CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 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 June 25, 2007 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 Paul Jenness
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Paul Jenness, Ward I; Anna Marie Martin and Greg Duncan,
Ward II; 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; Gary Birch, Fire
Chief; Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Linda Tyree, Finance Director; Marcella
McCoy, Finance Manager; Kathy Goode, Accounting Coordinator; Diana Adams,
Special Projects Manager; Celia McBride, Finance Analyst; Steve Anderson,
Planning & Development Director; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; Brian
Hess, City Engineer; Rebecca Wymore, City Planner; Dan Fernandez, Planner;
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 26 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES (SEE CONSENT AGENDA)
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
Elizabeth
Anderson, 207 E.
Hurt Street,
requested the Council consider a no-smoking ordinance in Liberty city parks, specifically setting a 25-foot perimeter
in areas designated for children. She
stated her daughter has asthma and has to have breathing treatments. The occurrence of asthma in children under
age 17 has increased dramatically since the 1990s. She recognized that people have a right to
smoke, but her daughter has a right to be able to use the parks without being
exposed to smoke. Ms. Anderson requested
that the Council consider this separately from any no-smoking policy it will
review for buildings. She stated the
parks are a public system and all should have the right to use them.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated that a Council study session to consider no-smoking policies
is scheduled for July 16, 2007.
Fay
Bedinger, 232 W. Franklin, asked the Council to do something to fix Kansas and Franklin Streets and the alleys.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2007
Council Member Martin moved to approve the regular
session minutes as distributed. Council
Member Duncan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
B.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2007
Council Member Martin moved to approve the executive
session minutes as distributed. Council
Member Duncan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C.
STUDY SESSION
MEETING SUMMARY OF JUNE 18, 2007
Council Member Martin moved to approve the study
session meeting summary as distributed.
Council Member Duncan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. *FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 36,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON TRACT 9 IN OAKWOOD BUSINESS PARK – RESOLUTION (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING)
Mayor Steinkamp stated the final development plan does
not call for a public hearing but was placed on the agenda to be considered
before the next items requiring public hearings.
Planner Dan Fernandez stated this application is for a
36,000 square foot building on Tract 9 of the Oakwood Business Park with one lot on 3.36 acres. The lot has access to adequate public
facilities. The building will be one-story with parking to the east and a
delivery area to the west. The site has
access to Plumbers
Way. Forty-one parking spaces on the east side of
the building are proposed. The 36,000
square foot building is proposed to be constructed of concrete paneling with
cultured stone accents. The application
substantially conforms to requirements set forth in the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) and staff recommended approval of the application. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended approval by a vote of 7-0.
Council Member Martin asked if Industrial Drive would eventually be extended to the site. Mr. Fernandez said it would eventually
connect to the site. Mrs. Martin asked
if the street connection would be facing the front side of the building. Mr. Fernandez said that was correct.
Council Member King moved to approve the final
development plan. Council Member Parry
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2302.
B. *PROPERTY
AT INTERSECTION OF RICHFIELD AND LA FRENZ ROADS
1. AMENDMENT
OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL TO CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL
– RESOLUTION
Mr. Fernandez stated the applicant is proposing to
change land use designation from Traditional Residential to Conventional Residential
on the City’s Future Land Use Map. This
requires an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which established a
vision for future growth and development.
The site southwest of the intersection of Richfield and LaFrenz Roads is currently identified as
Traditional Residential. This type of
neighborhood consists of shorter building setbacks, the use of alleys, public
open spaces and has a higher density of houses than conventional developments. Conventional Residential is characterized by
detached single-family dwellings and tends to be automobile-oriented. This has been the prominent type of housing
development experienced in Liberty
over the past several decades, and is developed using the standards outlined in
the R-1C, standard single-family residential district. Given the site’s proximity to other low
density developments, such as Clay Meadows, amending the Future Land Use Map to
designate the area as conventional residential would be appropriate. The Blueprint for Liberty suggests that development to the east of the city
keep its rural character. A lower
density development would be a better transition from the conventional
residential to the west to the rural type development on the eastern side of
the city.
Mr. Fernandez stated the staff sought direction from
the Planning & Zoning Commission and now seeks direction from Council
regarding this application. The Planning
& Zoning Commission recommended approval of the amendment by a vote of 7-0.
Council Member Martin asked if the applicant’s request
to build 51 homes is part of what is being considered. Mr. Fernandez stated this is only looking at
what is appropriate for development on this site. Mrs. Martin asked if the designation would
revert back to Traditional Residential if no development comes forward. Mr. Fernandez stated that this amendment
would replace Traditional Residential with Conventional Residential land use
designation for this area and that designation would remain in place unless
amended in the future.
Council Member King referenced the discussion in the
Planning & Zoning Commission minutes about water and sewer. Mr. Fernandez stated that can be reviewed in
discussion of the next application.
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak in favor of the application. John Roe, Roe & Epstein, 920 Main Street, Kansas
City, Missouri, stated he represents the applicant. He stated that in 1999 when Traditional
Residential designation was included in the Future Land Use Map, this would allow
six units per acre. The surrounding area
has not developed that way and to be more in keeping with what’s in place
Conventional Residential, with a lower density, is more appropriate. He referred to the staff report, which
includes the statement that conventional residential would be appropriate for
this area. Mr. Roe requested favorable
consideration of the amendment.
Council Member Martin asked for more information about
BTF Management, the applicant. Mr. Roe
stated that Jay Mueller is the applicant and his son owns the property.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
in favor of the application. Seeing
none, he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application.
Denise Dunham, 803 S. LaFrenz, asked for a clearer understanding
of the relationship between the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning
application. She stated she is opposed
to the development as proposed.
Planning & Development Director Steve Anderson
stated that with all applications that come forward, the staff first consults
the City’s zoning map. He added that the
Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision for development and what is appropriate
for the area. If the map shows
industrial development, for example, there should be an expectation that the
property would be zoned for that type of use.
If the zoning does not appear consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it
is first determined whether the Comprehensive Plan can be amended.
Council Member King asked for clarification, stating
in this case the current land use calls for dense development, so there would
be Clay Meadows, which is less dense, and then rural, which is way less dense
and the Traditional Residential would place dense development in between the
two. He stated that area residents are
opposed to that. Mr. Anderson stated the
staff doesn’t make recommendations on amending the Comprehensive Plan because
it is used by staff in making recommendations on applications. He added that this area has always been
troublesome with regard to land use designation.
Council Member Duncan asked if other areas around this
one are designated Conventional Residential besides Clay Meadows. East of LaFrenz is designated Rural on the
Future Land Use Map and south of this area is Traditional Residential. Mr. Duncan stated it appears this will leave
a pocket of Traditional Residential if the designation is changed for this
area. Mr. Anderson stated that is
correct and staff would review that as directed by Council.
Mayor Steinkamp reminded those wishing to speak during
this public hearing that this was to address the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan only.
Leo Dunham, 803 S. LaFrenz Road, asked how many units per acre are permitted in
Conventional Residential. Mr. Anderson
stated the density standard at the most dense for Conventional Residential is 2
to 2.75 dwelling units per acre, such as what is in Clay Meadows. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
to the application. Seeing none, he
closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Council.
Council Member Parry moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion. Council Member King
stated this addresses how the land could be developed and is a move in the
right direction so the area would not be so densely populated. He stated he would vote in favor of the
resolution. Council Member Martin stated
she agreed with this proposal to move from higher to lower density for this
area. Council Member Duncan stated his
only concern was leaving the isolated piece of Traditional Residential, but the
Council could wait and see what is proposed for that area. Council Member Martin stated that it was
appropriate to wait until a proposal is made for that area before considering
changing the land use designation for it.
The motion carried unanimously and is inscribed in
Resolution No. 2303.
2. REZONE
AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LIBERTY FARMS SUBDIVISION – ORDINANCE
Mr. Fernandez stated this application requests
rezoning from R-1A, Suburban Residential District, to R-1C, Standard
Single-Family Residential District. He
stated the preliminary development plan meets all the requirements for
providing adequate public facilities with the site having access to the City’s
water and sewer system. With the
previous action amending the designation of this site to Conventional
Residential this rezoning would now conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Functional open space is to remain with seven
acres undeveloped. The application meets
the requirements for conventional neighborhood developments and the staff
recommended approval. The Planning &
Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application by a vote of 7-0.
Council Member King asked if any lots would remain
unbuffered. Mr. Fernandez stated there
were two lots proposed along the open space and a third on the perimeter of the
development which showed no buffering.
The proposed buffering is between the development and the adjacent
properties. Mr. King asked about a part
of the plan that appeared to have
something
already on it. Mr. Fernandez stated that
is an out lot which has an existing house on it. Mr. King asked if the house is occupied. Mr. Fernandez stated he didn’t believe it
was. Council Member Martin asked for the
definition of an out lot. Mr. Anderson
stated it is a lot with an existing home that remains in the development and
the development is built around it.
Council Member Jenness asked what improvements to the
intersection would be necessary with this development. City Engineer Brian Hess stated that the
street improvements for access to the development would be addressed with the
final development plan application, when more details are available. Council Member Foster asked if any changes
would be needed at the Richfield Road and LaFrenz Road intersection.
Mr. Hess stated that this development could work with the existing
right-of-way. It was anticipated that no
additional lanes would be required and the roads would be left without curbs
and guttering.
Council Member Martin asked about the extension of
Goldenrain Tree. Mr. Fernandez stated
Goldenrain Tree would be extended only if necessary and the road in the
development would end in that development with its extension addressed when the
property to the south develops. Mrs.
Martin asked about plans for a park on the seven acres of open space being
proposed. Mr. Anderson stated it would
become part of the linear park system and the trail extended. Mrs. Martin asked about the water showing on
the plan. Mr. Anderson stated the wet
pond would remain until the trail is installed or some other design is
considered. Mrs. Martin asked if the
City maintains the area. Mr. Anderson
stated that, until a trail is installed, minimum maintenance is required. Once the trail is installed, maintenance is
required to keep the trail clear. Mrs.
Martin asked if the pond would be the City’s responsibility to maintain. Mr. Hess stated it would be a storm water
detention facility and would be the responsibility of the home owner’s
association although the City would have access to make improvements, if
necessary.
Council Member King asked about the water and sewer for
the development. Mr. Hess stated that a 12-inch
main would be extended down Richfield Road and then along LaFrenz Road. Mr. King
stated that residents have expressed concern to him about Liberty bringing water and sewer to the area since it was
annexed years ago. He said he would like
to help those residents understand what they would need to do if they were
interested in connecting to City water.
Public Works Director Steve Hansen stated that to be served by Liberty, the residents would first have to be detached by the
Water Supply District by which they are currently served. The residents would have to communicate their
interest directly to the Water District first before the City would get
involved.
Council Member Martin asked if this development would
resolve issues for the citizens on Easy Street.
Mr. Hess said the improvements connected with this development would not
address their issues, but five fire hydrants would be added along Richfield. Mrs. Martin
asked where the detention pond is located on the proposed development. Mr. Hess reviewed the locations, showing the drainage
basins and interceptors required to extend the basin to serve it. He stated the interceptor has to be extended
to the north to serve the area and pointed out the sub-mains in relation to
Clay Meadows, which follow LaFrenz Road. The southern
edge of the development cannot be served by existing mains. Mr. Hess reviewed the storm drainage and
noted the drainage follows the ridge lines with drainage to each side of the
ridge line. The northern corner drains
to the north and the rest of the site drains to the south and west under Clay
Meadows. Mrs. Martin asked if the storm
water issues in the area would be exacerbated by the development. Mr. Hess stated that they would not. Mayor Steinkamp asked if detention would be
required. Mr. Hess stated that it would
not be required and, after development, most storm water would go to the pond
with a small piece going to the east.
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak to the application.
John Roe, Roe & Epstein, 920 Main Street, Kansas
City, Missouri, stated he represents the applicant. He stated the property is currently zoned
R-1A and there are factors that support rezoning it to R-1C. He stated that the property has been vacant
as zoned for quite a while and the rezoning request is consistent with the area
zoning. Mr. Roe stated the preliminary
plan calls for frontage to exceed the required minimum. He noted the Blueprint for Liberty talks about a sense of community and with connections
to the north, south, east and west, this development would have that. He stated the Blueprint calls for green space
and this development would set aside seven acres for open space. Mr. Roe added that benefits of this
development include a variety of housing options, the size of the lots, access
by foot, bike, a parking area to encourage people to park near the trail; it is
close to school; there are lanes with landscaped median in the development;
trees are preserved as much as they can be; the development would use the
natural drainage ways and there would be sidewalks for pedestrians. This development would be a full service
community and have connectivity. Mr. Roe
requested favorable consideration of the rezoning application.
Lou Rittersbacher stated his address had changed over
the years and is now 475 Easy Street. He stated
he’s been a resident of the area for 21 years and the reasons he moved to Liberty are disappearing.
He asked the Council to consider leaving the zoning R-1A because they
will be losing the pastoral setting, but knowing it’s unlikely Council will
support that recommendation, he asked Council to support Mr. Roe’s proposal,
because is offers lower density. He
stated Liberty is changing to the Kansas City he left and it is no longer a small town. He stated he would retire, sell out and won’t
have to see the town’s demise.
Robert Axtell, 512 Easy Street, stated he is a country boy and is looking for
country life near the City. He asked the
Council to leave the area like it is, to leave the sewer as it is. This development would add water to the
ditches and adding concrete adds runoff.
He asked the Council to consider adding the existing residents on to the
sewer at the City and developer’s expense if this development is approved. He said that would make them good neighbors.
Norman Preston, 614 S. LaFrenz Road, asked what the volume of water and what retention
the developer would provide. He said he
wasn’t asking about the pond, he was asking about retention. He said he doesn’t want a lake next to the
school and this will dump into the home on the adjacent property. He stated he has his farm terraced so the
storm water runoff won’t kill the corn and beans. He asked that the developer have to pay so
much an acre and be required to build the park.
He stated the City doesn’t need an extra creek. He stated the City inherited the Jackson property, which has a ravine, fifty years ago and
hasn’t been able to do anything about it since.
Alex Saxon, 1210 S. LaFrenz Road, stated it sounds like the water south of the ridge
would drain to the pond and into Clay Meadows, which would run into his
pond. He stated the increased traffic on
LaFrenz Road would be a hazard.
There is school traffic, bicycles, and cross-country track runs out on LaFrenz Road. He stated
that road is one of the last “country-esque” roads in the City and needs to be
preserved.
Janet Wimer, 305 S. LaFrenz Road, stated she lives next to the radio tower and always
assumed that development was coming that way.
She asked what other neighborhoods had been developed by the
applicant. She stated it appears there
would be two access points to the development, one on LaFrenz and one on Richfield. She asked
that the development place the exit to the north of her driveway and asked that
be added as a stipulation to the rezoning application.
Leo Dunham, 803 S. LaFrenz Road, stated the average size of homes in the development
appeared to be 700,000 square feet lots and questioned the density of
housing. Mayor Steinkamp stated this is
not a final plat but the issue is the rezoning of the property. The preliminary development plan is only a
vision for the development until the final plan is brought forward. Mr. Dunham asked what access for residents
would be provided during road construction.
Mr. Anderson stated that could be confirmed with any final development
plan that comes forward. Construction
would be confined to the development and might pose some inconvenience but the
roads have to be kept open.
Denise Dunham, 803 S. LaFrenz Road, stated that a big mansion house, if kept to three
acres, was in keeping with the established neighborhood. Those who move into those houses increase
traffic to Stocksdale Park. She asked the
Council to keep the integrated neighborhood that already exists as it is.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
to the application. Seeing none, he
closed the public hearing.
Document No. 6691 was read. There being no motion to waive the rules,
Mayor Steinkamp stated the ordinance would go to second reading on July 23, 2007.
C.
*AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 30 OF THE LIBERTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE –
ORDINANCE
Council Member Martin asked that the Council have the
opportunity to discuss this in study session before considering the
amendment. She stated there has been a
long history with signage issues and would like the newer council members to
have access to some of the minutes from discussions in 1996 and 1997. She mentioned there are two council members
absent this evening and they have voiced interest in being able to participate
in the discussion of this issue. Mrs.
Martin said if there is not a rush to deal with it now she would request the
study session. City Administrator Curt
Wenson stated a study session could be scheduled August 6 and the ordinance
returned to Council for consideration on August 27.
Mayor Steinkamp stated he appreciated the opportunity
for further study, since the newly elected officials were faced with adopting
the UDO at their first session following their taking office in 2005. Council Member Parry said the Council had
indicated its understanding of the UDO at that time.
Council Member Martin moved to continue the public
hearing and consideration of the UDO amendments until August 27, 2007, allowing a study session first. Council Member Foster seconded the
motion. Council Member King stated he
agreed with the need for a study session.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Steinkamp opened and continued the public
hearing to August 27, 2007. He stated a
study session would be scheduled for August 6.
Mayor Steinkamp called for a recess in the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting back to order at 8:34 p.m.
D. *LIBERTY TRIANGLE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
1. AMENDMENT
TO TIF PLAN – ORDINANCE
Mr. Anderson reviewed the action of the TIF
Commission, which on June 4, 2007 had recommended approval of the Amended Triangle TIF Plan. He stated that this reconfigures the two
project areas in the Triangle TIF District in anticipation of an Olive Garden
Restaurant being constructed.
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak to the application.
Ryan Cooke, Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan & Suelthaus, 6201 College Boulevard, Overland
Park, Kansas, stated his firm represented the applicant and he
would be happy to answer questions.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else present wished to
speak to the application. Seeing none,
he closed the public hearing and returned the discussion to the Council.
Document No. 6692 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 King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9150.
2. ACTIVATION
OF PROJECT D-1 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6693 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 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. 9151.
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM JUNE 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2007 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6694 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Jenness
seconded the motion. Council Member
Foster asked what budget category the smart phones are paid from. Mr. Hansen stated that the phone system was
moved from Public Works to Information Services for this year’s budget.
Council Member Parry asked if the City receives a
discount for purchases made at local stores.
Finance Director Linda Tyree stated that the City has accounts at local
stores but doesn’t receive discounts special to the City. She added there is a lot of maintenance work
being done at this time of year and the purchases at the hardware stores
reflects that activity.
Council Member Duncan asked about the high number of
refunds for enrollment in programs. Assistant City Administrator Cynthia Boecker stated that the volume
of refunds always increases during enrollment cycles.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Martin – 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. 9152.
B. AUTHORIZATION
TO REAPPLY FOR D.R.E.A.M. INITIATIVE – RESOLUTION
Council Member Duncan asked what the costs might be if
the City’s share is twenty percent. Mr.
Anderson stated that the City doesn’t have any commitment in making
application, but this initiative provides access to funding for projects that
could be of interest to the City. On
those programs the City decides to pursue, the project costs would be covered
by eighty percent State funds and twenty percent City funds. Mr. Anderson added that downtown projects are
more appealing when this design is in place.
Mayor Steinkamp asked for clarification that the City would have control
over the application process. Mr.
Anderson stated the Council would consider any funding proposals before the
City committed to them. Council Member
Parry asked what would be different from this year’s application from last
year’s, which was not approved. Mr.
Anderson stated the team approach last year included Historic Downtown Liberty
Inc. (HDLI), the Partnership for Community Growth & Development and City
staff. The City was strongly encouraged
to reapply this year. Mr. Parry
suggested the City’s State representatives should make it happen. Council Member King stated he spoke with
HDLI’s Executive Director Rich Groves and apparently there have been major
changes to this year’s application. He
stated there is a meeting scheduled to discuss the application and to get assistance
with the application getting favorable consideration from State
representatives.
Council Member King moved to approve the
application. Council Member Parry
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2304.
C. ADOPTION
OF CITY RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY – RESOLUTION
Council Member King asked what is currently in
place. Deputy City Clerk Jane Sharon
stated that staff addresses record-keeping in each department due to no
citywide policy being in place. Mr. King
asked about City liability related to records management. Ms. Sharon stated that the City’s liability
can be reduced by being able to refer to actions being guided by a written
records management policy. Mr. Wenson
stated establishing a policy is not atypical of what cities should do and this
is an important step in establishing standards for providing access to City’s
open records and withholding disclosure of closed record information. Council Member Parry asked what the staff
does now without a policy in place. Ms.
Sharon stated that staff makes every effort to handle record-keeping in
compliance with State statutes and City policies. This policy will make that easier to do.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
policy. Council Member King seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2305.
D. SOUTH LIBERTY PARKWAY, PHASE I
1. FINAL
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH AMINO BROTHERS – ORDINANCE (SECOND READING)
Document No. 6688 was read. 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. 9153.
2. ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT – RESOLUTION (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 11, 2007 REGULAR SESSION)
Council Member Martin moved to accept the
project. Council Member Jenness seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2306.
3. SETTLEMENT
OF CONDEMNATION EXCEPTIONS WITH KINCADE AND KINCADE – ORDINANCE
Mr. Wenson stated the City has been placed in a
difficult position, because agreeing to settle this matter affects the City’s
capital improvements plan. A temporary
construction easement was initially valued at $5,000 and the City offered
$10,000. Somehow through a jury trial
the amount became $500,000 and this is really holding the City taxpayers
hostage.
Mr. Hansen stated that the Kincades refused to
negotiate a settlement and appealed the commissioners’ award of $5,000. The $500,000 jury award is increased by the
interest of 9% a year. This could
increase the amount to over $600,000. At
the Council’s direction, staff and the legal counsel appealed the jury award. This appeal may not be scheduled for a
hearing until late this year or early next year, with the interest continuing
to accrue. Even if the City prevails in
the appeal, the case could go back to a jury trial and an even higher award
might be the outcome. Legal advisors have
worked with the Kincades and the City can agree to pay the $500,000 award plus
$6,900 in court costs to settle the matter.
This agreement is contingent on the Council approval and full payment
made not later than July 16.
Document No. 6695 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Parry seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Jenness
seconded the motion. Council Member
Martin read the following statement for the record:
“I will be voting against this payment tonight. I feel it is not in the best interest of the
city to pay $500,000 for the temporary use of a 16 foot piece of land. I feel there is a great chance that this will
be setting a precedent for years to come and could eventually cause any
development in this area to be cost prohibitive. I have faith in the appeal process that we
could have a new trial with a favorable outcome if we continued to pursue that
avenue. In our Action Report it states
that adequate funds exist in the Roadway Development Fund to pay this
settlement although the payment COULD impact future projects. I don’t think there is any question that this
payment will definitely impact future roadway projects.
“The Roadway Development Fund projects include
I-35/69/33 Interchange work;
I-35/M-291
Interchange work; completion of the engineering design and land acquisition of
the second phase of the South Liberty Parkway; and Liberty’s share for the engineering for the Flintlock
overpass. We’ve had to make cuts in all
city programs over the years due to a decrease in sales tax revenues. So the future of these projects is on the
line - without a $500,000 settlement.
For all the above reasons, I will vote against payment of this
settlement and would encourage other council members to see the reality of
their decisions. Two individuals will
profit considerably from this and the entire city of Liberty will be paying.”
Council Member King read the following statement for
the record:
“Because there is a great deal of animosity in the
mind of the public toward the use of any form of condemnation, even when used
correctly and legitimately as it was in this case;
because our legal counsel and co-counsel have
indicated that there is a better than even chance of our losing on appeal and
have recommended that we settle;
because a victory by the city in the appeals process
would only result in another jury trial, which could end with the same result
or worse, with even more interest being added to the total; and
because additional, critically needed city revenues
will be tied up while the appeal takes place over a time frame that could
extend at least a year and possibly two while the legal process goes forward,
which could prevent the City of Liberty from actively moving forward with plans
to complete the South Liberty Parkway and the Flintlock flyover, which are
critical to pending development;
“I find it necessary to reluctantly support and
encourage my fellow council members to support, the unpleasant action of approving
this ordinance. It is the least
offensive option for the City and the only one that gives Liberty a controllable, known cost. I urge my fellow council members to vote in
favor of the settlement.”
Council Member Parry stated that this is a double-edged
sword. If the City doesn’t settle now,
it could cost the City an additional $200,000 more. If the Council votes to settle the matter, it
puts the City in a difficult situation with capital projects. He stated this could have been avoided and
the City needs to be better prepared to defend itself in the future.
Council Member Duncan stated that the City is faced
with a multitude of bad options. In his
heart, he believes this is just wrong. In
his head, it is what’s best for the citizens that needs to be considered. Mr. Duncan stated if the City stops this now
with this settlement, once it is done, the City shouldn’t ever land in this
same situation again.
The motion carried 5-0-1. Council Member Martin voted in
opposition. It was approved by the Chair
and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9154.
E. RIGHT-OF-WAY
AGREEMENT WITH UNITE PRIVATE NETWORKS, LLC – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6696 was read.
Council Member King asked if there is normally a fee
associated with this type of agreement.
Mr. Hansen stated there is typically a right-of-way fee but with new
state laws, cities are obligated to provide consent. This company cannot provide cable service, so
no franchise fee is involved. Unite has
provided services to schools and businesses, including work for the Liberty School
District in
recent years. Mr. Wenson stated that the
City’s legal counsel has worked on an agreement with Unite for several months
and is now advising the City to consider the agreement. Mr. King asked if the City is required to approve
the agreement. Mr. Hansen stated the
City cannot unreasonably withhold consent for work in its right-of-way. Mr. King asked if the $1,500 fee covered the
City’s attorney fees. Mr. Hansen stated
it did and that the City is limited by new State telecom laws. Cities must acknowledge the
telecommunications industry vendors right to use the city rights-of-way. In this instance, Unite wants access to lines
existing above ground, but its request is not for citywide right-of-way
access. The City is not obligated to
provide access as it does with cable, but must provide access to the
right-of-way.
Council Member Parry asked about the difference
between the right-of-way access for this project and citywide cable
access. Mr. Hansen stated the only project
Unite has done in the City is with the School District. Mr. Parry
asked if there is a franchise fee associated with this agreement. Mr. Hansen said there is not but the City is
obligated to provide access to the right-of-way by State law.
Mr. Wenson stated they had to bring this forward to
Council, but control over the City’s rights-of-way has been taken away by the
State. Mr. Parry stated he would not be
in favor of waiving the rules to consider on first reading at this meeting,
because he wanted more information.
Council Member Foster asked what is covered by this
agreement. Mr. Hansen stated the company
must abide by the City’s right-of-way ordinance and pays a permit fee. There is also control for damages that arise
out of its work in the right-of-way. He
added that the City’s legal counsel was working on an agreement with Unite last
year and then no action was taken until recently. Mr. Wenson noted that cities used to have
control over the boxes, but not any longer under the newly passed legislation. Cities can continue to protect work done in
the streets and the use of City property, but it cannot charge a franchise fee.
Council Member Duncan asked what other cities are
doing. Mr. Wenson stated this is newly
enacted and Liberty has met with Gladstone and Kansas City, Missouri, but this is new, so there hasn’t been a lot of
activity yet. Mr. Duncan asked what
risks were involved in not approving the agreement. Mr. Wenson stated information could be provided
to Council from the City’s legal counsel.
Mayor Steinkamp stated this ordinance would go to
second reading on July 9, 2007.
X. OTHER BUSINESS
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR – None.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Martin asked if any of the public comments need to be addressed before
the rezoning is considered on second reading.
Mr. Wenson stated it would be difficult to respond to comments unrelated
to the rezoning and preliminary development plan. The Council is considering only if the land
use is appropriate for the proposed zoning.
Mrs.
Martin asked how often the TIF Commission meets. Mr. Anderson stated it meets as needed and
minutes were recently provided to Council of the annual meeting. Mrs. Martin stated it was useful to have the
minutes from that body.
Mrs.
Martin announced that Executive Assistant Janet Pittman was officially sworn in
as a U.S. Citizen late last week. She
noted Ms. Pittman is from Canada and it took eight years for her to complete
requirements for citizenship.
Council
Member King stated residents had contacted him with concerns about traffic
enforcement on Liberty
Landing Road,
where the speed limit is 25 MPH and there are lots of children. He requested the police provide extra
enforcement on July 4 when increased traffic will be in the area for the
Liberty4thFest.
Mr.
King stated he had received calls from people in the LaFrenz Road area and he realized a discussion of water and sewer
for that area did not fit with tonight’s agenda items. He stated many of the residents are
interested in some mechanism by which they can get City water and sewer
extended to their homes. He asked staff
to organize a meeting with the residents as a way to move forward with support
services, particularly along Easy Street.
Mr. Wenson requested Council Member King provide the names and contact
information for the people that had contacted him.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated that Liberty4thFest on July 4 is an opportunity to enjoy a
community event and see the Fountain Bluff Sports Complex. A plan for vehicle parking has been developed
and the concessions will be open for those not wanting to bring their own food
and beverages.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk