers have a direct role in holding the City accountable for decisions about public parkland. It also confirms that citizens can challenge actions they believe were not handled with transparency.
Next Steps:
⚖️ The next court date is scheduled for November 6, 2025.
Mayor's Statements and Actions: A Timeline
In recent weeks, there has been considerable discussion about the role of the Mayor in city decisions involving our parks. To help provide context, below are several key documented items related to the Mayor's statements and actions concerning St. Charles parkland.
Mayor's Housing Development Comments – March 2024
During a development discussion in March 2024, the Mayor expressed his preference for low-density housing with larger plots, stating that "executives have nowhere to live so they go to Frontenac or Ladue." This comment provides insight into the Mayor's development priorities and his vision for attracting higher-income residents to St. Charles.
📄 St. Charles Development Plans - urbanSTL ForumPark Board Strategic Discussion – May 15, 2024
At the May 15, 2024 Park Board meeting, Mayor Borgmeyer addressed the board about taking a "strategic" approach to park management. He discussed the possibility of "adding park property or selling park property" and emphasized wanting the Board to think about future needs and potential city expansion. These minutes coincide with the timeline when discussions about Mueller Park's future began.
Key Quote: "That could be adding park property or selling park property. Think about 'Impact' or 'User' fees. Overall, Mayor Borgmeyer is trying to run the City as a business instead of typical government."
Legacy Farms Park Discussion – December 2024
According to multiple reports, the conflict over parkland sales has been brewing since December 2024, when members of the St. Charles Park Board said Mayor Borgmeyer told them that he and other city officials were considering selling a 97-acre planned park site on Highway B (now known as Legacy Farms Park). This statement later became the subject of significant debate and clarification efforts.
Reported Impact: "The conflict has been brewing since December, when members of the St. Charles Park Board said Borgmeyer told them that he and other city officials were considering selling a 97-acre planned park site on Highway B."
Why This Timeline Matters
These documented statements and actions create a pattern that helps residents understand the Mayor's approach to park management and development priorities. The timeline shows:
- A consistent focus on running city operations "as a business" rather than traditional government
- Openness to selling park property as part of strategic planning
- Development preferences that prioritize higher-income housing
- Direct involvement in park property discussions that later became controversial
Reviewing these documented instances helps provide context for understanding recent decisions and ongoing discussions that affect our community's public spaces.
Sunshine Law Concerns in St. Charles
Recent reviews of the St. Charles Parks & Recreation Board's closed session minutes (June–September 2024) raise important questions about compliance with Missouri's Sunshine Law (RSMo Chapter 610) during the discussions and approval process for the sale of Mueller Park / St. Charles Soccer Complex to Invesco, LLC.
What the Sunshine Law Allows
Under RSMo § 610.021(2), a public body may enter closed session to discuss the leasing, purchase, or sale of real estate — but only if public knowledge would adversely affect the legal consideration (for example, the purchase price or terms). Once the transaction is executed, the law requires minutes, votes, and related records to be made public.
Findings from the Closed Session Minutes
Discussions Beyond Price and Terms
- Board members discussed topics such as tourism benefits, artificial turf, indoor facilities, and even messaging strategy.
- These issues fall outside the narrow scope of "legal consideration" allowed under § 610.021(2).
Negotiations on price never took place
- The letter of intent price was accepted as is, without any negotiations.
- No other groups were in competition to buy the park.
Attendance Not Recorded
- The minutes do not reflect who attended the closed sessions beyond roll call votes.
- Sunshine Law requires minutes to show which members, staff, or other officials were present.
Why This Matters
The Sunshine Law is designed to protect transparency and accountability in government decision-making. By extending closed sessions to cover policy and planning issues — the Park Board limited the public's ability to understand how and why decisions about public parkland were made.
🌳 Key Takeaway
Public parks belong to the community. Decisions about their future should be made transparently, not behind closed doors.
Did You Know St. Charles Parks Are Being Used as Loan Collateral?
Many residents are surprised to learn that several public parks in the City of St. Charles have been pledged as collateral for city loans. Unlike other Missouri cities—such as St. Louis, Kansas City, and others in-between—that have charter provisions protecting public land from being used as collateral, St. Charles does not have such a safeguard.
Parks Listed as Collateral
According to Schedule 1 of the City's Base Lease for the Certificates of Participation (COPs), the following parks were pledged:
- Blanchette Park
- Wapelhorst Park
- Mueller Park (removed in 2024 when it was sold)
- McNair Park
- Dusable Park
Financial Obligations
These parks were used to secure funding primarily for stormwater control improvements. The total lease obligation tied to the COPs is $58,735,738.67, broken down as follows:
Both the principal and interest must be fully repaid under the terms of the lease.
The Mueller Park Sale
In 2024, when the City approved the sale of Mueller Park, it first had to be removed as collateral. The removal discussion occurred in a closed session of the City Council, justified under the "Real Estate" exception (§ 610.021(2) RSMo).
However, the sale price and terms had already been finalized, which raises questions about whether the closed session was appropriate under Missouri's Sunshine Law.
📄 Attached is a copy of the minutes of that closed meeting obtained via sunshine law request.
Why This Matters
Using public parks as collateral places community spaces at risk and raises concerns about transparency in city decision-making.
Parks should exist for recreation, nature, and community—not as bargaining chips for financial deals.
Boonslick Park Stormwater Project & Riverpointe Dirt Relocation
Many people have asked about the work being done at Boonslick park and the dirt being removed. Following is what has been learned so far.
Project Overview
The City of St. Charles is actively managing a Public Works project at Boonslick Park aimed at resolving persistent stormwater and flooding issues in the surrounding area. This initiative is designed to alleviate flooding that has impacted homes along 6th Street and caused frequent overflows on Boones Lick Road, particularly between 2nd Street and Riverside Drive.
The primary causes of flooding have been identified as overland flow and an undersized or substandard stormwater system.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution includes regrading the basin in Boonslick Park to remain dry and gently sloped for easier maintenance. Once completed, the site will feature new sidewalks and a raised community garden.
The Park Board was consulted on the initial design presented by the City Engineering Department in March 2024.
Dirt Relocation
Dirt is still being removed from the site to meet the project's specifications and is reportedly being relocated to the Riverpointe Development, though it's unclear if the material is being sold or donated.
Parks and Recreation will assume responsibility for the area only after the project is fully completed.
For Project Updates
For project updates or to submit questions, visit: stcharlescitymo.gov/202/Engineering
Park Board Appointments and City Charter Requirements
The St. Charles Park Board consists of nine members. Each member is appointed by the Mayor and then confirmed by the City Council. Recently, the Mayor has been critical of the Park Board; however, it is important to note that the current members were all appointed through this process.
Current Vacancy
As of June 2025, the Park Board has been operating with only eight members following the retirement of Mike Ryan. Under the City Charter, the Mayor is required to appoint a replacement within 60 days of a vacancy.
⚠️ More than 60 days have passed since the retirement, and no appointment has been made.
Past Delays
This is not the first time the appointment timeline has been exceeded. In April 2024, the Mayor delayed appointments long enough that the City Council held a special session to confirm seven members at once.
This approach conflicted with the Charter's rules, which are designed to ensure timely and orderly appointments.
Key Questions
These delays raise important questions for residents:
- Why did the Mayor not follow the Charter's requirements?
- Why did the City Council permit appointments in conflict with the Charter?
Context
It is worth noting that these appointment delays coincided with the start of the process to sell Mueller Park. The overlap in timing has led to additional concerns about transparency and governance.
Understanding the appointment process helps residents evaluate how city leadership manages board oversight and charter compliance.