CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006
I.
CALL TO ORDER
A
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Liberty, Missouri was held
in the Council Chambers at City Hall on August 28, 2006 with Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp presiding. Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting to order
at 7:00
p.m.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The invocation was given by Council Member John Parry
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp; Coni Hadden and Harold
Phillips, Ward I; LeRoy Coe and Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Juarenne Hester and
John Parry, Ward III; and Nick King and Bill Parker, Ward IV. Also in attendance were Curt Wenson, City
Administrator; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; Brian Hess, City Engineer;
Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Gary Birch, Fire Chief; Linda Tyree, Finance
Director; Dee Mizell, Finance Analyst; Tony Sage, Information Services Manager;
Steve Anderson, Planning & Development Director; Dan Fernandez, Planner; Sara
Cooke, Public Relations Coordinator; Shawnna Funderburk, Assistant to the City
Administrator; Jane Sharon, Deputy City Clerk; Jason Noble, The Kansas City
Star; Angie Borgedalen, Liberty Tribune; and 3 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2006
Council Member Hadden moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Hester
Seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2006
Council Member Coe moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member King
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C. SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2006
Council Member King moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1.
Council Member Phillips abstained due to absence.
D. STUDY SESSION MEETING SUMMARY OF AUGUST 21, 2006
Council Member Martin moved to approve the meeting
summary as distributed. Council Member
Hadden seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1. Council Member Phillips abstained due to
absence.
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
Dr.
Cheryl Walton, 25
Fulkerson Circle, stated the problem she spoke about at a previous Council meeting was
still a problem on Withers
Road. The super-charged vehicles continue to be a
problem though she believes there has been a reduction after her last visit to
Council. Citing numbers of speeders she
had logged over a three-day period, Dr. Walton offered her services to assist
in developing a solution to the problem.
She reviewed her experience in special education and offered to assist
in coordinating a multi-agency approach to resolving the problem. She again expressed concern about safety of
youth and adults, if the speeding problem is not resolved.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REZONE
15.4 ACRES ALONG H HIGHWAY AND HAVENS PLACE TO R-5 GARDEN APARTMENT (continued from July 24,
2006, withdrawn by applicant)
Mayor Steinkamp stated that this case has been
withdrawn by the applicant and no Council action is necessary.
B. *ESTABLISH
2006 PROPERTY TAX LEVY – ORDINANCE
Finance Analyst Dee Mizell stated the 2006 levy
supports the 2007 budget. She reviewed
the proposed 2006 property tax levy, noting it is based on formulas specified
by state statutes. For 2006, it is
proposed to remain the same as the 2005 rate of $0.9676 per $100 of assessed
valuation. Ms. Mizell stated the
proposed levy allots $0.8225 for the General Fund and $0.1451 for the Parks
Fund. The projected revenue in 2007 is
$4,302,844, a 3.8% increase over 2006.
State statute allows the property tax revenue to increase by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 3.5% with an additional 0.3% due to new
construction. As the tax levy must be
reported to the State by September 1, staff requested consideration on first
reading.
Council Member King asked for clarification of an
increase permitted, based on the CPI, when the proposed levy was not changing
from the previous year. Ms. Mizell
stated that new construction is down from 2005 by almost half and so the
increase for that is smaller than in 2005.
The assessed values are multiplied by the tax rate and the assessed
value of property has increased.
Council Member Parry asked why the property tax wasn’t
being increased. Ms. Mizell stated the
projected revenues increase due to new construction and an increase in assessed
value but decrease due to personal property tax revenues. Real estate is reassessed every two
years. Mr. Parry asked if the difference
in revenue is $15,000. Ms. Mizell stated
the increase in projected revenues is about $157,000. Mr. Parry asked what would happen if the
property tax levy was not approved by Council.
Ms. Mizell said the City would lose about $4.3 million of next year’s
budget. Mr. Parry asked why the
information was coming to Council so late.
Ms. Mizell stated the process is on a very tight timeline. The Board of Equalization meets to review any
appeals and then gives numbers to Clay County, which in turn provides numbers to the City. City staff received the numbers from the
County on August 7, applied the values using the State formula, submitted the
calculations to the State and must then wait for State approval before publishing
the notice of the public hearing.
City Administrator Curt Wenson stated every City in Missouri goes through this same process and it is a very tight
time frame. Ms. Mizell noted the
property tax levy has been below one percent since 2000. Finance Director Linda Tyree stated the 3.5% (CPI)
is applied to the assessed value.
Council Member Parry asked if the increase by the CPI is mandated by the
State. Mr. Wenson stated it is not but
there could be a problem if increases meet the threshold for being required to
have voter approval due to the Hancock Amendment.
Council Member Coe asked if this process happens every
year. Mr. Wenson said it does. Council Member Martin asked when the property
tax was last increased by the voters. Mrs.
Tyree stated she could confirm that but believed it may have been in the
1960s. The levy has fluctuated from year
to year.
Council Member Parker asked for clarification that the
tax is not increased, but the assessed value is up. Ms. Mizell said that is correct and State law
does not permit a windfall, so the tax is adjusted accordingly.
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed levy. Seeing none, he asked if anyone wished to
speak in opposition to the proposed levy.
Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the
Council.
Document No. 6563 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Hester seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Hester moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion.
Council Member Coe asked for clarification of how the
CPI is applied to property. Mrs. Tyree
stated the rate is provided by the State of Missouri. Mr. Wenson
stated the calculation is an average for the whole state. Council Member King asked if the CPI limit is
on the assessed value of the property being taxed. Mr. Wenson said it is. Mayor Steinkamp clarified that it is not for
each person, but is in the aggregate and the rate may go up 12% in value but
would only be assessed on 3.5% of the value.
Council Member Parry asked if property is assessed lower, the City might
lose revenues. Mrs. Tyree stated revenue
would go down in that unlikely circumstance.
Council Member Parry asked if the tax on an older car could go up. Mrs. Tyree said it is unlikely the assessed
value on vehicles would go up.
The motion carried 7-0-1. Council Member Parry voted in
opposition. It was approved by the Chair
and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9022.
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM AUGUST 4, 2006 THROUGH AUGUST 18, 2006 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6564 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the ordinance. Council Member Martin seconded the motion.
Council Member Coe asked about the payments to Kelly
Services. Mrs. Tyree stated the checks
are payment for a temporary employee in the City Clerk’s office and that
invoices are paid as received. The
position has been working 40 hours a week.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Phillips – yes; Council Member
Martin – yes; Council Member Hester – yes; Council Member Parker – yes; Council
Member Hadden – yes; Council Member Coe – yes; Council Member Parry – yes; Council
Member King – yes. The motion carried
unanimously; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9023.
B. *FINAL
PLAT OF ELEVENTH PLAT, LOT 9B, HEARTLAND MEADOWS INDUSTRIAL
PARK AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HEARTLAND DRIVE AND SHEPHERD ROAD – ORDINANCE
Planner Dan Fernandez reviewed the application for Lot
9B in Heartland Meadows Industrial
Park. Mr. Fernandez noted there are approximately
18 acres, correcting the figure stated in the staff report. Mr. Fernandez stated the site will have
direct access to Heartland
Drive and
there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.
Mr. Fernandez stated the applicant proposes a lot
split to create three lots. Lot
9D will be a sixty-foot right-of-way for the future extension of Shepherd Road to the east.
Platting this property will allow for its development and staff
anticipates a development plan application will be submitted soon.
Mr. Fernandez stated the application substantially
conforms to the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the application by a vote of 7-0.
Council Member Parry asked if any businesses are lined
up for the site. Mr. Fernandez stated
the lots are zoned light industrial, but nothing concrete has been identified
by the applicant.
Document No. 6565 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hester
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9024.
C. AMENDMENT
TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS AT SUNSET AND MOSS – ORDINANCE
Without objection, Mayor Steinkamp removed this item
from the agenda to allow staff to research traffic calming options. The item could be added to the December 11,
2006 regular session agenda
for consideration.
D. AMEND
CITY CODE SECTION 21-2, ENUMERATION OF NUISANCES, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO SIGHT DISTANCE ON CORNER LOTS AND OFF-STREET PARKING – ORDINANCE
(SECOND READING)
Planning & Development Director Steve Anderson
stated these two additions for the Nuisance Codes were the only two used by the
Code Enforcement Officer in the Zoning Ordinances. When the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
was prepared, it was recommended that these items be moved to the Nuisance
Codes. The delay in bringing them
forward was due to anticipation of other housekeeping items being brought
forward at the same time.
Council Member King asked for clarification that this
is the same language. Mr. Anderson said
it is. Council Member Parry asked if
this language is in the UDO now. Mr.
Anderson said it is not in the City’s codes at this time and hasn’t been since
the UDO was adopted. Mr. Parry asked for
clarification of fifteen items being considered for amendment. Mr. Anderson stated staff is working on some
clean-up items for the UDO. Mr. Parry
asked why these couldn’t wait until those amendments are brought forward. Mr. Anderson stated these items are not
related to development and staff would prefer to move forward on these and get
them back on the books. Mr. Parry asked
if they cannot be enforced now. Mr. Anderson
said they could not. Mr. Parry stated
the City has rights-of-way that are more than 140 feet. Mr. Anderson stated the sight distance
language is used primarily for weeds, and plantings and the off-street parking
language is used more by code enforcement.
Council Member King clarified these are not in place now. Mr. Anderson stated that new development
would have to comply with the sight distance issue because it is in the
specifications for new development.
Document No. 6557 was read. Mayor Steinkamp noted this ordinance is on
second reading. Council Member Martin
moved to approve the ordinance. Council
Member Hester seconded the ordinance, which carried 6-2-0. Council
Member Parker and Council Member Parry voted in opposition. It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed
in Ordinance No. 9025.
E. 2006
CHIP SEAL PROJECT
1. FINAL AMENDMENT
TO CONTRACT WITH VANCE BROTHERS – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6566 was read. Council Member Coe moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hester
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9026.
2. ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT – RESOLUTION
Council Member Coe moved to accept the project. Council Member Martin seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2259.
X. OTHER BUSINESS – None.
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr.
Wenson noted the Attorney General’s 2006 Sunshine Law booklet had been provided
to Council. He stated that annexation
questions and staff responses were also provided to Council. On September 5 the Council would review the
Springsted studies and there is a regular session on September 11. On September 18 there is a study session
scheduled and there will be an update on the Liberty Triangle.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Phillips stated that, with William Jewell College back in session, he appreciated the police for
checking the parking situation in the Jewell District. Mr. Phillips
also requested a more efficient method be devised for council members to
contact the city administrator when asked to do so.
Council
Member Martin requested the stop sign amendment be brought back sooner than
December 11 if the staff completes its research of traffic-calming sooner. Mr. Wenson stated that could be done.
Council
Member Hester asked about the information provided by the police chief. Mr. Wenson stated that additional information
related to what was distributed would be provided to Council.
Council
Member Hadden stated she had received compliments on the new streets in the old
parts of town.
Council
Member Parry asked when Swan Drive would be given to the City by the contractor. Public Works Director Steve Hansen stated
that the project has not yet been accepted and staff is waiting for some final
cleanup to be completed. Mr. Parry asked
about the mowing needed. Mr. Hansen
stated that is part of the final cleanup.
Council
Member King expressed deep appreciation to the staff for the work in responding
to the annexation questions, which will be on the website soon. He suggested Council link right to the page
when responding to citizens. Mr. King
said this represented a lot of work on the part of the staff.
Mr.
King asked if the rule changes were brought to Council in the study session on
September 18, how long it would be before they could be considered as
amendments. Mr. Anderson stated it could
be done in a month or so, depending on whether new sections had to be drafted
or existing sections were being amended.
Mr. King asked if it could be done in less than a month. Mr. Anderson stated the ordinances could be
available for Council consideration within a few weeks of the study
session. Mayor Steinkamp clarified that
the Council would need to direct staff on which regulations to bring forward in
ordinance form.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated he would be out of town and Mayor ProTem Coni Hadden would
chair the September 5 study session. He
announced that he had spoken with Ms. Borgedalen at the Tribune and a mayor’s
column would again start appearing in the newspaper in the next few weeks.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk