CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 9, 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 July 9, 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
The invocation was given by Council Member Fred Foster
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Paul Jenness and Harold Phillips, Ward I; Anna Marie
Martin and Greg Duncan, 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; Gary Birch, Fire Chief; Mike Snider, Deputy Fire Chief;
Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Nathan Mulch, Police Officer; Linda Tyree, Finance
Director; Diana Adams, Special Projects Manager; Steve Hansen, Public Works
Director; Brian Hess, City Engineer; Chris Deal, Parks & Recreation
Director; Steve Rulo, Parks & Open Space Manager; Shawnna
Funderburk, Assistant to the City Administrator; Sara Cooke, Public Relations
Coordinator; Chris Williams, Special Legal Counsel; Jane Sharon, Deputy City
Clerk; Jason Noble, The Kansas City Star; Angie Borgedalen, Liberty Tribune and
48 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES (SEE CONSENT AGENDA)
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
A. T.R.I.M.
GRANT FUNDING PRESENTATION TO CITY FROM MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Urban Forester Helene Miller with the Missouri
Department of Conservation stated the City had removed about seventeen
dangerous trees through its participation in the Conservation Department’s
T.R.I.M. grant program. This allows a
healthier environment and reduces risk.
She presented a check for more than $7,000 to the Mayor on behalf of the
State, representing the State’s grant to the City.
Louie A. Wright, president of Local 42 of the
Firefighters Union, Kansas City, Missouri, stated he was present to voice formal concern on
behalf of Liberty firefighters over the lack of progress on an
agreement with the City. After 3 years,
he requested the City enter into good faith negotiations for collective
bargaining. He added that he was
uncertain whether the position taken by City Administration was the position of
the City Council. Mr. Wright also
referred to the State’s new minimum wage law with which he believes the City
has compliance issues. He added that a
recent court decision grants the right to labor unions to negotiate
agreements. He stated Local 42 is
interested in meeting with City Council to address these matters.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2007
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM JUNE 15, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 29, 2007 – ORDINANCE
Council Member King requested that check number 102567
be removed and voted on separately.
Council Member Brenton requested that check number 102569 be removed and
voted on separately.
Document No. 6697 was read. Council Member Brenton moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion.
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. 9156.
Council Member Martin moved to approve check number
102567. Council Member Brenton seconded
the motion.
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 – abstained, due to a possible conflict of interest. The motion carried unanimously; it was
approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9156.
Council Member Martin moved to approve check number
102569. Council Member King seconded the
motion.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Phillips – yes; Council Member
Martin – yes; Council Member Brenton – abstained, due to a 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 unanimously; it was
approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9156.
B. *WHITEHALL STATION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) PLAN
Public Works Director Steve Hansen introduced
representatives for the developer, including:
Ron Fullam, Cardon Smith and Mike Mallen with CBL & Associates
Properties; Jay and John Ferguson
with Ferguson Properties and Tim Kristl, the developer’s legal counsel. He noted the City’s team included: Planning
& Development Director Steve Anderson; Special Projects Manager Diana
Adams; Assistant to the City Administrator Shawnna Funderburk; Special Legal
Counsel Chris Williams; Financial Advisor Todd Goffoy with Piper Jaffray; and
Tom Kaleko with Springsted.
Mr. Hansen stated there are two issues related to the
Whitehall Station development before Council.
The first is an ordinance adopting the first amended and restated TIF
Plan dated June 12, 2007 and designation of CBL & Associates Properties,
LP, as the redeveloper of Project 1. The
second ordinance is on first reading only and approves Redevelopment Project 1.
Mr. Hansen noted that in September 2006, a TIF
Redevelopment Plan was approved by the TIF Commission and the City
Council. The intent in approving this
plan, based on a preliminary development proposal submitted by Ferguson
Properties, was to market the property to a major national retail
developer. CBL & Associates
Properties has since teamed with Ferguson Properties to develop Whitehall
Station as an upscale lifestyle shopping center.
The developer team and the City, with its consultants,
have revised the original plan to reflect the developer’s vision of a viable
shopping center. There are differences
between the currently proposed and original TIF plans and no attempt will be
made to compare them.
The City’s TIF policy in the newly adopted Economic
Development Policy is being compared to the proposed Whitehall Station
development. A revised preliminary
development plan has been approved by both the Planning & Zoning Commission
and the City Council.
Mr. Hansen reviewed the proposed development comprised
of a 705,000 square feet shopping center and related infrastructure
improvements located generally south of the South Liberty Parkway, east of 69
Highway and bounded on the south by the extension of Flintlock Road. The estimated project cost is $234 million, with
$164 million in developer equity (including approximately $10 million in
Community Improvement District funding).
An estimated $70 million is estimated to be reimbursable to the
development and the City through the TIF.
The City’s reimbursable expenses include approximately $1 million for
costs to extend water and sewer to the site as well as legal services.
CBL & Associates submitted cost estimates and City
staff worked with the developer to refine them so that they compared favorably
to recent projects completed elsewhere in the area, such as Lee’s Summit and Blue Springs and those TIF projects previously established in Liberty. Mr. Hansen
noted that expenses are reimbursed to the developer only after a detailed
review by staff and an independent auditor.
Analysis has shown that if the project were not to be
constructed, annual tax revenue for all taxing jurisdictions would be
approximately $477,000. If constructed,
the project will provide approximately $78 million in tax revenue over the life
of the TIF. Once the debt is retired,
the project will result in approximately $9.8 million paid to taxing
jurisdictions on an annual basis from property and sales taxes. It is anticipated that this would include
$4.4 million in sales and property taxes to the City and $2.5 million in taxes
to the School District.
Mr. Hansen then compared the amended and restated TIF
Plan with the City’s TIF Policy where the following findings were noted:
--the project would result in a significant
strengthening of the area’s economic and employment base by extending water and
sanitary sewer to the site; improving the area roadway system, mitigating the
blight created by the auto salvage yard and constructing the center.
--a related public benefit of the project would be the
extension of Flintlock Road between the South Liberty Parkway and US 69 Highway
as well as the improvement of Plummer Road south of the Parkway.
--eligible expenses for TIF reimbursement are in compliance
with the TIF Policy and include land cost at $3.50 per square foot to be
reimbursed at $1.75 per square foot; building upgrades for a higher level of
finish, such as four-sided architecture; grading and site work; paving;
landscaping and site amenities, which are critical to this type of lifestyle
center and include adding places to gather; public infrastructure; professional
services; financing fees and contingencies.
Contingencies are not typically identified as a separate item, but this
was done at the request of the applicant and again, would only be reimbursed
after careful review by staff and the independent auditor.
--the City’s TIF Policy outlines debt service coverage
of at least 1.25 times the projected bond debt service on TIF bonds. Based on the nature and scale of the proposed
project and the current bond market, the City’s financial advisors have
acknowledged that coverage of 1.2 times the bond debt service is acceptable.
--the requested TIF assistance is 30% or $70,497,610
of the estimated total project cost of $234,663,460, which is below the
recommended threshold in the TIF Policy of 35%.
--the Community Improvement District (CID) anticipated
to be created by the developer utilizes a self-imposed sales tax to reduce
reliance on TIF. Revenues would be used
as a supplement to pay off debt service.
Revenue projections for the project are based on the conservative
assumption that neither the Liberty 2010 sales tax nor the Transportation ¼
cent sales tax, would be renewed when they sunset. Extensions of these sales taxes would likely
result in a quicker payoff than the 23 year period included in the current TIF
Plan.
--the Springsted firm was retained by the City to
provide an independent evaluation of the applicant’s funding sources and track
record of their financial and technical ability to complete the project. Springsted concluded that the project would
not be viable without TIF assistance and verified the rate of return, based on
the information provided, was in an acceptable range given the nature of the
project and the risk undertaken by the developer. CBL has provided suitable verification of its
financial capacity to complete the project.
--TIF policy calls for areas to be more than 10 acres
and this project comprises 72 acres.
Mr. Hansen stated that staff and the TIF Commission’s review
of the restated and amended TIF Plan reaffirmed the previous statutory findings
– that blight does exist that constitutes an economic and social liability
within the redevelopment area; the area is not subject to redevelopment without
TIF assistance; the proposed project and TIF Plan conforms to the City’s
comprehensive land use plan; the area includes only those parcels of property
and improvements which would be benefited by the redevelopment project
improvements; dates of completion for the project are not to be more than 23
years from adoption of any ordinance approving a specific redevelopment
project; a Relocation Plan is included which conforms to State Statutes; a
cost/benefit analysis showing the projected impact on taxing jurisdictions was
prepared; and the redevelopment project does not include development or
redevelopment of any gambling establishment.
Mr. Hansen stated that the TIF Commission conducted a
public hearing on the amended and restated Whitehall Station TIF Plan on June 22, 2007 and unanimously approved a resolution recommending
approval of the amended and restated TIF Plan, approval of Project 1 for TIF,
and designation of CBL & Associates as the redeveloper for Project 1.
He stated that staff recommends approval of the
amended and restated TIF Plan for Whitehall Station, approval of redevelopment
of Project 1 and use of TIF for that redevelopment as the Plan meets statutory
requirements and the City’s TIF Policy.
Council Member Brenton asked for clarification of land
assembly costs being reimbursed. Mr.
Hansen stated that the $11.9 million encompasses the 72 acres involved with
acquisition set at $3.50 per square foot, similar to what was established in
the Liberty Triangle TIF. In this TIF
Plan, anything above $1.75 per square foot is eligible for TIF
reimbursement. Mr. Brenton asked about
the landscaping reimbursement. Mr.
Hansen stated there is more landscaping with this project than is typical
because this is proposed to be upscale in design and appearance. It is a larger area of the development and
the design is to higher standards as compared to a standard shopping
center. Also included is upscale
lighting on the parking area and the cost of the public gathering areas. Mr. Brenton asked if the landscaping is
controlled by the developer. Mr. Hansen
stated it would not be City-maintained.
Mr. Brenton asked if landscaping extras were at the discretion of the
developer. Mr. Hansen said they were.
Council Member King asked if the City would be
reimbursed for expenses associated with City water and sewer improvements as
well as legal services associated with the TIF.
Mr. Hansen stated those have always been anticipated to be reimbursed
through the Whitehall Station TIF.
Council Member Foster asked about traffic signals
associated with the development. Mr.
Hansen stated the traffic signals would be the City’s responsibility and their
associated expenses are also eligible for TIF reimbursement.
Council Member Brenton asked if the Council was being
asked to vote on activation of the TIF at this meeting and what relation there
was in that action compared to the redeveloper agreement. Mr. Hansen clarified that the ordinance activating
TIF for Project 1 was required to be brought forward with the TIF Plan
amendment. However, Council would not
act on the ordinance to activate the TIF until later when the project was
further along, much the same as the process used when Lowe’s was first named as
the redeveloper for the Project A in the Liberty Triangle. Special Legal Counsel to the City Chris
Williams stated that the first ordinance on the agenda approves the amendment
to the TIF Plan and designates the redeveloper for Project 1. The earlier TIF Plan proposed five phases and
only one phase is proposed in this amendment.
The first ordinance designates CBL & Associates Properties as the
redeveloper of Project 1, conditioned on the execution of a development
agreement between the redeveloper and the City.
The first ordinance also approves TIF for Project 1, but the details
will be in the development plan and will take 45 to 90 days to go through with
the developer. City staff and legal
counsel will walk the Council through that process. Mr. Williams noted that CBL & Associates
Properties would likely form a separate entity specific to this development and
that is why the ordinance refers to the redeveloper in the manner it does. Mr. Williams continued, stating the second
ordinance must be introduced within a few weeks of the close of the public hearing,
but should be held for second reading when the TIF is ready to be captured and
bonds issued, as was done with the Triangle TIF recently, with Project D-1.
Council Member Brenton stated there are total project
costs and reimbursement identified in the TIF Plan and asked for clarification
that activating the TIF doesn’t preclude changes to the development
agreement. Mr. Williams stated that was
correct, though if there were significant changes to the budget, an amendment to
the TIF Plan would be required. City
Administrator Curt Wenson stated that specific projects could be spelled out in
the development agreement.
Council Member King stated he appreciated all the work
and effort on this project and believes it is very achievable and the
projections are conservative. He stated
this is on the path to a successful project.
Mayor Steinkamp asked the applicant if he wished to
make any comments. Ron Fullam, Senior
Vice President for CBL & Associates Properties (CBL), Chattanooga,
Tennessee, stated his company has been in business for over 30 years, has a
developer trust on the stock exchange and experience in the retail side of the
business. He stated this project is
putting together a partnership between the City and CBL and it is essential not
to waste the City’s money. This
development will be a star in this part of the Kansas City metropolitan area but could not be done without
TIF. He added that essential to the
project’s success was the extension of the Flintlock Road overpass to get
others into Liberty and that the extension of the South Liberty Parkway to
M-291 Highway was extremely important.
He stated that CBL hoped to help the City accomplish those goals and,
due to the competitive pressures, he requested that the City move forward with
the TIF Plan on first reading of the ordinance.
Mr. Fullam stated he would be back in the market on July 20 and would
love to be able to report the TIF Plan had been amended. He asked that the Council send the second
ordinance to second reading so that it could be brought forward for Council
action at the appropriate time.
Council Member Brenton stated redevelopment cost
contingencies of $9 million was a little less than four percent of the project
and seemed skimpy. Mr. Fullam stated CBL
had the opportunity of working with knowledgeable and capable staff. The
property had been assessed in terms of the environment and infrastructure and
the only problem area might be the junk yard.
But the staff had done its due diligence on developing a contingency
projection and the figure is based on a best guess. CBL is comfortable with the figure. Mr. Hansen stated that the revenue
projections are sufficient to pay the debt service and the City assumes no risk
on the bonds and everything hinges on debt service support.
Council Member Duncan asked if any vacancy is built
into the projections. Mr. Fullam stated
a five percent vacancy is built in.
Tim Kristl, legal counsel for CBL, stated that Liberty understands TIF and CBL has been required to justify
every number and projection provided. He
thanked the City for the opportunity to partner on this project.
Thomas Beckley, 1071 Maplewoods Ct., stated he is looking forward to the project’s
completion, but has serious concerns about the 1.2 debt service coverage
proposed. He stated that staff is asking
to waive certain portions and the bond market is not that bad. Mr. Beckley stated he reviewed the City’s
Economic Development Plan and land reimbursement is not included in the
list. He added it should have been
included in the policy. He stated that
the City would be paying more than $175,000 per acre with the developer putting
up $175,000 per acre. Mr. Beckley stated
that staff had reported the amended TIF Plan substantially complies with the
Economic Development Plan but he disagrees.
He stated that the contingency portion should be 30 percent, because the
Plan calls for 50 percent of the contingency but is 30 percent of the project.
Mayor Steinkamp stated this project is beneficial for Liberty and is the type envisioned for land along the South Liberty Parkway. He added this
is a qualified developer and he has heard firsthand about the competition to
the west of the City. Mayor Steinkamp
stated for these reasons, he would hate to see any delay.
1. ADOPTION
OF FIRST AMENDED TIF PLAN DATED JUNE 12, 2007 AND DESIGNATION OF CBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES,
LP AS THE REDEVELOPER FOR PROJECT 1 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6698 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion. Council Member Brenton raised a point of
information, asking for clarification of some questions before voting to waive
the rules. He stated he needed to know
if certain matters would be addressed in development agreement or could be
addressed after the TIF Plan is amended.
He referred to the building shells and the reference in the Springsted
report to sale or lease of tenant anchor, questioning the $20 per square foot
on the out lots and asking if the development agreement could include a 50/50
share in anything over a certain dollar per square foot sale or lease. He also asked for clarification of the
contingency reimbursement if the project comes in over the $234 million projected. Mr. Williams stated that the Council can
require that something sustainable be included but if Council wants to adjust
the budget for reimbursement in this category, by agreement of the parties this
could be addressed in the development agreement. Mr. Williams added that the City is investing
30 percent and if the rate of return is lower than projected and the
contingency inadequate, the developer bears the additional expense. The maximum total project cost in this TIF
Plan is $234 million. If the rate of
return is more favorable, the City shares 30 percent of that additional
return. Mr. Wenson added this can all be
negotiated in the development agreement.
The motion to waive the rules and consider on first
reading carried unanimously.
Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion. Council Member
Martin stated the staff report and projected tax revenues says it all - $477,
000 if the project is not built and $ 78.7 million over the life of the TIF if
it is built. Mrs. Martin added that she
appreciated Ferguson Properties and the Ferguson family making the effort to attend ICSC and find
CBL. She stated this would be good for
the future of Liberty.
Council Member King stated it had been said that this
TIF is spending 30 percent of the taxpayers dollars
but without this project being built, those dollars would not be seen. Mayor Steinkamp agreed that this project
would not be developed without TIF and it is exciting. He recommended the Council unanimously
approve the ordinance.
The motion carried unanimously. It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed
in Ordinance No. 9157.
2. APPROVAL
OF PROJECT 1 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6699 was read. Mayor Steinkamp stated this ordinance would
be brought back for second reading at the appropriate time. Council Member Phillips moved to continue
consideration of the ordinance to date not certain, but when all necessary
information is available to proceed.
Council Member King seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C. RIGHT-OF-WAY
AGREEMENT WITH UNITE PRIVATE NETWORKS, LLC – ORDINANCE (SECOND READING)
Document No. 6696 was read. Council Member Phillips moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Martin
seconded the motion. Council Member King
thanked staff for providing additional information to Council related to the
ordinance.
Council Member Phillips asked if this agreement would
permit Unite to place visible boxes in the right-of-way. Mr. Hansen said it does and that they would
likely be similar to those already placed in the rights-of-way for use with
telephone systems. Mr. Phillips asked if
the City can require them to be better buffered. Mr. Hansen stated the City does have
landscaping requirements in rights-of-way, but new statutes have limited the
City’s control over where and what buffering can be required. Mr. Phillips asked what can be done to get
the company to understand the need for addressing the appearance and location
of the boxes. Mr. Hansen stated the
staff would work with Unite and it must comply with the requirements of the
City’s right-of-way permit and with the City ordinances.
Council Member Martin asked if a stipulation could be
included with the permit to require any boxes not be placed in the front of
dwelling units. Mr. Hansen stated that
if the company can get more customers by placing the box in the back of a lot,
it would likely do so, but the City cannot unduly restrict access to the
right-of-way. Mrs. Martin asked if all
companies would be able to utilize the right-of-way under this agreement. Mr. Hansen stated this is an exclusive
agreement with Unite and is for its access to any City right-of-way, but it is
staffs’ understanding that Unite intends to focus in the downtown and
commercial areas. Mrs. Martin stated
that some in the City would not have access.
Mr. Hansen stated this type of agreement does not have the same
requirements as with a cable franchise.
Council Member King quoted from the agreement about it
being contingent on the continued accuracy of information provided by the
applicant. He asked if the company was
determined to be involved in providing video services, for example, that could
require a new agreement. Mr. Hansen
stated if the company wants to provide video services, a whole new agreement
would be required.
The motion carried unanimously and is inscribed in
Ordinance No. 9158.
D. OAKWOOD
BUSINESS PARK EASEMENTS
1. ACCEPTANCE
OF EASEMENTS ON TRACT 9 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6700 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 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. 9159.
2. DISCLAIM
AND ABANDON UTILITY EASEMENT ON TRACT 9 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6701 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 Martin 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. 9160.
E. SOUTH LIBERTY PARKWAY WEST SEWER PROJECT
1. FINAL
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH HOLTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION, LLC ON A DECREASE OF $4,794.91
– ORDINANCE
Document No. 6702 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 Martin
seconded the motion. Council Member King
stated it is always appreciated when a project comes in under budget. The motion carried unanimously. It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed
in Ordinance No. 9161.
2. ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT – RESOLUTION
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Brenton
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution
No. 2307.
F. AMENDMENT
TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 22, OFFENSES MISCELLANEOUS, ADDING SECTION PERTAINING TO
POSSESSION OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6703 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. Council Member King
asked how long this problem had existed.
Police Officer Nathan Mulch stated it had been quite a while. Advances in technology make it easier for
false identification to be produced. The
motion carried unanimously. It was
approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9162.
X. OTHER BUSINESS
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR – None.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Phillips thanked the staff, mayor, and Chamber of Commerce for the very
successful Liberty4thFest. He noted the
information received about A Highway being transferred to the City from the State and
asked what timeframe was anticipated for the same to occur with M-33
Highway. Mr. Hansen stated the transfer
of these highways to the City is in exchange for the State assuming
responsibility for the Flintlock overpass.
In the interim, the City will review what is necessary to maintain the
transferred roadways, including the ability to plow them efficiently. Lightburne and Leonard Streets are anticipated
to be conveyed to the City soon, most likely within the next two years.
Council
Member Phillips moved that the City staff purchase equipment from Professional
Engineering Corporation necessary to install state of the art traffic light
synchronization on Kansas
Street
between Clayview
Drive and
I-35 as soon as possible and not to exceed $50,000. Council Member Martin seconded the motion.
Council
Member Phillips stated that this is intended to override the substitute motion
passed at the June 25, 2007 council meeting.
He stated he did not stipulate where the funds were to come from and
trusts the City staff that the Council often praises to make the decision and
report back on the best sources that balance completion of the project and
protects the long-term City needs. He
stated that funds from the stormwater financing study fund could be one funding
source, since budgeted funds would be adequate to pay for the study when the
time comes for the study to be contracted.
Mr.
Phillips stated that the stretch of Kansas Street or 152 Highway has been identified as one of the five
most dangerous in the Kansas
City metro. He added it is estimated that 55,000 cars
driven by Liberty residents and men and women who work and shop and
live in Liberty pass through this specific area of road each day.
Mr.
Phillips stated a traffic consultant from the Mid-America Regional Council
(MARC) studied needs and made recommendations that the additional equipment
will mesh this traffic light synchronization project into the larger metro
Operation Green Light program. He added
that what is now Clayview Country Club will become an additional hub of
business activity and benefit to Liberty in the near future.
Mr. Phillips stated the Council needed to be pro-active when possible
and not settle for reactive leadership.
Mr.
Phillips stated that major banks along this stretch and shopping areas to the
north, south east and west of 152 and 291 Highways have complained long and
loud that one obstacle hindering them is traffic congestion on this part of Kansas. He stated
these are just some of the reasons he is proposing this action be taken.
Council
Member King stated that when this was discussed at the last Council meeting, he
asked if the synchronization could be accomplished within the budget and with
the equipment originally proposed. He
stated that Mr. Hansen had said it could.
Mr. King stated that, because of the concerns of citizens about storm
water issues, had he known this was going to be proposed, he would have asked
those citizens to be present. He
restated that the original funds and equipment previously approved would
resolve the synchronization issues along Kansas Street and staying within budget and doing as planned
outweighs being first. He stated that
this equipment could be added anytime in the future and he hoped Council would
stay within budget but meet the needs of citizens when this additional
equipment is needed.
Council
Member Duncan stated this is an opportunity not just to synchronize traffic
signals but to do it better and more efficiently. He stated this is a significant issue for
business to get more customers into their places of business. He stated that Alicia Stephens has noted this
continues to be mentioned by businesses as a barrier to development. Traffic control is rated in surveys from one
to seven, with one being the poorest score and average rating is now down to a
two.
Council
Member Parry stated spending the $75,000 already allocated achieves the
objective and spending funds allocated to address stormwater is not wise and
not warranted.
Council
Member Duncan stated this amount of money isn’t going to solve storm water
issues, but it can do something to improve the traffic flow issues on Kansas Street.
Council
Member Foster agreed that the original amount approved was sufficient to
address the problem on Kansas Street and, though he would love to have the best equipment,
the City can’t afford it right now.
Council
Member Brenton asked what the $50,000 can fund.
Mr. Hansen stated the original project was estimated at $75,000 to
$78,000 and included engineering work in reprogramming the traffic signals
along Kansas Street to make it more coordinated as well as providing limited
optical detection cameras and related work along the corridor. The new equipment can not only detect vehicles
but also has processing units that adapt and adjust timing. This is at the same cost as proposed for one
intersection and there is $26,000 or $27,000 in the budget for this. The new system with the processing unit can
adjust in real time as opposed to being set for peak hour traffic and non-peak
hour traffic and any changes requiring manual reprogramming. He added that there are budgeted funds to equip
one intersection using the detection system.
Knowing the problems at Conistor and Blue Jay, staff looked at buying
equipment for both intersections to make the project the best it can be and get
the Operation Green Light tied in, which originally wasn’t projected to occur
for several years. Mr. Hansen stated the
purchasing policy required Council approval because it exceeded what the City
Administrator is authorized to approve.
The $24,000 identified to fund the new equipment was left over from the
storm water financing study after Council approved use of the rest of that
budget amount for a change order completing the South Liberty Parkway and
because the storm water financing study was being postponed awaiting the
outcome of the National Civic League citizen planning process. If stormwater financing is identified as a
priority, there would be approximately $210,000 in the 2008 capital plan for
that purpose and additional funding would have to be identified for the third
phase of the financing study after that.
The remaining $14,100 was proposed to come from the capital fund
balance. Mr. Hansen reiterated that this
approach to traffic synchronization is a proven approach and will improve
traffic flow and safety. It provides for
the adaptive ability to be extended along the entire corridor. Mr. Brenton asked if by adaptive, he meant
that if there was heavier than anticipated traffic on Conistor when the theatre
let out, this system would see that different pattern and adjust
accordingly. Mr. Hansen said that was
correct.
Council
Member King asked if the equipment would have to be programmed if the adaptive
equipment were not purchased. Mr. Hansen
stated that it is all programmed, but the equipment originally approved has the
capability of being set only for peak times and average traffic flow. Mr. King asked if the original equipment
could be programmed for high school peak traffic hours. Mr. Hansen said it could and any traffic
control equipment can be programmed for that type of setting. Mr. King asked for clarification that the
originally approved equipment purchase could control the high school traffic
and traffic on 152 Highway and accomplish synchronization. Traffic will increase but the original
equipment budgeted and approved for purchase could do what is needed. Mr. Hansen stated there have been changes
since that original amount was budgeted.
First, Operation Green Light is now being planned for the Kansas/152 Highway corridor from Flintlock Road to Clayview Drive. The equipment
would work as originally intended but the City has the opportunity at a minimal
cost to get a better system. Staff was only
made aware of this newer equipment in the last few weeks and met with the
vendor and was provided with a demonstration.
This project also addresses the safety of turning movements along the
corridor and maximizes the functioning of the whole system.
Council
Member King stated that even if the citizen strategic planning process did not
identify stormwater as a priority it has still been identified by citizens and
funds have been budgeted to address it.
Mayor Steinkamp stated that the pending motion does not address
stormwater funding. Council Member King
moved to amend the motion to require staff to bring back the funding identified
for the equipment purchase to Council for approval. Council Member Parry seconded the motion.
Council
Member Phillips stated he would vote in opposition to the amendment because he
trusted the staff to handle the identification of funding. Council Member King stated that $50,000 is
the equivalent of one quarter of a mile of fixed roads. He expressed concern about where the money is
coming from when something else was promised to the citizens. He questioned what the result would be if
businesses and citizens were asked if they wanted this equipment.
Council
Member Martin called for the question.
The
vote resulted in a 4-4-0
tie with Council Member Phillips, Council Member Martin, Council Member Brenton
and Council Member Duncan voting in opposition.
Mayor Steinkamp cast the deciding vote in opposition to the amendment,
so the motion failed 4-5-0. Mayor Steinkamp stated he and Council Member
King had discussed this issue. He stated
that reasonable people could be on opposite sides of issues. He stated it is important to always look at
what’s in the best interest of the citizens and in this instance, he looked at
the signal at Claywoods and 291 Highway being installed because citizens said
the City needed better roads. He stated
that $60,000 was spent out of the capital budget for that signal and was not
saying that was wrong, because it served a valid purpose. Mayor Steinkamp stated he believed a more
sophisticated system should be obtained and any system put in would be behind
the times as soon as it is installed.
The better system should be purchased now to make every effort to
address the problem in the most effective way possible.
Council
Member Parry stated that the Claywoods Parkway signal was a safety issue and
matching funds from the State were available so the City didn’t have to foot
the total bill. He stated that signal
was not about people being able to get home early and $75,000 has already been
allocated to address the Kansas Street signal synchronization problem.
Council
Member Brenton stated he would vote in favor of the motion because there have
not been any deaths in Liberty that he recalls due to stormwater issues, but deaths
have occurred on Kansas
Street,
which makes it a safety issue. He stated
there is also an economic impact. While
stormwater needs to be addressed, high school traffic and traffic along Kansas in general needs to be addressed now and this
purchase is in the best interests of the citizens.
The
vote resulted in a 4-4-0
tie with Council Member King, Council Member Parry, Council Member Jenness and
Council Member Foster voting in opposition.
Mayor Steinkamp cast the deciding vote in favor of the motion to
authorize the purchase, so the motion carried 4-5-0. Council
Member Phillips stated this action would make it safer for citizens on that
road.
Council
Member Jenness mentioned the sidewalk grant the City received and thanked
Cheryl McCann who spearheaded the effort.
He asked for some more formal recognition by the City.
Council
Member Duncan asked when the UDO amendments would be reviewed in study
session. Mr. Wenson stated it would be
on August 6. Mr. Duncan asked that the
tentative agenda be updated to reflect that item.
Council
Member Parry asked how many deaths had been recorded on 152 Highway. Police Chief Craig Knouse stated he was told
there had been two. Mr. Parry encouraged
all to attend the next Mayor’s Forum scheduled for July 10 at the Community
Center.
Council
Member King also expressed appreciation to Ms. McCann for her role in securing
the sidewalk grant.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated the forum begins Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. and it is important for the Council to hear from
citizens. These forums offer that
opportunity.
Mayor
Steinkamp thanked all for their participation in the Liberty4thFest and
congratulated staff on a job well done.
He stated many favorable comments were received from the private sector
and he hoped this was the first of many July 4th celebrations at the
Fountain Bluff Sports Complex.
Mayor
Steinkamp noted the West Gate Division, Missouri Municipal League dinner
scheduled for July 19 and stated that Dub Steincross and Mary Alice Dobberstine
would be honored at that event. On July
26, the Clay County Coordinating Committee dinner meeting was scheduled to
begin at 6:30 and would be held in North Kansas City.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk