CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2007
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 May 14, 2007 with Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp presiding. Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting to order
at 7:00
p.m.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – NICK KING
The invocation was given by Council Member Nick King who
then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Paul Jenness and Harold Phillips, Ward I; Greg Duncan and
Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Lyndell Brenton and John Parry, Ward III; and Fred
Foster and Nick King, Ward IV. Also in
attendance were Curt Wenson, City Administrator; Cynthia Boecker, Assistant
City Administrator; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; Gary Birch, Fire
Chief; Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Duane Davidson, Police Lieutenant; Bob
Kumpost, Master Police Officer; Andy Hedrick, Police Sergeant; Matthew Payne,
Police Officer; Rob Bratcher, Police Officer; Nathan Mulch, Police Officer; Joe
Gorman, Police Officer; Sheri Bennett, Animal Control Officer; Lindsay Horne,
Animal Control Officer; Marcella McCoy, Finance Manager; Steve Anderson,
Planning & Development Director; Dan Fernandez, Planner; Brian Hess, City
Engineer; Bob Blackburn, Public Works Superintendent; Tony Sage, Information
Services Director; Jonna Wensel,
Preservation Planner; Amy Brusven, Human Resources
Director; Annette Vaughn, Risk Manager; Shawnna Funderburk, Assistant to the
City Administrator; Sara Cooke, Public Relations Coordinator; Jane Sharon,
Deputy City Clerk; Jason Noble, The Kansas City Star; Angie Borgedalen, Liberty
Tribune and 80 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2007
Council Member King moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2007
Council Member Phillips moved to approve the minutes
as distributed. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C. JOINT SCHOOL BOARD/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SUMMARY OF APRIL 30, 2007
Council Member Martin moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Duncan
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
D. SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2007
Council Member Duncan moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Foster
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
E. STUDY SESSION MEETING SUMMARY OF MAY 7, 2007
Council Member Brenton moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Foster
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
F. EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2007
Council Member Martin moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
A.
RECOGNITION OF
DANIELLE STREIFTHAU AND JOHN AHLFIELD, NAMED AMONG MISSOURI SCHOLARS 100 – RESOLUTION
Mayor Steinkamp read the resolution. Council Member King moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Parry
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2295. Following its approval the
copies of the resolution were presented to Danielle Streifthau and John
Ahlfield by Mayor Steinkamp.
B.
NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION MONTH
Mayor Steinkamp read the proclamation and presented it
to Historic District Review Commission Member John Carr.
C.
NATIONAL POLICE
WEEK
Mayor Steinkamp read the proclamation and presented it
to Police Officer Rob Bratcher.
D.
NATIONAL PUBLIC
WORKS WEEK
Mayor Steinkamp read the proclamation and presented it
to Public Works Superintendent Bobby Blackburn.
E.
RECOGNITION OF LIBERTY HIGH
SCHOOL’S
SPEECH DEBATE TEAM – RESOLUTION
Mayor Steinkamp read the resolution. Council Member King moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Duncan
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2296. Following its approval, the resolution
was presented to members of the Liberty High School Speech & Debate Team by
Mayor Steinkamp.
F.
RECOGNITION OF
ALEXANDER DONIPHAN 4TH & 5TH GRADE PEAK STUDENTS –
RESOLUTION
Mayor Steinkamp read the resolution. Council Member Parry moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Foster
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2297. Following its approval, the
resolution was presented to members of the Alexander Doniphan 4th
& 5th grade PEAK students by Mayor Steinkamp.
G.
RECOGNITION OF
AUSTIN HAYWOOD, NAMED OUTSTANDING MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE
YEAR – RESOLUTION
Mayor Steinkamp read the resolution. Council Member Parry moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Duncan
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2298. Following its approval, the
resolution was presented to Austin Haywood by Mayor Steinkamp.
Jeff Roe, 1104 Wellington Way, asked for clarification of the auditor’s
duties. He cited Section 29-47.4 and
Section 29-5.3 of the City Code, which mentions records to be available for
examination by the City Council and auditor.
Mayor Steinkamp stated that the Council was not prepared to respond
immediately but would look into his question.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
B. ELECTION
OF NICK KING AS MAYOR PRO TEM, TO A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 14, 2008 – MOTION
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM APRIL 13, 2007 THROUGH MAY 4, 2007 – ORDINANCE
Council Member Brenton requested that check number
101233 and check number 101270 be removed and voted on separately. Document No. 6669 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance with the exception of the above-referenced checks. Council Member Brenton seconded the
motion. Council Member Martin asked if
the items noted as overhead door repair were for the same door. Public Works Director Steve Hansen stated the
additional repair costs were for the same sally port door. Mrs. Martin noted the amount of the repair
was getting closer to his previous estimate for a new door, which he had
indicated would be $15,000.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Phillips – yes; Council Member
Martin – yes; Council Member Brenton – yes; Council Member Foster – yes;
Council Member Jenness – yes; Council Member Duncan – yes; Council Member Parry
– yes; Council Member King - yes. The
motion carried unanimously; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in
Ordinance No. 9128.
Council Member King moved to approve checks numbered
101233 and 101270. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion. Vote on the motion
was as follows: Council Member Phillips
– yes; Council Member Martin – yes; Council Member Brenton – abstain, due to
possible conflict of interest; Council Member Foster – yes; Council Member Jenness
– yes; Council Member Duncan – yes; Council Member Parry – yes; Council Member King
- yes. The motion carried 7-0-1; it was
approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9128.
B. *REZONING
OF APPROXIMATELY 39.91 ACRES FROM R-1A, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO MU,
MIXED USE DISTRICT, SOUTHEAST OF WITHERS ROAD AND OLD WITHERS ROAD INTERSECTION
– ORDINANCE (SECOND READING)
Planner Dan Fernandez stated the application for
rezoning and preliminary development plan is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan which calls for Mixed Use in this area. It also conforms to the Unified Development
Ordinance. He stated the preliminary
development plan is a vision for the area and a more intensive plan would come
forward at the final development plan stage.
He stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval
of the rezoning and preliminary development plan.
Council Member Martin asked about the floodway in the
proposed plan. Mr. Fernandez stated a
floodway is an area that cannot be touched.
Council Member Phillips asked about the difference between a floodway
and a 100-year flood plain. City
Engineer Brian Hess stated that a floodway is a smaller area where the stream
is located and just outside the stream.
Development can occur in the floodplain, where grading can be used to
build up out of the floodplain.
Development is not permitted in the floodway. Council Member King requested clarification
of the location of the flood plain in this proposal. Mr. Hess noted it is along the west and
southern end of the site. Mr. King asked
about the effect of the flood plain on the cost of development. Mr. Hess stated it is depends on the type of
development. If a structure is built, it
must be brought up one foot above the flood plain, while parking lots might not
have the same requirement. Property and
life cannot be placed in jeopardy and the development in a flood plain must
comply with federal guidelines.
Mr. King asked about the square footage of the
building on Phase III in the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Fernandez stated that is not known,
because the detail of buildings is addressed in the final development plan
phase of development. Mr. King asked if
it appeared there would be room for buffers in the third phase with that size
of building. Mr. Fernandez said it
appeared there would not be sufficient room for buffers, but it would depend on
the use. Mr. King asked about parking
required for that size building. Mr.
Fernandez said it again depends on the use.
Parking required for a restaurant is determined by seating. A lower intensity business might have less
parking required. Mr. King asked if the
site could not support a restaurant. Mr.
Fernandez stated it would depend on the design.
Council Member Martin asked about the current zoning
of the proposed development. Mr.
Fernandez stated it is zoned R-1A, Suburban Residential District. Mrs. Martin asked if the proposed development
could look quite different when it comes forward for consideration of a final
development plan. Mr. Fernandez stated
that it could because the final development plan stage is when the detail of
the proposed development is provided and reviewed.
Council Member Phillips asked if development in Phase
II would have to be built up because it is in the flood plain. Mr. Hess stated that is correct. Mr. Phillips asked what happens to the
property downstream if this site is built up.
Mr. Hess stated that a study is conducted with the final development
plan and that is looked at intensively.
It could affect property downstream and the study considers that.
Council Member King asked what is planned for the
property to the west and north of Phase III.
Mr. Fernandez stated the Future Land Use Plan calls for Mixed Use to the
north and west.
Council Member Brenton asked for clarification. Mr. Fernandez stated the small piece adjacent
to this proposed development is designated for Mixed Use and beyond that is
conventional residential development.
Mr. Brenton stated that, with only one land owner for
those areas it seemed more likely the area would be developed as conventional residential
and not mixed use. Planning &
Development Director Steve Anderson stated that land use designation is not
precise. Conventional residential
development moving into Mixed Use is logical, but staff works with the
developer to allow more flexibility closer to the area identified by Mixed Use
and less toward residential. Mr. Brenton
stated he has always expected some tweaking of the Comprehensive Plan to
occur. Mr. Anderson noted that one
amendment has already been adopted for the Blackberry development. Mr. Brenton noted much of this discussion and
review comes from looking at the Future Land Use Plan, but the Parks & Open
Space Master Plan also addresses this area and notes a park with a riparian
buffer that uses the pond. Mr. Anderson
stated that was correct and that the floodway is over 50 acres. Mr. Brenton asked how Phase II is identified
on the Parks & Open Space Master Plan.
Mr. Anderson stated that the staff consults with the developer but, by
law, cannot require parkland dedication.
In instances when land is not dedicated, a fee in lieu of parkland is
added to the development costs. The fees
collected are used to buy parkland. If
there is no dedication of parkland, staff works with the developer to encourage
open space and green space. That level
of detail is reviewed in the final development plan.
Mayor Steinkamp stated that while the public hearing
for this application had been held on Monday, April 23, 2007, and was closed, he would allow an opportunity for
public comment on this matter from those present. He asked how many wished to speak and asked
them to limit their time to 3 minutes or less.
John Roe, Roe & Epstein law firm, stated he
represented the applicant and this was truly a Mixed-Use proposal. He stated there is a need in Liberty for good senior housing with opportunities for
shopping, dining and possible employment.
He stated that Mixed Use has been planned for this area since 1999 and
was also included in the planning done a year or two ago. All development will militate away from R-1A
and toward Mixed Use. Mr. Roe added that
Withersfield is not adjacent to this development site and that there is a
property in between, which is not an established neighborhood. He stated the plan doesn’t show a connection
to Withersfield because that is 10 years down the road. The City has control of that process.
Mr. Roe stated that the trend today is to put
residential in with commercial development and referenced Kansas City projects that are combining the two. He noted the footprint for Phase II has business
uses and the closest point in Phase III to the nearest home in the Withersfield subdivision is about 700 feet. He stated that Aquila
wanted to tear down trees in between and the applicant stopped them in order to
maintain a vegetative buffer.
Dawn McMorrow, 1822 Surrey Street, stated that she is opposed to Phase III of the
proposed development and provided a petition, noting it was signed by 129
residents. She expressed concerns about
the safety of children due to the increased traffic. She said Mr. Hansen had stated that traffic
would increase over time and placing the entrance onto Buckingham would add to
the traffic in the neighborhood. She
asked the Council to say no to lower quality neighborhoods and no to a speedway
shortcut through Withersfield by voting against the
rezoning of Phase III.
Hank Schmell, 1854
Bernadine, stated that he was not interested in living near a Zona Rosa-type
development. He stated that a home is
generally the largest personal investment a person makes and he would be
watching how the Council handles this.
Tate Plachecki, 1559 Smiley, stated he is opposed to
the proposed development. He stated he
didn’t see this in the paper and requested a summary of action to date. Mayor Steinkamp stated that the rezoning is
brought forward as an ordinance. There
was an official public hearing in front of the Planning & Zoning Commission
and before the City Council in April.
Ordinances require two readings and if the rules are not waived, they
are considered on second reading at the next regular session. The rules were not waived for this ordinance
and it is on second reading at this meeting.
Doug Clark, 1909 Parkside, expressed concern that
there is a middle school just up from this site and 600 children would be
exposed to this development after school.
Tim Callaway, 1705 Parkside, stated there is a flood
plain on this site and development there would come back to haunt the City.
Joyce Chester, 1830 Surrey,
stated she had questions about the buffer.
She asked if some had been removed and if so, what had stopped the
removal and when was it stopped. Ms.
Chester stated she is opposed to Phase III.
David Sanders, McDonald Warger Engineering, stated he
had emails and other information where the applicant had attempted to set up a
public meeting on May 8, but no one attended.
Meg Roberts, 1831 Surrey,
stated that she chose the Withersfield subdivision because of the conservation
area. She stated that 130 inches of
trunk space had already been removed.
She stated that, even if not for 10 years, Phase III would affect the
neighborhood. She added that with
Withersfield being on the edge of the city limits at the time, she didn’t
expect development. Ms. Roberts noted
that a small creek had become a large creek and it has been over its banks due
to the flood plain. She stated the area
underneath the bridge is clogged with mud and timber. Ms. Roberts stated she is opposed to the
application.
Tracy Roberts, 1831 Surrey Street, stated in looking
at Mixed Use properties in cities and towns, such as Los Angeles, that whether
it’s five, ten or fifteen years, crime rates go up in Mixed Use areas.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to
comment. Seeing none, he returned
discussion to the City Council.
Document No. 6662 was read. Council Member Phillips moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Jenness
seconded the motion. Council Member
Brenton stated that he was not as prepared to discuss the floodway/floodplain
issues as he would like. He also stated he
believed the Land Use Plan, as part of the Comprehensive Plan would be amended
from time to time. Mr. Brenton stated
that he was excited about the senior housing proposed with this development and
would be interested to see what was planned for Phase II. Phase III, Mr. Brenton continued, falls in
the category to be tweaked. He had noted
multi-family apartments and business uses with loft apartments mentioned in the
application, but did not see any single family dwellings in the proposal.
Council Member Phillips stated that he is a huge fan
of mixed use and lives in mixed use where his experience has been zero
crime. Mr. Phillips stated he ran for
City Council because of a neighborhood issue and appreciated those in
attendance getting involved. He
expressed concern about the flood plain.
He also expressed concern about rezoning Phase III without being able to
see the bigger picture as to how it would fit on the site.
Council Member King stated he represents the citizens
of Ward IV who are concerned about getting South Liberty Parkway completed to 291 Highway. In order to do that, development is needed to
bring in the necessary revenue. He
stated that previous Councils had foresight in planning the roadways so that
development could occur. While the area
had been farmland at one time, it was not expected to stay that way. There is a roadway there now, built to open
land for development. Mr. King
continued, saying it is important that development move forward in an organized
way. The Future Land Use Plan has
traditional neighborhood development and mixed use (of which he is also a
fan). Mixed Use provides for more of a
neighborhood center with residences and businesses together.
Mr. King stated that the citizens have helped decide
what is going to happen. Hundreds of
citizens provided input with the Future Land Use Plan and the South Liberty Parkway. This happened
based on an organized methodology to keep Liberty looking like Liberty. The Future
Land Use Plan was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission and was
approved by the City Council with only one abstention by Mr. Parry, who is a
landowner. He stated that citizens have
said what they want the Parkway to look like and it took more than one try to
have an acceptable plan. This
application fits and is before Council.
There is likely to be some tweaking as it moves through the development
process.
Mr. King stated that he has an obligation in
representing Ward IV to adopt this ordinance and will vote in favor of its
approval. The citizens have worked hard
and the staff has worked very hard. He
stated that the citizens need to know that they can trust the staff to address
buffering, traffic calming and not to recommend anything in Phase III that is
objectionable or inappropriate. He
stated he knows some of those present are uncertain but they can trust this
Council and the staff to look out for their best interests.
Council Member Duncan stated that, while the jury on
Mixed Use is still out, he recently looked at Mixed Use development and was
very excited about what he saw in Charlotte. He stated
there is a process for this application and this discussion and comment
opportunity are part of the process the Council is going through right
now. He stated he would be uncomfortable
going around that process. Mr. Duncan asked
if this application includes what is typically provided for a preliminary
development plan. He also asked if there
would be another option to split the zoning.
Mr. Anderson stated there is nothing typical about a
preliminary development plan and each one is based on the applicant’s
proposal. He stated that staff looks at
what is presented and whether it is consistent with an overall vision of the
area. He said the preliminary
development plan sets the tone of what can occur, but the detail is reviewed in
the final planning stage. This ordinance
does not require review of the details for the proposed development.
Mr. Anderson stated the City’s legal counsel advises
against changing the zoning for one part of the site. Rather, options could include imposing stipulations,
approving the rezoning, denying the rezoning or remanding the case to Planning
& Zoning Commission for further review.
Council Member Martin commended the citizens present,
stating it is very important to hear from everyone and it helps the City
Council to understand what issues are of concern. She stated she is excited about Phase I and
it would be good to have additional housing where seniors can reside. Mrs. Martin stated that, though she would
like more information, Phase II could be good as it would generate more
revenue. Mrs. Martin stated Phase III
had not been thought through yet and so was an unknown.
Council Member Martin asked if a drive-through was
permitted in the Mixed Use District, for example if a bank were to be included
in the development. Mr. Anderson stated
a variance or stipulation would be required in that instance. Mrs. Martin questioned whether R-1A zoning might
be more appropriate to tie Phase III into development of the area to the north,
which is designated for conventional development, given the area designated for
mixed use immediately north of Phase III is very small.
Council Member Brenton asked what is required to
approve business uses in a particular zoning district. Mr. Anderson stated that once zoning is
approved, any use permitted within that zoning district would be allowed. Mr. Brenton asked if a restaurant/bar was a
likely fit for the Phase III site. Mr.
Anderson said it was not, but could go in if permitted in that zoning. Mr. Brenton stated it is not a matter of trust
but what the City commits to that is at issue.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if other uses, such as urgent care or child care
would also be permitted in a Mixed Use District. Mr. Anderson stated it is better to say what
is not permitted. Mixed Use is an
integrated design. Mayor Steinkamp
stated that he just wanted to point out that there are many permitted uses
other than those being mentioned that could end up in a development with Mixed
Use zoning. Mr. Anderson stated that is
correct. Council Member Brenton stated
the concern was for uses that would generate high traffic.
Council Member King asked if the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) isn’t also a safeguard, including restrictions. Mr. Anderson stated that was correct and that
the Mixed Use district has the most restrictive, intensive design
standards. Mr. King asked about
setbacks. Mr. Anderson stated that
development could be built up to the street, in order to promote creativity in
design, with stoops and porches toward the street.
Council Member Martin asked if a used car lot would be
permitted in Mixed Use, as long as the standards are met in relation to the
UDO. Mr. Fernandez stated no outside
storage is permitted in Mixed Use districts.
Council Member Brenton moved to amend the ordinance to
require development in the tract west of Withers Road, identified as Phase III on the preliminary
development plan be restricted to single-family housing. Mr. Anderson clarified that attached single
family dwellings are permitted in the Mixed Use District. Mr. Brenton stated his proposed amendment is
consistent with Section 30-60.3 of the UDO in the City Code as the tract that
abuts the development is adjacent to land designated for conventional
single-family residential and so this tract is more likely to develop that
way. He stated that if the 3-acre tract
is zoned commercial, there would be concern about the tract to the north, which
is conventional residential development.
Mr. Brenton stated the first two phases are great opportunities, but Phase
III is less than ten percent of the proposed development, which already
includes residential, commercial and mixed uses. He stated the attorney for the applicant
stated this development is not adjacent to residential but there is concern
about high traffic areas off Buckingham generated by what might go into Phase
III. That piece could always be rezoned
to a less restrictive zoning later. Mayor
Steinkamp noted that the property is currently zoned R-1A for single-family
residential. Mr. Anderson stated that
attached single-family units are permitted in the Mixed Use District.
Mr. Anderson clarified Mr. Brenton is proposing to
approve the rezoning of the entire development area to Mixed Use, but add a
stipulation that Phase III would be developed as single-family
residential. Mr. Brenton stated his
intent is to allow development of only single-family residential as permitted
in Mixed Use Districts. He added that loft
space, multi-family units and business uses are not included in what he is
proposing. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion.
Council Member Duncan asked about the motion,
requesting clarification of whether it meant that anything permitted in Mixed
Use Districts could go in Phase I and Phase II, but not in Phase III. Mr. Anderson stated that, if the ordinance is
adopted it is proposed to be amended, anything other
than single-family residential would have to come back to City Council for
consideration of an amendment. Mr.
Duncan stated this appeared to provide a safeguard but would not disallow what
might be proposed for development. Mr.
Anderson stated that, as proposed, an amendment would be required to develop Phase
III with anything other than single-family residential or a rezoning of the
tract. Once a rezoning is approved,
Council no longer controls what is developed on the site. Mr. Duncan stated that this does not preclude
the next steps to get there.
Council Member Jenness asked if this is a common
practice with Mixed Use zoning. Mr.
Anderson stated this is only the second application to rezone property to Mixed
Use and the first included a stipulation.
Council Member King stated he appreciated the motion, but believes it is
very severe and he would not vote in favor of the amendment. Council Member Phillips stated that this
would permit this segment to be developed and the developer could work together
with the property owner to the north on the next phase.
Council Member Brenton stated his motion affirms Phase
III for Mixed Use, but if housing is not a good fit for the tract, the
applicant could come back with an alternate proposal. This is a way to move forward with the
applicant’s development plans. Council
Member Jenness asked for clarification that this did not mean the Council loses
the ability to revisit this in the future.
Mr. Anderson stated it does not.
Mr. Jenness stated the developer has gone through the proper stages and
he is uncomfortable limiting the development.
If the Council can revisit the matter in the future, however, he asked
why this action was necessary now.
Council Member Brenton stated this action is less severe than losing the
entire proposal, if the rezoning were to be denied as a package. He added that the citizens have spoken
loudly.
Council Member King stated there is another choice
that is less severe and that would be to vote in favor of the rezoning as
proposed. The amendment carried 4-3-0. Council
Member Foster, Council Member Jenness and Council Member King voted in
opposition.
Council Member Brenton moved to approve the ordinance
as amended. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9129.
Council Member Martin commended Council Member Brenton
on his efforts to meet with Withersfield residents regarding their concerns and
expressed disappointment that none of these residents attended the meeting set
up by the applicant.
Mayor Steinkamp called for a break in the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting back into session
at 9:15
p.m. Council Member Parry returned to the meeting
at this time.
C. EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS
Mr. Wenson stated that staff was available to answer
questions pertaining to the agreements related to employee benefits. Mayor Steinkamp noted that due to the need to
enter into agreements as soon as possible, staff has requested the ordinances
be considered on first reading.
1. MEDICAL
COVERAGE PLAN AGREEMENT WITH BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6670 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Jenness seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Brenton seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9130.
2. DENTAL
COVERAGE PLAN AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6671 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 Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9131.
3. SHORT
TERM DISABILITY COVERAGE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY –
ORDINANCE
Document No. 6672 was read. Council Member Duncan moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member King seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin 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. 9132.
4. ADDITIONAL
COVERAGE AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF COLUMBUS GEORGIA – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6673 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 King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9133.
5. IDENTITY
THEFT AND LEGAL SERVICES COVERAGE AGREEMENT WITH PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES –
ORDINANCE
Document No. 6674 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Jenness seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Parry seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9134.
6. AGREEMENT
WITH INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF A ROTH IRA PLAN – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6675 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 Phillips 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. 9135.
D. ADOPTION
OF LEGAL DEFENSE POLICY – RESOLUTION
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion. Council Member
Brenton asked how this policy differs from the current policy. Human Resources Director Amy Brusven stated
there is no current policy in place.
Mayor Steinkamp asked for clarification that this policy provides for
indemnification of employees. Ms.
Brusven said it does.
Council Member Parry moved to continue consideration
of the resolution until a study session could be scheduled to review the
policy. Council Member Foster seconded
the motion. Mr. Wenson stated the item
could be added to the study session agenda on June 4. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Steinkamp stated the matter would be
considered at a regular session after council members had an opportunity to
review the policy in a study session on June 4.
E. VACATION
OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
1. WEST KANSAS STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CONNECTION WITH LIBERTY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
a. DISCLAIMING
AND ABANDONING A SECTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6676 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 King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Foster
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9136.
b. QUIT
CLAIM DEED TRANSFERRING A SECTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6677 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Duncan seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9137.
2. DISCLAIMING
AND ABANDONING RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG LAUREL AVENUE SOUTH OF WALNUT STREET – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6678 was read. Council Member Phillips moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Foster seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Jenness
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9138.
3. DISCLAIMING
AND ABANDONING RIGHT-OF-WAY, AN ALLEY BETWEEN WEST OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN GROOM AND BROWN STREETS – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6679 was read. Council Member Jenness 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 Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9139.
F. TRAFFIC
SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT CLAYWOODS DRIVE AND M-291 HIGHWAY
1. FINAL
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH MUSSELMANN & HALL WITH A DECREASE OF $3,039.24
IN THE FINAL AMOUNT– ORDINANCE
Document No. 6680 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member King seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Council Member Jenness moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member King seconded
the motion. Council Member King stated
it was great to see a decrease in a contract amount. Council Member Foster asked if the work is
done, because there is no grass yet. Mr.
Hess stated that maintenance items remain.
The contractor is regrading and seeding as
well as replacing a piece of concrete that was damaged during
construction. The motion carried
unanimously. It was approved by the Chair
and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9140.
2. ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT – RESOLUTION
Council Member King moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2299.
G. CONTRACT
WITH THE METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE TIPS HOTLINE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,000 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6681 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Jenness seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Duncan moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion. Council Member
Brenton asked for clarification of the amount paid for participation in the
program. Police Chief Craig Knouse said
it is $1,000. Council Member King asked
if Liberty has benefited from the program. Chief Knouse said it has. The motion carried unanimously. It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed
in Ordinance No. 9141.
X. OTHER BUSINESS – None.
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr.
Wenson stated there would be no packet next week and no meeting is scheduled
for May 21. He also noted the kickoff
meeting to the Strategic Planning process starts at 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, May 17.
Assistant City Administrator Cynthia Boecker stated that meeting
materials would be provided at 5:45 p.m. and the meeting would begin at 6:30 p.m.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Phillips stated the trees planted in the Jewell Historic District are
not looking good.
Council
Member Martin stated there are weeds in the median strip on Kansas Street.
Council
Member Brenton asked if council members could be notified when utility line
clearance work is being done. Mr. Hansen
said that the City is notified only when streets must be closed, but no permits
are required for work in utility easements.
Mr. Brenton stated it was a street closure that prompted several calls
he received from citizens and he would anticipate the utility companies would
be pleased to inform the City if asked to do so.
Council
Member Duncan asked if the resolutions and proclamations could be presented
already framed instead of in the folders.
Mayor Steinkamp stated he had inquired about that and was advised it was
a budget issue.
Council
Member King stated there is water accumulating at 291 Highway at Ruth Ewing in
the island and it pools on the road. He
also mentioned that the high school orchestra had played recently at the Jamestown 400th anniversary celebration and later in
Washington, D.C. at which time President Bush conducted the orchestra
briefly. He stated their appearance
received attention and acclaim.
Mr.
King stated he had gone on the tour of Mount Memorial Cemetery on the William Jewell College campus and was very impressed. He stated that grant funds might be available
for work there through the Preserve America program. There is quite a connection to the history of
the City in that cemetery and it should be preserved and appropriate signage
added. Mr. King also stated there were
only two examples of signs in the recent sign regulations survey. He suggested a panel be formed to come up
with a template for what is permitted.
Mr. King stated it was an honor to waive the rules for the addition of
AFLAC insurance to the employee benefits provided.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated that the Liberty Heritage Festival is on May 19 and the
Westgate Division MML dinner meeting is scheduled for May 24. He will not be attending but said it would be
appropriate to have at least one council member in attendance representing the
City of Liberty.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk