CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 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 October 23, 2006 with Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp presiding. Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting to order
at 7:01
p.m.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The invocation was given by Council Member Bill Parker
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Coni Hadden and Harold Phillips, Ward I; LeRoy Coe and
Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Juarenne Hester and John Parry, Ward III; and Bill
Parker and Nick King, Ward IV. Also in
attendance were Curt Wenson, City Administrator; Cynthia Boecker, Assistant
City Administrator; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; Brian Hess, City
Engineer; Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Gary Birch, Fire Chief; Linda Tyree,
Finance Director; Marcella McCoy, Finance Manager; Tony Sage, Information
Services Director; Steve Anderson, Planning & Development Director; Rebecca
Wymore, Planner; Dan Fernandez, Planner; Chris Deal, Parks & Recreation
Director; Sara Cooke, Public Relations Coordinator; Shawnna
Funderburk, Assistant to the City Administrator; Jane Sharon, Deputy City
Clerk; Lindsay Hanson Metcalf, The Kansas City Star; and 14 members of the
public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2006
Council Member Hester moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member King
seconded the motion, which carried 5-0-3.
Council Member Martin, Council Member Parker and Council Member Coe
abstained due to absence.
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
Mayor
Steinkamp recognized Erich Hartmann, a boy scout with Troop No. 376, who is
working on his Citizenship in the Community badge.
John
Amick, 1624 Wynbrick, Drive, stated that he believed there is a discrepancy
between what Clay County and the City permit pertaining to open burning. He asked that this be clarified.
Pat
Miller, 1955
Kings Highway,
asked the City Council to be fiscally responsible. She thanked the Council for its service but
referenced the saying “waste none, want none” and said the Council would be
considering whether to spend $38,000 on a consultant and without a good purpose. She stated there is good transparency in
where City dollars are going. Ms. Miller
referenced the initial estimates for the sports complex of $3 million which
turned into $9 million and she stated the facility is not community friendly. She asked the City Council to be more
fiscally responsible.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 THROUGH OCTOBER 13, 2006 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6588 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion.
Council Member Martin asked about check number 97949
for release of currency. Police Chief
Craig Knouse, stated the police confiscate currency as evidence and when a
court order is issued releasing the monies, the City writes a check.
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 Parry – yes; Council Member King – yes. The motion carried unanimously; it was
approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9041.
B. *FINAL PLAT FOR NEWTON PARK, A REPLAT OF BLOCK 3, HIGHLAND PARK AND LOT 33 OF NEWTON RIDGE [P&Z
CASE NO. 06-043FP; APPLICANT: T.J. ROBINSON] – ORDINANCE
Planner Dan Fernandez reviewed the application,
stating the site would have direct access to Ridge Avenue. Sanitary
sewer service would be provided by connection to an existing main on the
western portion of the site. Lots I and
II would connect via a sanitary main extension.
Water service would be provided by connecting to existing mains along Ridge Avenue and storm water would be directed to the stream on
the western side of the property.
Mr. Fernandez stated the applicant proposes to
sub-divide the tract. This would create
four single family lots. He stated the
application substantially conforms to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval.
Council Member Martin asked about a driveway on the
long narrow piece of Lot 5. Mr.
Fernandez stated the lot is unusual but is appropriate. Mayor Steinkamp asked if the creek crosses Lot
5. Mr. Fernandez said it does cross the
corner of that lot. Council Member
Phillips asked about the impact of the plat on the ability to build. Mr. Fernandez stated a driveway could be
built, but not a structure. Mr. Phillips
asked if a house could be built in the corner of the lot. Mr. Anderson stated staff had required the
applicant show a footprint for building on that lot. Mr. Phillips asked about curb cuts and
sidewalks on Ridge
Avenue. Mr. Fernandez stated there would be more
now. Council Member Hadden asked if the
sidewalks were included. Mr. Fernandez
said there are.
Document No. 6589 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 Hadden 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. 9042.
C. CONTRACT
WITH THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE FOR A CITIZEN STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $38,996 – ORDINANCE (SECOND READING)
Mayor Steinkamp asked if members of the public wished
to make additional comment regarding the agreement. Seeing none, he returned discussion to the
Council.
Document No. 6586 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion. Council Member
Parry asked about the makeup of the initiating committee and whether those
appointed would be identified by the Mayor and Council with input from
staff. City Administrator Curt Wenson
stated that would be at Council’s direction.
Mayor Steinkamp stated the appointments for the committee would come
forward with other appointments and considered by the Council. He added that if council members had
suggestions, they could bring those forward, but this had nothing to do with
the 150 participants that would ultimately guide the process.
Council Member Hester asked if the number of
initiating committee members was set at 12.
Mr. Wenson stated that between 10 and 12 is average and he wouldn’t
recommend going over 18 but there is a lot of leeway. Mayor Steinkamp commented that the more there
are the harder it is to schedule meetings but they want a good
representation. Council Member Parry
suggested each council member select two committee members from each ward. Early communication promotes good
participation. He stated that, to be
successful, the group must be diversified and new faces are needed. Mayor Steinkamp stated the committee must
truly represent the community and each council member could recommend two
names.
Council Member Parker stated that he liked Council
Member Parry’s suggestion to recommend two from each ward and the appointments
have to be approved by the Council. He
stated he also wanted a percentage from each ward. Mayor Steinkamp asked the Council if the
number and method of selecting the initiating committee was important in
consideration of whether or not to retain the National Civic League, which is
the issue before Council at this time.
The method for selecting the committee could be discussed in a study
session.
Council Member Phillips stated that the initiating
team needs to be diverse and provide help in identifying the best 150 people to
participate in the process. He stated
that selection could be made by tenure and by ward. Council Member Parker stated that each
council member should be able to pick two committee members. Mr. Phillips suggested council members
represent the whole City, not just the ward.
Council Member King suggested an amendment to include
how the committee would be selected.
Council Member Martin suggested that this did not need to be decided at
this time and that it could be addressed in a study session. Now the Council is considering whether the
National Civic League will represent the City in this process. Mayor Steinkamp stated these details are not
in the contract and the mechanics of diverse representation can be reviewed in study
session.
Council Member King again proposed an amendment to the
language in the action report. Mayor
Steinkamp stated the ordinance only authorizes an agreement with a payment up
to $38,000 and doesn’t provide for the mechanism. What staff has proposed in its report can be
changed by Council without the need to amend the ordinance. Council Member Hester asked if the committee
selection needs to be formalized. Mr.
Wenson stated the issue could be reviewed along with the Capital Improvement
Plan at the upcoming study session at which Council could provide direction to
staff about the selection and makeup of the initiating committee.
Council Member Parker stated he would not vote for the
contract without the detail. Council
Member Coe stated this process didn’t appear to be any different than the
citizen survey and what was done with Liberty 2010 was up to a vote of the
people. He stated this was a waste of
money. Mr. Wenson stated there have been
extensive study sessions on this process and the cities that have conducted
such a process have been very successful.
Lee’s Summit and Raytown have been able to address annexation and smart growth
because this process helps communities understand and guide the process. It helps citizens not to be intimidated by
government and to give feedback on the day-to-day operations. The Blueprint was a zoning plan; this process
opens discussion about police and fire safety needs. City government is a complicated process and
this offers an opportunity to discuss strategies to finance initiatives. Mr. Wenson added the City would be better off
after this 9 to 12 month process.
Council Member Coe stated Liberty is already doing all that Mr. Wenson just mentioned
and he would not vote for the contract.
Mr. Wenson stated this is different than filling out a
survey at the kitchen counter without discussing it with others. This process engages the community and shows
individuals how to get involved. Council
Member King stated he is very much in favor of engaging this group and of this
process; he believes the process will be of benefit and allow citizens to be
involved in where the City is going and how it can get there. He withdrew his suggested amendment and
emphasized his support for this process.
Council Member Hester stated the Direction Finder
survey identifies issues, but this group would have a say in what the City does
with respect to those issues. She stated
the Council could learn from the citizens and get information back to them. She added that geography is important in the
committee selection.
Council Member Martin stated it was important not to
lose sight of the reason this process is being considered. She stated the Council’s goals include the
enhancement of civic involvement and, with this process, the everyday citizen
can get involved. Council Member Parry
stated the process has positive things but when approved there is no guarantee
of success. Council Member Hadden
requested a study session to determine the committee makeup and selection
process. Council Member Parker restated
his desire for diversity and representation among the wards; he stated the
Council could buy in to the process by approving the nominees. Mr. Wenson stated that the staff could bring
information to the Council regarding the identification of the initiating
committee but the process won’t begin until the initiating committee is
established.
Council Member Parker moved to table the contract
until November 13 in order to determine the makeup and selection process of the
initiating committee. Council Member Parry
seconded the motion. Council Member
Phillips stated that the money authorized for this contract would not be spent
until the consultant begins work. Mayor
Steinkamp clarified that the contract must be executed before the funds are
spent. Council Member Martin stated this
is not dealing with the issue at hand.
Council Member King agreed consideration of the contract could be
postponed for two weeks and a study session convened to consider the initiating
committee. Council Member Parry asked that
the initiating committee makeup and selection process be included in a Council
resolution. Council Member Hester asked
for clarification if that meant no action would be taken on the contract until
the resolution would be approved. Mayor
Steinkamp stated the Council would be required to comply with the terms of the
contract. Council Member Parry stated
that the contract could be signed after the resolution is adopted. Mayor Steinkamp stated there were several
options, depending on whether the pending motion passed or failed and whether
the ordinance passed or failed. Once
approved, the contract could sit unexecuted until the process for selection of
the initiating committee is determined and then move forward with the strategic
planning process. Council Member
Phillips stated that the members of the City Council are supposed to be leaders
and make decisions. This process is
scary because the Council will lose some control, but the Council should trust
the community. He stated he was ready to
vote. Council Member Hester stated that
she would hate to see the contract defeated because of this issue. The vote resulted in a tie (4-4-0). Council
Member Phillips, Council Member Martin, Council Member Hester and Council
Member Hadden voted in opposition. The
motion failed when Mayor Steinkamp cast a vote in opposition to the motion,
breaking the tie.
Mayor Steinkamp stated the Council could come up with
the detail about the initiating committee composition before the contract is
executed. Council Member Parker stated
that if two weeks was not too long a delay, why not wait before a final vote on
the contract.
The motion on the ordinance carried 5-3-0. Council
Member Parker, Council Member Parry and Council Member Coe voted in
opposition. The ordinance was approved
by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9043.
Mr. Wenson stated that the staff would provide
information for a discussion on the process to identify the makeup and
selection process for the initiating committee at the next study session.
D. AMENDMENTS
TO THE LIBERTY CODE OF ORDINANCES (SECOND READING)
Mr. Anderson stated that following up on previous
discussions, the staff provided additional information on the proposed Code
amendments. The recommendation at this
time is to continue item numbers 2, 3 and 5, as they affect the Unified
Development Ordinance, in order to be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning
Commission. This is consistent with how
zoning ordinance amendments have been handled in the past. Mr. Anderson noted these amendments included
the home-based occupations in accessory structures, the definition of dog
kennels and special use permits. Mayor
Steinkamp clarified that staff is requesting the ordinances be continued to the
November 27 regular session and that the Planning & Zoning Commission would
review the amendments at its meeting on November 14.
Council Member King asked for clarification of a
change requested by Council regarding the number of dogs had not been
incorporated into the ordinance, reducing the amount of land from 100 acres to
40 acres. He asked how that could be
inserted in the ordinance. Mayor
Steinkamp stated it was his understanding the Council had agreed to make the
change and that the ordinance language would need to be amended by Council
motion. Council Member King moved to
amend the ordinance regarding Section 4-23, changing the number of acres from
100 acres to 40 acres. Council Member
Coe seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to continue items 2, 3, and
5 to the November 27, 2006 regular session to permit review of the proposed
ordinances by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Council Member Phillips seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously. Mayor
Steinkamp stated items 2, 3, and 5 would be continued on second reading to the November 27,
2006 regular session.
Mr. Anderson continued his review of the remaining
items stating that the change to the ATV section would permit use on private
property from 6
a.m. to 10 p.m. The amendments
to the City Code pertaining to fireworks would permit the discharge of
fireworks within the city limits from July 1 through July 5.
Council Member King expressed appreciation to staff
for again providing a recap of what other cities permit with regard to
fireworks and said it appears Liberty’s amended ordinance would fall in the middle of what
is permitted. Council Member Hester
asked how bottle rockets would be categorized.
Mr. Anderson stated they would be included in the definition of aerial
fireworks.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone wished to comment on
the proposed amendment for ATVs. Seeing
no one, he asked if anyone wished to comment on fireworks. Lovice Sprugel, 1624 Wynbrick Drive, stated that 90% of the houses in the development
where she lives have wood shingle roofs and she is opposed to the discharge of
fireworks in the city. She stated many
of the homes in Wynbrick back up to the high school football field and that
would be a place where people might set them off. She added that mostly seniors live in
Wynbrick and many of them are concerned.
She stated this is detrimental to the neighborhood and poses a fire
hazard. Mr. Anderson stated the football
field is on property owned by the School District and
it would have to authorize use of fireworks there. Council Member Parker asked if the City could
make the School District responsible for fireworks at that location. Council Member King stated that the concern
is about something that would not be organized and asked how the police address
that type of activity. Chief Knouse
stated that fireworks are set off all over the city on July 4 and police
response is complaint driven. Council
Member King asked if the police could check this specific area during that
time. Chief Knouse stated that he would
consider this a complaint and it would be noted.
1.
USE OF ALL
TERRAIN VEHICLES – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6581 was read. Council Member Coe moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member King seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9044.
2.
HOME OCCUPATIONS
IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES – ORDINANCE
Consideration of Document No. 6582 was continued to
the November 27, 2006
meeting by motion of Council.
3.
NUMBERS OF PETS –
ORDINANCE
Consideration of Document No. 6583 was continued to
the November 27, 2006
meeting by motion of Council.
4.
FIREWORKS –
ORDINANCE
Document No. 6584 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Coe seconded
the motion, which carried 7-1-0. Council Member Parry voted in
opposition. The ordinance was approved
by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9045.
5.
SPECIAL USE
PERMITS – ORDINANCE
Consideration of Document No. 6585 was continued to
the November 27, 2006
meeting by motion of Council.
E. TRAFFIC
SIGNALS PROJECT AT WITHERS
ROAD AND SOUTH WALES
1. FINAL
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH TOTAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WITH A DECREASE
OF $8,967.75 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6590 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules and
consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Phillips seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Hadden 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. 9046.
2. ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT – RESOLUTION
Council Member Coe moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2263a.
F. AMENDMENT
TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING ON CONISTOR – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6591 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Phillips seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Coe seconded
the motion. Council Member King asked
how this would affect signage. Mr.
Anderson stated that signs have already been changed on a temporary basis. Council Member Parry asked for clarification
of whether parking would be permitted on the east side of Conistor. Mr. Anderson stated that was correct. The motion carried unanimously. It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed
in Ordinance No. 9047.
G. AGREEMENT
WITH PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. 4 PERTAINING TO SALE OF WATER – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6592 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. 9048.
X. OTHER BUSINESS
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr.
Anderson stated that a charrette had been scheduled with Whittaker Homes, including an opportunity for public input into a
master plan for the area. The fairly
firm dates are January 16 through January 25, 2007 at Heritage Hall.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Phillips stated he would not be at the next study session but would
enthusiastically support whatever was decided with regard to the initiating
committee.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk