[0:59] Call meeting to order. Pledge of allegiance. Council member Davidson.

[1:05] To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[1:10] stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:23] » [snorts] >> Roll call, please.

[1:25] » Mayor Larkkey, >> here.

[1:26] » Council member White, >> here.

[1:28] » Council member Thompson, >> here.

[1:29] » Council member Davidson, >> here.

[1:31] » Council member Bryan, >> here.

[1:33] » Council member Lawson, >> here.

[1:34] » Council member Richardson >> here.

[1:36] » Council member McCllum >> here.

[1:38] » Council member Johnson >> here.

[1:40] » We have a quorum. D. No presentations. E. Personal appearances. Each person

[1:46] list on the agenda to address the city council should step up to the microphone

[1:49] and state the name and address for the record and limit the remarks to five

[1:52] minutes. Number one, Jim Shipley.

[2:00] I'm Jim Shipley of 8105 East 195th Street, Belton, Missouri. Thank you for

[2:07] the opportunity to speak. My wife and I Is the speaker working?

[2:14] » Yeah. >> Yeah, it's working. Yeah,

[2:16] » my wife and I have lived on 195th Street between Peculiar Drive and Mullen Road

[2:21] for 34 years. We purchased our home on 2 acres a year after we were married. In

[2:28] fact, our 35th wedding anniversary is later this week.

[2:33] Up until this spring, we have loved living in our home on 195th Street. We

[2:38] love the area and have never had any reason to want to move away until now.

[2:45] You might ask what's happened. We along with our neighbors became aware Belton

[2:50] was proposing to amend the 2050 comprehensive plan and transform the 600

[2:56] acres of farmland across the street from us and our neighbors into a business

[3:02] park. The 2050 comprehensive plan that was

[3:07] approved by the city council in late 2024 designated the farmland across the

[3:12] street from our front door as single family residential.

[3:18] We soon discovered that Belton's plan for a business park was actually to

[3:23] provide for the development of this farmland into a superersized warehouse

[3:28] complex by Scanel Properties, similar to the Raymore Commerce Center on the east

[3:34] side of the interstate. The big difference is that there is no single

[3:38] family residential housing adjacent or even visible to the Raymore Commerce

[3:44] Center. Our front door faces north towards the farmland along with the

[3:50] front doors of my neighbors all along 195th Street.

[3:55] If the 3.3 million square f feet warehouse development is allowed by

[4:00] Belton, our homes will forever be changed due to us having to look out

[4:05] from our front doors, our front windows, and our front yards at millions of

[4:10] square feet of 50 foot tall or taller warehouses and semitrs and trailers only

[4:17] a few hundred feet from the front of our homes.

[4:21] We will be looking directly at semi-truckss coming and going to the

[4:24] warehouses from dozens of loading docks 24 hours a day. This area is not

[4:31] appropriate for an industrial development of warehouses. There are

[4:35] traffic concerns, drainage concerns, noise concerns, and

[4:41] air pollution concerns that such a development will have on our residential

[4:45] properties. Matt Wright has been meeting with Scanel

[4:49] Properties for well over one year. Drawings have been developed that show

[4:53] the placement of seven superiz warehouses on this farmland across from

[4:58] our homes. Some of the individual warehouse

[5:02] buildings are over one quarter mile in length. That's over four football fields

[5:08] in length. And that is some of the individual warehouse buildings.

[5:13] These warehouses can be constructed to a height of 50 feet or more.

[5:19] Scanel is now actively marketing this proposed warehouse development on the

[5:24] worldwide web. It's on the Kansas City Kansas City area development council's

[5:29] website listed under real estate offerings. Belton's assistant city

[5:35] manager has already responded to RFIs.

[5:42] How is this being allowed? There's been no public hearing with the

[5:47] planning commission. There's been no amendment to the 2050 comprehensive

[5:52] plan. There's been no annexation of the property. There's been no reszoning

[5:57] change from the current agriculture designation. And there's been no

[6:02] addressing this issue with the city council to my knowledge. And there's

[6:06] been no approval from the council. I am requesting the city to adhere to the

[6:12] 2050 comprehensive plan that the council approved in 2024.

[6:18] A plan that made sense in 2024 and it still makes sense today. And I request

[6:24] the city to plan and guide development on the 600 acre efforts property in

[6:30] accordance with the approved plan which designated the majority of this area as

[6:36] single family residential. The owner of the 600 acres, Mr. Mike

[6:41] Efforts, was even a member of the steering committee that developed the

[6:45] 2050 comprehensive plan. In closing, I would like to read from the 2050 belt

[6:51] and comprehensive plan, page 44 titled Graham efforts sub area. It lists three

[6:59] key recommendations for this sub area. residents discuss the need for a variety

[7:04] of housing types and regional. >> Sorry, sir, your time's up.

[7:09] » Can I have another 20 30 seconds, please?

[7:12] » Go ahead, wrap it up, please. >> Residents discuss the need for variety

[7:15] of housing types and regional draws to Belton. This sub area responds back to

[7:20] these desires. Number two, discourage any major development or disturbance to

[7:25] the flood plane to ensure it is preserved long term. And the number

[7:29] three key recommendation was consider opportunities to develop a golf course

[7:33] in the sub area and construct luxury housing around its perimeter.

[7:37] Participants shared the need for high-end move up housing in Belton as

[7:43] there is currently a limited stock resulting in residents having to move

[7:48] outside of the community to obtain a larger house. Thank you for your time.

[7:54] » Thank you.

[8:01] Item F, appeal to the city council pursuant to RSMO610.021.1

[8:05] 021.1 sub paragraph 1. Documents may be furnished without charge or at a reduced

[8:12] ch charge when the public governmental body determines that the waiver or

[8:15] reduction of the fee is in the public interest because it's likely to

[8:18] contribute significantly to public understanding the operation or

[8:22] activities of the public governmental body and is not primarily in the

[8:25] commercial interest of the requesttor. Number one, Steven Bodka. Hey, council.

[8:32] I'm here on item F1, an appeal of $682.7 in fees on a records request about the

[8:39] city's license plate reader system. One request before I start. Last time I

[8:44] stood here on a fee waver, this the discussion turned to my character. I was

[8:48] called a man with a personal vendetta. No document was disputed and no figure

[8:53] was challenged. Tonight, I ask we stay on the question printed at the top of

[8:57] this agenda. Does this request contribute significantly to public

[9:01] understanding of the operations of this city?

[9:04] Now, what's being charged for? The clerk's office produced six of eight

[9:08] categories at no cost. It's an overall improvement from the response I received

[9:12] in May, which the city itself described as neither an official nor comprehensive

[9:16] correspondence search. Two questions remain, and both carry a price. Question

[9:22] six is $181.82, 82 just 12 months of audit logs and it's who searched the

[9:29] system when and for what stated reason. Question eight, this one cost $500.25

[9:36] and it's just complaints that residents sent about these cameras and how the

[9:40] city answered. Not footage, not plate data, nothing about any individual, just

[9:46] who looked, when, and why. And did anyone object? I want to be precise

[9:51] because this is where it matters. The fourth amendment protects the right of

[9:55] the people to be secure in the person's papers, houses, and effects against

[9:59] unreasonable searches and seizures. A single photograph of a plate on a public

[10:04] street is not a search. The courts have been clear. Your plate is visible to

[10:08] anyone. One camera, one car, one time, no constitutional question. But that's

[10:13] not what a camera network is. In Carpenter versus the United States in

[10:18] 2018, the Supreme Court held that collecting a person's location history

[10:22] over time is different in kind from observing them once. Chief Justice

[10:26] Roberts wrote, "It gives the government an intimate window into a person's life,

[10:30] reveal revealing familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual

[10:34] associations." And the court said this technology runs against everyone.

[10:42] That unlike a traditional search, it requires no suspicion, no warrant, no

[10:46] reason at all. Six years earlier in United States versus Jones, Justice

[10:51] Sodom Mayor wrote that the aggregated location de data reveals trips to the

[10:56] psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment

[11:00] center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by the hour motel,

[11:06] the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue, or church. The constitutional

[11:10] line isn't drawn at the camera. It's drawn at how much is collected, how long

[11:14] it's kept, and how freely it's searched. One document answer answers that. And

[11:20] it's the audit log. A handful of searches tied to a real investigations

[11:24] means the system works the way you intended and the question never arises.

[11:28] Thousands of queries, agencies outside of Missouri, or searches with no stated

[11:33] reason means it's a different system than the one council approved. Nobody in

[11:37] this room knows which one it is, including you.

[11:41] There's a structural problem. Under Missouri law, a citizen can be charged

[11:46] for the labor of producing records about how their government used power on them.

[11:50] That's legal. I'm not disputing the calculation. But look what it means in

[11:54] practice. The body deciding whether the fee gets waved is the same body whose

[11:59] operations are being examined. You're being asked tonight to price access your

[12:03] own record. Nobody here created that, but that's how the statute is built. But

[12:08] it means only one thing is standing between the government and pricing

[12:11] accountability out of reach. And that is the government choosing not to. Tonight,

[12:15] that choice is yours. [snorts] And I want to be accurate because this matters

[12:19] to the argument. The council did approve these cameras in public four separate

[12:23] times. But approving something in public is not the same as having the public

[12:28] having a say in it. Nobody in Belton voted on this. There was no ballot

[12:32] question, no hearing where residents weighed whether they wanted their

[12:35] movements recorded. A resolution just passed on a Tuesday night meeting and

[12:40] the rest of us found out later if we found out at all. I'm not saying that

[12:44] that was unlawful. I'm saying it's the reason the audit log matters. When

[12:48] people affected by a system never got to vote on whether it exists, they're at

[12:53] least owed the ability to see how it's being used. Authorization isn't the

[12:57] question. Operation is. And you've already applied the standard in June. On

[13:02] June 9th, this body granted a fee waiver on a different request of mine, finding

[13:06] it in public interest by likely contributing to the significant

[13:10] by likely contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations

[13:14] or activities of the city. Same requesttor, same statute, same standard.

[13:19] That one is about a road. This one is about a system that photographs every

[13:23] vehicle that passes it in a city where the city clerk confirmed in writing on

[13:26] August 25th that the police department keeps no complaint log at all.

[13:32] I have one question for public works. While photographing camera locations, I

[13:36] noticed at least three installations mounted on poles that don't appear to

[13:39] have breakaway bases. I'm not an engineer. I don't know whether those sit

[13:43] inside a clear zone where breakaway hardware is required under MDOT or

[13:47] Ashtto standards, but someone should answer it. Fix objects in a clear zone

[13:51] are known hazard and runoff road crashes, and that's why the standard

[13:55] exists. I'd ask this council to direct public works to confirm whether those

[14:00] installations were reviewed and make that review available.

[14:03] And now what I'm asking for tonight is to wave the fee under RS MO610,

[14:09] the statute printed on your own agenda tonight. If you deny it, the

[14:12] determination on record, the statute requires this body to determine whether

[14:18] this request serves the public interest. That's the legal standard and it's the

[14:22] thing that was missing the last time a waiver was denied. Here's what I'd ask

[14:26] you to sit with before you vote. Nobody in Belton voted on whether this system

[14:30] exists. No ballot question, no form, no no way to decline, just the resolution

[14:36] passed and every resident who drives through this town has been photographed

[14:40] ever since. That was legal. But the one record showing whether that power is

[14:44] being used properly cost $682.7. So if you deny this, the position

[14:50] becomes we collected information about you without asking and now you can pay

[14:55] to find out what we did with it. And I don't think anyone on this dis set out

[14:59] to build that. But something has changed since 2021. When this was approved, most

[15:04] people in Belton didn't know what a license plate reader was, let alone that

[15:07] the Fourth Amendment has anything to say about aggregated location data. But

[15:11] that's not true anymore. People are reading Carpenter and they're filling

[15:15] out their own requests. They're asking Cass County the same questions about the

[15:19] same system. A council can approve whether it's legally whatever it's

[15:23] legally permitted to approve, but once the people it was approve approved over

[15:27] start reading the law for themselves, the arrangement changes and it doesn't

[15:31] change back. One vote decides whether Belton is the city that showed its work

[15:36] or the city that charged for it. Thank you.

[15:44] » Any questions?

[15:49] » [snorts] >> Go ahead.

[15:53] » I guess someone if we wanted to move forward with this needs to make a

[15:56] motion. Correct. >> Correct.

[16:00] » Go ahead. >> Um would we consider these two requests

[16:03] separately? If there was a motion,

[16:08] » you could again just like last time where you guys were determining whether

[16:11] or not I do believe council member White might have made a motion to just

[16:15] partially wave them. It is up to the city council's discretion as to how much

[16:20] you wave or how you wave it. [snorts]

[16:25] » Is there I mean that's a valid point. Is there is there interest in tackling

[16:29] these two separately? I'd be comfortable with that.

[16:35] » Yeah. Um the first request regarding audit and usage records, I'm more

[16:41] comfortable considering a waiver and making those results public. I think the

[16:46] second request I don't know that that necessarily

[16:50] serves the public good. Um I don't know. I' I've got mixed feelings

[16:56] about the two separate issues.

[17:01] » Go ahead. I think it's fine to take them separately. I have the same concerns as

[17:05] council member Lawson.

[17:09] » Anybody over here have anything?

[17:17] » All right. Can uh Patrick, can you help me out with some language here?

[17:21] » Um yes, that would be what is it? Is it request four and six or six and eight?

[17:26] » Six and eight. So that would be a motion approving the waiver of fees and

[17:31] determining it in the public interest uh regarding request six

[17:38] of the sunshine law request submitted by Steven Vaka on

[17:44] » August 15th. >> Moved. So moved.

[17:50] » We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion on

[17:55] on a question? So this is wavering partial.

[18:01] » No, this is just this is just waving him on question six on his on his list. Can

[18:07] someone explain what that is? >> Yes. Question six from the letter was

[18:12] audit and usage records on the memo that's in the council agenda packet.

[18:16] It's listed as number one >> which

[18:20] is hold on. Can you explain that a little better?

[18:26] audit usage what what he's asking. Can you explain

[18:30] what that is a little better? >> I'm sorry. I was answering a question

[18:34] for Chief Sap. What was the question again?

[18:37] » Can you explain what the audits audit and usage log that he's requesting what

[18:41] that is in a little bit more detail, please?

[18:44] » That would be a detailed log that we get from Flock itself. it would require a uh

[18:49] system administrator to get and that's one of the reasons that the cost was so

[18:54] high because it can only come from one person.

[18:58] » Okay, that answer your question Brett. Did that answer your question? [snorts]

[19:04] » Anybody else?

[19:08] » Um since we are in discussion, uh can we ask a question of the

[19:15] presenter? Yeah,

[19:17] » if comfortable, Mr. Vaka, would you be willing to just kind of explain the uh

[19:22] you know, I guess purpose of the request in terms of

[19:26] less I understood I understood the philosophical piece of what you just

[19:30] described, but I guess more of like what the um intent is to produce with the

[19:35] data. Uh, I'm going to report regardless on

[19:40] what our outcomes are of just this vote decision tonight, but ultimately I'd

[19:45] like to report that the systems being used in the way that it was approved of,

[19:50] but I could also report [snorts] what I find when the logs are revealed. That's

[19:55] ultimately what my goal is. I want transparency.

[19:58] What >> And [snorts] when you say report, can

[19:59] you clarify what you mean by that? >> Same thing I did with the North Cast

[20:02] Parkway. I just made Facebook posts. >> Okay.

[20:07] Thank you. Go ahead. >> Um, Chief Lines, you've spoken to us

[20:10] before about the audit logs and usage and our internal controls for the

[20:14] automated license plate reader data. Do you mind refreshing our memory on how

[20:19] your department manages this information?

[20:22] » Uh, the data is 30 days and so we can go back over 30 days and we do that

[20:27] monthly. It's also in our transparency portal. You can actually pull it up and

[20:31] look at the last 30 days. uh but to go beyond that is a deeper search that we

[20:37] have to go into the system and get that from flock and that's done through the

[20:41] system administrator having access and then with help on the back end of it.

[20:48] I remember reviewing the transparency portal last time you mentioned this. Um,

[20:53] I'll just point it out to the council that a retroactive search going back 12

[20:58] months, I I would be comfortable waving that,

[21:01] but I would make it known to the public that if you're not making use of the

[21:04] transparency portal and monitoring and and keeping us honest that way, I will

[21:09] not feel comfortable continually waving these at the cost to the city to pull

[21:14] these retroactive reports. So, that's my two cents.

[21:18] » Yeah. Yeah, and I'll just to add to that because that's a good point of which is

[21:22] the transparency portal was became public or created or whatever on

[21:27] approximately when >> uh we did that about um gosh what was

[21:32] that presentation maybe 60 days ago. >> Okay.

[21:36] So retroactively there's some point to be made.

[21:41] » Go ahead. So any person in any citizen of Belton or any person who's been

[21:45] driving through Belton could request through the transparency portal

[21:48] information about whether their license plate has been reviewed.

[21:53] » Yes, you could go on that portal and look.

[21:59] » Go ahead. >> I have another question for Mr. Vaka.

[22:03] [snorts]

[22:05] » Have you used the free transparency portal?

[22:09] Not yet because I went through the sunshine request which is my right.

[22:14] » I I understand that. I I would think you would want to start there and find

[22:18] something that would make it an easier decision.

[22:20] » The transparency portal is only going to show what wants to be shown.

[22:25] Whereas again he just said we're only keeping 30 days. How much data is flock

[22:31] keeping?

[22:35] » All right. Does it go back 90? Does it go back a year? How much data are they

[22:41] keeping on us? What all are they recording us for?

[22:45] I mean, we've already been told that it's pattern recognition, too. If the if

[22:50] the system flags another vehicle following you multiple times, you're now

[22:55] put in the system. How do you get removed from the system? Do we have back

[22:59] ways for that? Chief Lines, I'd ask you to address his

[23:05] assertion that what is available on the transparency portal is in any way

[23:11] modified or restricted. >> I I don't believe so. But when we go

[23:15] back 12 months, what I've seen of that data is you do not see license plates.

[23:20] You don't see you only see uh date, time, location, you see reason. And so

[23:26] it's even limited to what is out there past that 30 days. And that is more of

[23:33] who actually searched. And that could be an agency in Florida that runs a plate

[23:40] that comes as a search on your your actual flock. Anybody that you're

[23:45] sharing data with. >> Thank you.

[23:49] » And I'll just say I think this is the same concern I brought up previously

[23:52] when we had the work session, uh, which is that it sounds like our internal

[23:56] controls are actually quite robust. and I appreciate that and I I think that's a

[24:00] very important part of Belton. Um the problem comes

[24:06] external controls that we don't have any control over. Um and whether or not

[24:12] those players are potentially using our data appropriately and so there's I

[24:16] don't know there's some concern there for sure.

[24:22] » Anybody else?

[24:26] » Go ahead. So we are voting on one >> voting on his question six about u it's

[24:34] 18182 >> which is

[24:37] » number one in the packet

[24:44] » go ahead you have something else anybody else

[24:48] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. Go ahead.

[24:50] » I just want to remind the council that the standard um here is that this is in

[24:55] the public interest to wave the fee. Um just might want to remind the council

[25:01] that the same individual made the same plea previously and levied dozens of

[25:06] baseless accusations against staff and the council. Um and then has made no uh

[25:12] attempts to uh correct the record even though the records show that those

[25:17] accusations were false. You'll give me a list.

[25:30] » Anybody else? >> Hearing none. All in favor?

[25:35] » I >> I

[25:36] » All oppose. >> No.

[25:38] » No. >> No.

[25:40] » Can you please state? >> Can you do a roll call?

[25:45] » Yes, I can. Council member Johnson,

[25:49] » no. >> McCllum,

[25:51] » I >> Richardson,

[25:53] » hi. >> Lawson,

[25:55] » I. >> Mayor Larkkey,

[25:58] » no. >> Council member Bryan,

[26:01] » no. >> Council member Davidson,

[26:05] » yes. >> Council member Thompson,

[26:08] » no. >> Council member White,

[26:10] » I

[26:14] passed. >> Yeah. Motion passes.

[26:22] All right.

[26:26] Anybody else?

[26:29] » I'll I'll bite. Uh, Mr. City Attorney, can you help me again?

[26:35] » Uh, a motion approving the waiver of fees associated

[26:39] with the Steven Vodka's Sorry, I forget the date again. What was it?

[26:42] » August 15th. >> August 15th. Sunshine Law Request

[26:46] question eight as they are in the public interest.

[26:50] » So moved.

[26:58] » I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. [snorts]

[27:04] » Go ahead. [snorts] >> All right. Um I'm

[27:10] trying to this one specifically. I'd like to better understand

[27:15] um

[27:19] the the concern. I mean the the I guess I'm trying to understand the data and

[27:23] I'm hoping uh city staff can help me understand what this data looks like and

[27:28] why we're getting to such a high cost. >> Yes. with the request for all complaints

[27:36] and inquiries and correspondence received by staff from the public. That

[27:41] will require an IT query of the date range and

[27:46] the correspondence that staff has had with members of the public. To find the

[27:53] questions, the answers back to the members of the public will have to do a

[27:57] second query with the email addresses that are discovered from the first

[28:01] query. So basically is it am I understanding

[28:06] correctly that it comes to a time of resources situation?

[28:11] » Yes. on in the memo it states the amount of

[28:15] time that will be from my office and then because this is the PD server the

[28:21] police department will also need to review the findings to ensure that

[28:26] there aren't any active cases that would need to be closed or other closed

[28:29] information that I wouldn't be aware of >> things that might be currently

[28:32] investigated that kind of thing.

[28:37] » Okay. I was just uh I was just very curious on the frontier of um

[28:45] of the complaints in that situation. So, thank you for the explanation.

[28:53] » Anybody else? >> Do you have anything since you want to

[28:59] separate it out? Um, I just don't see the need um for the requesttor to access

[29:07] this information. Um, if he is interested in public opinion on the

[29:12] cameras or concerns, he's very good at engaging on Facebook and could request

[29:17] folks chime into him there. Also, I have a feeling that when some people email us

[29:21] or the city, it is not a matter it is not intended to be a matter of public

[29:25] record. Uh, conversely, people will come to the council meetings much like you

[29:29] have and and state their opinions, but I don't think any email that a ward member

[29:34] sends to me um is up to your scrutiny necessarily. And so, in protecting

[29:40] residents who just have questions or want to communicate with their council

[29:43] member, I don't understand the value to the public for that. They could also

[29:47] make those statements publicly. And you're welcome to invite them to do so.

[29:52] » Go ahead. Yeah, I

[29:55] » piggybacking on uh what Councilman Lawson said is um

[30:01] he has the right to ask. >> Sure.

[30:04] » And uh I support that right, but at the same time I don't think it rises to the

[30:09] level of public and so um u he has a right to ask and the right to be charged

[30:15] for the time that it takes to do that. So that's kind of where I'm at at this.

[30:21] Patrick, if Sorry. >> No, go ahead. Um, go ahead.

[30:25] » Mr. City Attorney, if you wouldn't mind again, um, the last time we were

[30:28] weighing these waiverss. Um, you mentioned like obstructionist requests

[30:33] or would you just refresh our memories on?

[30:36] » Uh, yeah, that was a bigger issue uh, probably a couple years ago. The

[30:40] Missouri legislaturator has kind of fine-tuned that nowadays, but there have

[30:44] been in the past. Um I've dealt with one early on in my career in another city

[30:49] also similarly about a development that was going into an area where single

[30:54] family homes were nearby that caused quite a bit of contention. Um and in

[30:59] that case the requester was essentially able due to just voluminous requests

[31:04] able to pretty much shut down most city operations. Um, and that can occur.

[31:08] Again, there are just certain people that have to do certain things. And like

[31:13] Andrea just mentioned, PD has to review a lot of these emails and files due to

[31:17] the fact that they could be open investigations or other closed reports.

[31:22] I might myself and Andrew would probably have to review most to make sure that

[31:26] there is no personal identifiable information that is also supposed to be

[31:30] closed under the sunshine law. Um, so these sorts of when a request gets to

[31:35] the size of, you know, 50 plus staff hours just to work through

[31:43] it, it does have the unintended consequence of causing other issues to

[31:49] slow down. And, you know, there's obviously limited resources here at the

[31:53] city and staff has certain deadlines and obligations that it has to meet. And the

[31:57] purpose of the Sunshine Law fees is to make sure that a requesttor or anybody

[32:02] who has triggered that level of work is also the one that is paying for that

[32:07] level of work instead of the general taxpayers of the city.

[32:10] » So, did I hear you right that on a request like this with 3500 roughly

[32:14] emails, you would likely be involved in the review? I don't see any hours

[32:17] tracked for the city attorney. >> You can't.

[32:20] » Okay. Just for you though. >> Yeah, but you you can't charge for my

[32:23] time. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody

[32:27] else

[32:31] » hearing? None. Do a roll call again, please. Andrea.

[32:33] » Yes. >> Council member Lawson,

[32:35] » no. >> Johnson,

[32:37] » no. >> White,

[32:38] » no. >> Richardson,

[32:40] » no. >> Davidson,

[32:41] » no. >> Bryan,

[32:42] » no. >> Mckllum,

[32:44] » no. >> Mayor Larkkey,

[32:45] » no. >> Thompson,

[32:46] » no. >> That motion fails.

[32:49] » Motion fails.

[32:55] Item G, unfinished business. Number one, motion approving the final reading of

[32:59] bill 2026-43. >> An ordinance approving an amended

[33:03] development and maintenance agreement between the city of Belton and RPNT

[33:07] Autumn Woods Holdings LLC for public and private improvements in the Autumn Woods

[33:12] subdivision. >> Present.

[33:13] » Second. >> Have a motion in a second. [sighs]

[33:19] Go ahead. Oh, you don't have anything? You usually do so.

[33:26] [snorts] >> Go with it.

[33:27] » Anybody got anything? All right. Roll call.

[33:30] » Council member Lawson. >> I.

[33:32] » Johnson. >> I.

[33:33] » White. >> I.

[33:34] » Richardson. >> I.

[33:35] » Davidson. >> Yes.

[33:36] » Brian. >> I.

[33:37] » McCllum. >> Nay.

[33:38] » Mayor Larkkey. >> Nay.

[33:42] » Thompson. >> No.

[33:46] » Motion passes. Item two, motion approving final reading

[33:50] of bill 2026-47, >> an ordinance authorizing the

[33:55] appropriation and revision of the city of Belton fiscal year 2027 adopted city

[33:59] budget to cover additional costs for the water meter infrastructure replacement

[34:04] implementation project and construction at the public works facility.

[34:08] » Present. >> Second.

[34:09] » A motion a second. Any discussion

[34:16] hearing? None. Roll call. >> Council member Bryan.

[34:18] » Hi. >> Davidson,

[34:20] » yes. >> Thompson,

[34:21] » yes. >> White,

[34:22] » I. >> Johnson,

[34:23] » I. >> McCllum,

[34:24] » I. >> Lawson,

[34:25] » I. >> Mayor Larkkey,

[34:27] » yes. >> Richardson,

[34:28] » I. >> Motion passes.

[34:32] » Item three, motion approving the final reading of bill 2026-48

[34:36] as amended. an ordinance amending appendix B traffic schedules table 4

[34:41] speed zones of the code of ordinances of the city of Belton Missouri to establish

[34:45] certain speed zones >> present

[34:47] » second motion a second >> what do you got [clears throat]

[34:53] » so after last time's meeting there was a lot of questions about where should the

[34:58] beginning of the speed limit change be at so I went and did a couple more speed

[35:03] studies and I and I just took these photos off of Google so don't think I

[35:06] have some expert foot and photographer here. I was able to label a street or

[35:10] anything. So, this is Cleveland looking northbound headed toward Cambridge, the

[35:14] stop signs at Cambridge. And so, one of the there's a couple things to consider

[35:18] when you're doing speed limits. One, what's the driver's perception? Is there

[35:22] a change or there conflicts? Because those are times when people will change

[35:25] their speeds when something changes in front of them or they or they uh think

[35:30] that there's a danger ahead of them. Someone's going to stop, someone's going

[35:33] to pull out, something's going to happen. That's a conflict. And so these

[35:36] are things that we look for. So this is looking northbound as you're going up.

[35:40] You cross it, the road looks pretty much the same. No need to change, right? You

[35:45] keep going up, no need to change. We're still going up. We're south of U

[35:50] Park Avenue, but north of Cambridge, things looks pretty much the same. Looks

[35:55] pretty much the same. Looks pretty much the same. Then all a sudden, you start

[35:59] seeing something different. So you become a little bit more alerted. maybe

[36:02] I need to slow down and maybe need to make a change. And this is Park Avenue.

[36:07] And then you start getting closer to where the school's at and you can see a

[36:10] dramatic change of what's in front of you. And then uh Council Member Johnson

[36:16] brought up about the difference in speed limit. Now, this is from the same spot.

[36:20] I just blew up the picture and you can see ahead of you the signs and the

[36:25] black. That's where the flashers at. So that give you an idea what I'm talking

[36:28] about. So that's how close the change is. So, we went and did the speed limit

[36:32] changes. And so, when you back up, when you're in this area, the 85th percentile

[36:38] speed is about 35 miles an hour. A little bit further to the south is 36,

[36:42] but it's consistently 35 miles an hour till you get up here to park or just

[36:48] past right here, the 85th percentile drops to 32. And people are seeing a

[36:53] reason to slow down and begin slowing down. So having a speed limit that's

[36:57] that changes at park is going to fit what the circumstances are there.

[37:01] Hopefully you can see the difference in the areas and the reason why the change

[37:04] would happen. Now someday if something changes again, for instance, we bring in

[37:09] a a trail out there or we change what the park looks like, we build a

[37:14] different entrance for the park, we can revisit it again. This is not like this

[37:18] is it forever. This is this is it for today and this is the circumstance we

[37:23] have out there for today. So because of that and what the speeds are and what

[37:26] how people are reacting, I'd recommend that we have the speed limit change at

[37:31] Park Avenue. And so it's 35 from the South City limit to Park Avenue, then 25

[37:35] miles an hour from there north. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you

[37:38] have. >> Go ahead.

[37:41] » I just it feels very validating when the data backs me up. [laughter]

[37:47] » Appreciate it. >> Anybody Go ahead. I'll just say later in

[37:52] the packet um there's exhibit F for sorry let me catch back up here uh

[37:59] community development projects which shows the Dryen Nature Preserve reserve

[38:05] sorry with an entrance and exit between Cambridge and Park on Cleveland and I

[38:10] hear what you're saying that this isn't a permanent speed limit sign for all

[38:14] eternity but I think two things to consider one is if we can get drivers in

[38:19] the habit of reaching Cambridge and being more alert. That'd

[38:23] be great. And the second thing I was trying to pull up is any school bus

[38:26] routes that go on Cambridge. Um I've also I recall residents having issues

[38:32] with what they perceived as speeding along Cambridge. So in my mind that is

[38:36] still a logical place to alert drivers that they are now in the city and there

[38:42] are going to be people coming and going. Um it's just my two cents. You're right.

[38:47] It's not permanent, but I still like the idea of having that start at Cambridge.

[38:54] » Anybody else? >> So, the motion on the table as amended

[39:01] is to start at Park Avenue. So, just so you're familiar with what we

[39:06] did. So, >> the reduction at Park Avenue.

[39:10] » Yeah, the reduction starts at Park Avenue. I I'll just I'll just throw add

[39:16] in there. I I agree with Council Member Lawson. Um but I think the most

[39:19] important piece to this is that this is now and we can always adjust for the

[39:24] future and I think we should be doing that across the city. You know, we

[39:28] should always be looking to adjust in the future. I've personally um had to I

[39:34] don't know deal with is not the right word, but I've experienced that. That's

[39:37] the word. I've experienced that on and you know in Ward One um right outside my

[39:42] neighborhood when it uh was changed. So I think uh I think it's you know

[39:47] important to note for now and we can always adjust in the future.

[39:54] » Anybody else hearing? None. Roll call.

[39:58] » Mayor Larkkey. >> Yes.

[40:00] » Council member Johnson. >> I.

[40:01] » Brian. >> I.

[40:02] » White. >> I.

[40:03] » Richardson. >> I.

[40:04] » Mallum. >> Hi.

[40:05] » Lawson. I >> Thompson.

[40:07] » Yes. Davidson. >> Yes.

[40:10] » Motion passes. New business. One motion approving the

[40:15] number one. Motion approving the first reading of bill 2026-49.

[40:19] » An ordinance authorizing acceptance of funds and execution of a grant agreement

[40:23] with the Missouri Department of Public Safety from the Emergency Management

[40:27] Performance Grant for a total award amount of $89,510.30.

[40:32] » Present. >> Second.

[40:34] » We have a motion and a second. you're up.

[40:36] » Uh good evening, mayor and council. Uh each year the city of Belton applies for

[40:40] the 50% local match emergency management performance grant. This provides

[40:45] important funding in support of the city's emergency management program. It

[40:48] helps offset costs um that are associated with maintaining our

[40:52] capabilities in emergency management as well. Uh the awarded funds will be used

[40:57] to supplement the salary um of my position and the city has budgeted a 50%

[41:02] match of that total grant award to come out of the fiscal year 26 and fiscal

[41:06] year 27 budgets. Um because this signed agreement is uh due to be returned to

[41:13] the state by September 15th. I am also requesting that council approve a double

[41:17] read of the ordinance this evening so that we can meet that required deadline.

[41:22] » Happy to answer any questions. Any questions?

[41:25] » Go ahead. >> So, if we don't do a double read, it

[41:28] would cost the city money, correct? Because I'm guessing you wouldn't work

[41:31] for half pay. [snorts] >> I'd rather not. Yes.

[41:34] » Okay. [laughter] >> So, this is to save taxpayers money. All

[41:39] joking aside. >> Yes.

[41:40] » All right. Thank you. >> Go ahead.

[41:42] » This is more of a general question. Um, do we have any other positions that are

[41:46] either partially or fully grant funded? >> I'm thinking police co-responder, the

[41:50] mental health co-responders one. Is that the only other one?

[41:56] » Uh, I believe the victim advocate too. >> Gotcha. Okay.

[41:59] » And it and this may not be apples to apples, but correct me if I'm wrong

[42:04] here, but I believe we also get grants for various specialized positions within

[42:08] the police. Um, that may not cover their half or full salary, but covers

[42:12] certainly a portion of the overtime, that kind of thing.

[42:17] Off the top of my head, I can't think of any positions. We do get grants for

[42:22] specialized duties through like um traffic safety, hazardous moving, that

[42:28] kind of stuff. >> Yeah, maybe I guess maybe that's what I

[42:30] was talking about. Yeah, >> go ahead.

[42:32] » Do you uh know off the top of your head how many years we've applied for this

[42:37] grant and received it?

[42:41] » I think it goes prior to me being police chief in 2021. It may go back at least

[42:48] 10 years. I know it's at least 15.

[42:53] » That's what I was thinking. >> It's at least 15.

[42:56] » She's positive it's been as long as she's been here.

[42:59] » Yes. >> Um I'm assuming you wrote and submitted

[43:03] your own grant application for this. >> Yes.

[43:06] » Way to sing for your supper. That is like a that [laughter] is a talent in

[43:10] our emergency management director. We maybe didn't select in the hiring

[43:12] process, but good job. >> Thank you. [snorts]

[43:15] » Anybody else? >> Hearing none. All in favor?

[43:19] » I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes.

[43:23] » Motion for second reading. >> Second.

[43:26] » We have a motion and a second for a second reading.

[43:30] » Any discussion on the motion and a second for a second reading. Go ahead.

[43:34] » I very much appreciated Council Member Bryan's uh point here, which is that uh

[43:38] not doing so would cost the taxpayers money.

[43:43] Well, just and just to be clear that we had this on the agenda last meeting, but

[43:47] we had some issues with some language that we got wanted to get cleared up.

[43:50] So, that's why we delayed it. So, that's why we're behind the eightball on this.

[43:54] So, >> anybody else on the motion to for a

[43:57] second reading? Hearing none. All in favor?

[44:00] » I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes.

[44:05] Motion approving the second reading of bill 2026-49.

[44:09] » An ordinance authorizing acceptance of funds and execution of a grant agreement

[44:13] with the Missouri Department of Public Safety from the Emergency Management

[44:16] Performance Grant for a total award amount of $89,510.30.

[44:22] » Present. >> Second.

[44:24] » We have a motion second. Any more discussion?

[44:27] » Hearing none. Roll call. >> Council member Richardson.

[44:30] » I. >> Thompson.

[44:31] » Yes. >> Brian.

[44:32] » I. >> Davidson.

[44:33] » Yes. >> Johnson.

[44:34] » I. White >> I

[44:35] » Lawson >> I

[44:36] » McCllum >> I

[44:37] » Mayor Larkkey >> I motion passes

[44:42] [clears throat] >> two motion approving first reading bill

[44:45] 2026-51 >> an ordinance amending chapter 15 article

[44:50] 2 of the code of ordinances of the city of Belton Missouri to establish certain

[44:54] requirements related to the habitability of property in the city

[44:57] » present >> second a motion a second you're up sir

[45:01] » Mr. Mayor and Council, before you on in this uh ordinance essentially is a

[45:06] response to lots of questions in the public. Uh many coming from council

[45:11] members themselves about uh individuals uh being allowed to inhabit or sleep in

[45:17] areas of the city on private property that lack basic amenities that would

[45:21] normally make a property habitable. Um, again, we had the work session on this

[45:27] and we we specifically did not want to make put any added burden on anybody who

[45:33] might be homeless or houseless. And so that that's not how this was written.

[45:36] This was written essentially to uh try to ensure that property owners carry the

[45:42] burden to provide the basic habitable necessities that are established by our

[45:47] code in in other areas. Um, and uh, it's not designed to be overly orous, but you

[45:53] know, basic things like clean running water, adequate sanitary and sewer

[45:57] facilities, electric power, compliant with code, light air, and ventilation,

[46:02] uh, protection from the elements, and adequate access to heating are

[46:05] essentially what we're asking um, property owners to to provide to anybody

[46:12] who might be habiting their location. And so, I would be glad to stand for any

[46:16] questions. Go ahead. [clears throat]

[46:22] » I saw him burn. >> That's fine.

[46:23] » Go ahead. >> It says the uh the readily available the

[46:27] services like water, bathroom, stuff like that.

[46:30] » Yeah. >> I would like it to say that it has to be

[46:34] available 24 hours of the day all the time versus readily available could mean

[46:40] 10 minutes a day. >> I that's not how I would define. I guess

[46:44] that's a question for the city attorney. My understanding is readily available

[46:47] would mean available at any point in time.

[46:49] » Yeah. Ready and available access means that they always have to have access to

[46:54] it. >> Okay.

[46:55] » It's not again that that would be like if we allowed a landlord to rent a house

[46:59] to somebody and then they put a timer on the bathroom door that said you couldn't

[47:02] use it from >> Okay.

[47:04] » you know 12 hours. >> Well, as long as that's what we're going

[47:06] to go by. >> Yeah.

[47:08] » Go ahead. >> Well, Council Member Richardson kind of

[47:12] stole a little bit of my question. So, uh, if a landlord

[47:19] left the house unlocked for someone to come in and out, then that would be

[47:22] readily available and they could still sleep outside.

[47:26] Is that my understanding of this? >> That's a good question.

[47:32] » You I thought he said sheltered from the elements.

[47:36] Well, it depends upon >> having it available and and the purpose

[47:39] the person utilizing it might be two different things. But

[47:43] » again, sufficient protection from the elements is also key. And again, we

[47:46] didn't one of the reasons why the ordinance was kind of switched to this

[47:49] is we didn't want to go over broad and end up capturing people, you know,

[47:52] camping with their kids in their backyard. [snorts] So, instead it was

[47:55] focused on the habitability of the structure. I would also note that um it

[48:00] is not common, and Casey can correct me if I'm wrong, for landlords to leave

[48:05] open their property to the elements and to keep on water service that they will

[48:10] have to pay for for other people to utilize or electrical as well.

[48:14] » Well, I was thinking of people that are sleeping in someone's backyard, not

[48:18] necessarily landlords. >> Go ahead.

[48:22] » You stole my question. >> Sorry. I I want to get a little deeper

[48:27] into that. Um let's just go with the scenario that was presented in front of

[48:32] us. We had somebody sleeping on a piece of property, you know, on Main Street um

[48:40] under a overhang uh of sorts. would that person have been? And if they

[48:48] were allowed to go in for water and restroom and you know and if the tornado

[48:56] came through, take shelter, that kind of thing, would they meet this definition?

[49:00] I would also note that sufficient protection from the elements being

[49:03] readily available would mean that the in that case the church would have had to

[49:07] keep their door unlocked 24/7 because readily a ready and available means that

[49:12] you can access them without anybody else needing to come in and provide consent.

[49:16] » Well, let's just say they did that. Let's say they their door was unlocked.

[49:20] The person was on the the front porch. Is that is that allowable under this

[49:27] code? I >> I think you can argue that it's not

[49:29] because of the extreme temperature changes.

[49:33] » Well, I appreciate that, but I guess I'd like to know officially.

[49:36] » I don't know how we would in in >> one of the things was we went down the

[49:40] same rabbit hole when it came to trying to go with the camping sort of

[49:45] situation. So, there's only two routes we can go down. And so if we didn't

[49:51] think that camping was probably gonna get it done or be done in a manner that

[49:55] we could kind of fit it in, which I don't think most of staff thought we

[49:58] could, this is kind of the this is the route. And I I know that hypotheticals

[50:03] like again that one I do not believe that any of

[50:06] » I know I know that's why I actually didn't say hypothetical when I started

[50:10] this because the a lawyer's worst, you know, words.

[50:13] » I mean, I'll just say under the facts that were presented to the city based on

[50:16] what was occurring, they were in violation of this. Now, if they changed

[50:19] that to do a bunch of other stuff, aka allowed them the ability to go inside at

[50:25] all times and gave them a key, maybe they could be outside of the scope

[50:32] of this, but that didn't happen. And so, we don't know what the extent of that

[50:36] would be. Okay. And to to play devil's advocate, what would if how would we go

[50:41] further than this and and stop someone like yourself from wanting to sleep on

[50:46] your porch at any point in time for any reason you when you have readily

[50:51] access to everything else? I mean, again, are we going to at some point we

[50:54] don't want to infringe on people's individual liberties. We we just want to

[50:57] make sure that they have the the protections that they deserve.

[51:00] » Yep. Solid point. I just uh I wanted to make sure I understood uh more

[51:06] specifically there. Thank you. >> Go ahead.

[51:11] » What is our policy if one's if someone gets their water shut off and how many

[51:17] days do they have to get it turned back on before

[51:20] it's considered? >> Um so honestly water shut off to a

[51:24] building is already considered a dangerous structure that we can order

[51:27] them to vacate. Um so our again typically if somebody gets their water

[51:32] shut off and we know they're attempting to reside in a structure that does not

[51:37] have adequate access to facil does not have adequate facilities which is

[51:41] defined in our uh udc we have a couple times not every time again because there

[51:48] are extenduating circumstances somebody could be like I'm coming down tomorrow

[51:51] to pay it don't write me the notice of dangerous building and kick me out but

[51:55] we have uh ordered vacated structure in town when somebody did not have running

[52:01] water. >> So technically you get your water shut

[52:03] off one day, they could be at your door the next day evicting them.

[52:06] » Well, that would be well that's under the IRC.

[52:09] » Not evicting them, but yeah, >> that's under the international

[52:11] residential code requires if there is not adequate facilities which it defines

[52:16] as water sewer then a structure is determined to be dangerous and that is a

[52:22] again that was not written by anybody here that is the international code

[52:25] council. Okay, >> go ahead.

[52:32] » Let me come back because I just forgot it actually.

[52:35] » Go ahead. >> Uh, can you walk us through what

[52:38] enforcement of this would look like, say, in the situation we had on Main

[52:42] Street this summer? If this had been in effect, what would the process have

[52:45] been? >> That's a good question. Um,

[52:50] it's a code violation. So, a a a courtesy notice to start and then a

[52:55] citation for the uh property owner. That's generally how we've handled code

[52:59] violations in the past.

[53:05] » I I will add to that that while this was going on this summer, I did reach out to

[53:11] someone higher up in the church organization downtown and they said, "We

[53:16] know you don't have an ordinance, so we know you can't do nothing to us." and

[53:20] they told me that on the phone. So,

[53:25] so just to to kind of answer what your question is, this this will give us

[53:29] something. >> We could technically I mean normal code

[53:32] violation notice is how that's handled, but we could we could always technically

[53:35] say it's not habitable and you're not allowed to stay there.

[53:39] » I guess >> essentially post it like we do would

[53:42] another property. I I just want to be able to visualize

[53:46] what like the final logical conclusion of this would be. If we write a courtesy

[53:51] notice, then we write a code violation, then at some point we abate it. It's a a

[53:56] human. You know what I mean? >> Well, I would also note that this

[54:01] ordinance is directed at the property owner and less at the actual person

[54:07] occupying the premises. So, it would be a fine. And then honestly, if somebody

[54:12] continued to violate this, my suggestion would be to actually go to the circuit

[54:16] court and get an injunction because again, you are correct. It

[54:21] abatement is >> kind of a weird term for

[54:25] » a question mark. >> Yeah, that's

[54:28] » and and so if the situation were to arise in that setting, I would suggest

[54:32] instead of abating it in that manner, because I don't know how you do it,

[54:36] would would we just pick up all of his stuff and set it on the sidewalk?

[54:40] something like that. Instead, it would be I would suggest that we go to Cass

[54:44] County and get an injunction uh against the property owner making it

[54:49] so that they would be defying a court order and could be held in contempt of

[54:52] court by Cass County if they [clears throat] did not comply with the

[54:57] injunction. >> Okay. Thank you.

[54:58] » Go ahead. >> So, if someone doesn't have gets their

[55:02] water shut off, we could go the next day >> Yeah.

[55:05] » and and remove them from the premises. Correct. Uh we can we can put we've

[55:12] boarded properties up >> the next day. We could

[55:15] » Yeah. And they and they could sleep outside and then if they were sleeping

[55:19] outside, we would write them another ticket and then we'd also end up in the

[55:22] same situation if they were sleeping outside.

[55:24] » But in this situation, same thing. No water. They could be there for months.

[55:28] » Well, yeah, but the issue is the difference in what abatement looks like.

[55:30] Abatement to stop somebody from going into a home is putting up boards on a

[55:34] wall. Again, they could then sleep outside. And then if they were sleeping

[55:37] outside, we would be in the same situation where what does abatement look

[55:40] like? Does it look like, you know, driving out there and throwing away a

[55:46] bunch of tents and moving people's property? I would in that case as well

[55:50] suggest that our route would be an injunction to the circuit court, which

[55:53] we did in a case in Loanjack that was somewhat similar to the hypothetical I

[55:57] just gave. >> Okay, go ahead. Uh

[56:02] under A, it says it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or

[56:07] entity owning or controlling property in the city to permit.

[56:12] Uh there's been several situations where

[56:18] I've driven and see people sleeping on the sidewalk,

[56:24] for example, underneath the interstate uh 49

[56:29] at 4:00 in the morning, 5:00 in the morning.

[56:32] » The government is not a person or entity.

[56:34] » So they can do that without without having an issue.

[56:40] Okay. Anybody

[56:44] else?

[56:47] » Hearing none. All in favor? >> I I

[56:51] » Any opposed? Motion passes.

[56:56] One consent or I consent agenda one motion not available to approve the

[56:59] recommendation noted. Any member of this council may ask for the item be taken

[57:02] from the consent agenda for discussion and separate action.

[57:06] » Present. >> Second.

[57:07] » Motion in a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?

[57:12] » I >> I.

[57:13] » Any opposed? Motion passes. Ports, boards, commissions, park board, public

[57:19] arts commission. K. Communication with city council.

[57:23] Council member White. >> I don't have anything today.

[57:28] » Council member Thompson. >> I don't have anything today.

[57:31] » Council member Davidson. >> Um, [clears throat] I just want to

[57:34] remind everybody that this Saturday is the fall crawl. There will be 40 plus

[57:40] vendors set up inside and outside of different businesses.

[57:45] Um there'll be yoga at 8 o'clock at Pal Park, music, magic show. Um just a lot

[57:51] of fun. Thanks, >> Council Member Prime.

[57:55] » I have nothing. >> Member Lawson. Um, I would just remind

[58:00] folks to stop at school buses with the stop arm out and note that the school

[58:05] district has cameras on those uh to catch folks if they don't. And as a

[58:09] parent whose child rides a school bus and there's a little kid across the

[58:12] street who has to cross Mill to get on her bus, I'm glad for that.

[58:17] » Council member Richardson. >> Um, I just want to suggest the downtown

[58:22] Belt Main Street is hosting the fall craw fall crawl this Saturday, September

[58:26] 12th. as council member Davidson said, um, support our downtown businesses,

[58:31] enjoy everything on Main Street has to offer. Um, the Belt and Chamber has on

[58:35] September 23rd the Kansas City Symphony will be per performing free music in

[58:40] Wallace Park from 5:30 to 7:30. [clears throat and cough] And then on

[58:44] September 24th, the Belton Chamber is they still have openings for the

[58:48] glow-in-the-dark golf tournament um at Eagles Landing. This will be the final

[58:53] year for the tournament, so don't miss your chance to be a part of it. Thanks,

[58:58] » Council Member McCllum. >> Um,

[59:02] there's what, two weeks left now to uh put your or maybe not even a full two

[59:07] weeks, but anyways, there we're there's still time if you want to apply for the

[59:10] Charter Review Board. Uh, want to remind people to continue to apply for that.

[59:14] Um, I I got to give a shout out to our

[59:18] police department who uh actually last night the railroad uh the Belton

[59:25] Historical Railroad received some vandalism and was caught literally

[59:31] moments after it happened. All because they were doing a um driveby and

[59:36] happened to notice something that looked suspicious and um did a phenomenal job

[59:40] of following up on that. And I just really want to give this shout out there

[59:43] because it it it's a it's an unfortunate thing to um have to deal with and I'm

[59:50] I'm hopeful that we're getting to the more positive side of of dealing with

[59:55] those kinds of things. Um I also got to bring up schools uh because especially

[1:00:01] specifically in Ward One uh there's been a lot there's I mean there's always

[1:00:05] chatter around drop off and pickup. I know. Um but Ward One, there's been a

[1:00:10] lot of conversation around Kentucky Trail and um and so I had some

[1:00:14] conversation with the city manager and I know that we've um talked about the

[1:00:18] police presence there is also traffic light timing. I saw public works out

[1:00:22] there working on that. Um so we're already seeing some improvements, but I

[1:00:25] just want to say thank you to the residents for bringing that up. Um and

[1:00:28] the city's going to try to help out the schools, you know, in any way we can um

[1:00:32] on that front. Um, switching to parks updates. I uh there

[1:00:41] was not a meeting in between that this our last meeting. So, nothing uh new to

[1:00:45] add from an upcoming perspective. I'll just note they still need lifeguards.

[1:00:49] The farmers market is still going on Thursdays uh 4 to 7. Registration has

[1:00:54] opened for youth basketball. Um, oh, and HighBlue is running a special right now

[1:01:00] where if you join in the month of September, there will be a um there will

[1:01:04] be no enrollment fee at all. So, um, so just uh something to consider. And then

[1:01:09] they have a bunch of events going on coming up. I've already mentioned all

[1:01:13] them, so I'm not going to repeat myself. And that's everything I have.

[1:01:19] » Council member Johnson, >> I hope everybody had a good Labor Day

[1:01:22] weekend even though it was extraordinarily hot. Um looking forward

[1:01:25] to some cooler weather tomorrow. Um also would echo council member McCllum. Uh if

[1:01:30] you're interested in being on the charter review commission, please send

[1:01:33] in your application. Um also echo the fall crawl is this weekend on Main

[1:01:38] Street and encourage everyone to participate in that. And the Belt and

[1:01:41] Railroad Days is the following Saturday on the 19th from 10 to 4 um with lots of

[1:01:47] activities for families and I think there's some corresponding events on

[1:01:49] Main Street as well and would ask everybody to participate in those. I

[1:01:53] think it'll be a lot of fun. Um, and that's all I've got.

[1:01:58] » All right. Uh, only thing I got is a save the date. Uh, set the date for

[1:02:02] Mayor's Christmas tree lighting, which will be November the 28th.

[1:02:08] Uh, city manager. >> Mr. Mayor, I only have one thing, and

[1:02:11] that is that after the recent storms this weekend, um, and the the heavy

[1:02:16] winds that we had on one of those evenings, um, we are going to be opening

[1:02:20] the limb drop off for any residents who might want to utilize it. Um, I believe

[1:02:24] they'll be open tomorrow and Thursday. Um, look, you can look for some

[1:02:27] correspondence on on our uh marketing uh Facebook pages specifically on on uh the

[1:02:33] time for those. But >> is that used often? I mean, do we have a

[1:02:37] really good turnout when those are open?

[1:02:42] » We did after the tornado have a lot of people come by and then after one storm

[1:02:47] that we had, we did have a few residents come by. Uh there's other times that

[1:02:50] nobody's come. So, >> but I mean, but it's it's nice to have

[1:02:53] it. I think I' I've dropped off brush [snorts] more than one time there.

[1:02:56] » Yeah. There you go. >> Sorry. I just want to add to that. I

[1:03:00] appreciate that a lot. I've gotten I I I'm assuming after the other storm

[1:03:04] you're mentioning, I've gotten a lot of, uh, you know, residents talking to me

[1:03:08] about thanking me for, you know, um, having that open, that kind of thing.

[1:03:11] So, it's even on the ones where maybe no one shows up because they took care of

[1:03:15] it themselves or whatever, I know it's appreciated.

[1:03:18] » I would echo that. I had a neighbor who took five loads of down limbs and was

[1:03:22] very happy to have that limb drop off. I was much appreciated.

[1:03:25] » Hey, I I appreciate that, too. Um, and I know tomorrow and Thursday and I know a

[1:03:32] lot of people have a hard time doing it during the week. Is there any way to do

[1:03:35] like couple two or three hours on a Saturday or something or not? I just

[1:03:39] thought I'd throw it out there, but >> we'll see what we can do.

[1:03:43] » Yeah. Thank you. [snorts]

[1:03:46] » Anybody else? All right. Items for review and

[1:03:50] discussion. Number one, Y belt and plaza tiff.

[1:03:54] » All right, Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to talk too much about this other than just

[1:03:57] to say that the Y belt and tiff um has some restrictions on users and I know

[1:04:02] that the developer of that area has a potential user that right now would

[1:04:07] potentially be restricted. So, I think he'd like for you all to consider an

[1:04:11] amendment to the TIFF. So, I'm not going to talk too much about it, but I'm going

[1:04:13] to invite David Christie up to discuss um what he's looking for and what uh the

[1:04:18] the limit is that there are no automotive uses essentially, I believe

[1:04:21] is what the limit says for the TIFF. And I think he's got one specific user that

[1:04:25] in a spot that uh hasn't developed yet. So,

[1:04:45] [snorts]

[1:04:53] [snorts]

[1:04:56] » Distinguished Council members, Mr. Mayor, appreciate the opportunity to

[1:05:01] visit David Christie. Um,

[1:05:06] excited to be in front of you. I wanted to

[1:05:09] um I'd like to take a minute if you don't

[1:05:13] mind to open up uh both my life and my

[1:05:20] development uh credentials and what what I've done uh with the city's help truly

[1:05:27] um in Belt and in other communities in Cass County. Um, it's been an incredible

[1:05:33] partnership going back to u over 20 years with when I uh brought Home Depot

[1:05:39] to the market and uh I've worked with five probably five different

[1:05:45] administrations and u it's just been a it's just been a

[1:05:49] wonderful ride for me. So, I'm excited about um the Gateway project, but I

[1:05:56] wanted to take a couple minutes to uh invite questions about

[1:06:03] about what I've done. Um if I haven't done something, why ha

[1:06:09] haven't I not done it? Uh you know, and those types of things. And if you know,

[1:06:14] if you guys would if the mayor would allow that to have a little question and

[1:06:18] answers period. Um, it's a little bit sad for me because every single council

[1:06:24] member, nearly every single one has had my personal phone numbers

[1:06:29] » for 25 years and they've called me and I've called them and I've met them for

[1:06:34] coffee and I just don't feel like I have um a relationship with you all and uh

[1:06:43] the way that the council the council members and this city and and you

[1:06:49] basically um I used to call you alderman.

[1:06:53] Everything everything has changed so you know over so many years. But um is they

[1:06:58] shared ideas with me like when I when I talked to the mayor

[1:07:02] and Joe about what they wanted on the property that I bought from you all.

[1:07:07] They said Olive Garden and I went and got Olive Garden and I moved Olive

[1:07:11] Garden from the Gateway project because that's where I had a letter of intent

[1:07:16] signed but with Olive Garden with Darden. and I showed them this property

[1:07:21] where they're currently open and they said, "We like that better." And I said,

[1:07:25] "Great. So, let's go do it." But I can't please this council or anybody else if I

[1:07:33] don't know number one that what I'm doing right because I do a lot of things

[1:07:37] wrong. But if you all share these things with

[1:07:41] me, then it allows me to be a better tool for you in your city to do the

[1:07:47] projects that you need done. So, you all may know I bought 100 I

[1:07:52] bought 171st in homes. I'm trying to do a big grocery store powder center there

[1:07:57] next to Lock Lloyd. Um I Ive redeveloped the Y58 project uh

[1:08:04] that the Constantinos were not able to lease and we just signed another lease

[1:08:09] today. So, that's really going well. I built the the other place project in

[1:08:16] Valvaline. Um, I've provided uh a copy of a signed letter of intent from Swig

[1:08:23] that we signed in late June and I'm trying to make that project go forward.

[1:08:29] They came in and reviewed it and they're worried about the size of the land is 39

[1:08:34] acres. So, it's a pretty substantial substantially small piece of property.

[1:08:42] And so, um, they said, "We want to make sure that we can lay out and get traffic

[1:08:48] in and out of this project because everybody knows when the swig goes in

[1:08:53] there, the traffic is just monumental." >> So, anyway, so I provided that um for I

[1:09:02] think some of the council members have had questions about uh Swig and what was

[1:09:06] going to happen there. So there's there's a signing agreement that I

[1:09:10] signed in June, but I just I just really want to have a better relationship with

[1:09:15] you because I I try to do what um you guys asked me to do because you guys are

[1:09:21] speaking for the citizens of Belton and I've been here a long time and so um I'm

[1:09:29] trying to get Gateway developed. I've learned as re as as recently as

[1:09:35] today that uh the beeferoo deal is now the neers deal and I did the deal with

[1:09:42] neers after flying to Utah to meet with them and look at their concept and I

[1:09:48] loved it. I thought this is like Panera. This is going to be amazing. And the

[1:09:52] folks that were running it, the fourh four foods group, I think is the their

[1:09:57] name, you know, ended up having about 80 or 90 stores and then the owners of of

[1:10:02] of Neers

[1:10:06] refused to sell the concept and everything in in its entirety to them.

[1:10:10] So they bought the Neers Group out and then they closed all their stores

[1:10:16] including the one at 119th and Metcap in front of Target. Who can't

[1:10:22] make money there? So it was just terrible. So, as a city

[1:10:28] and as a developer and as a community, we've lived with a black eye with the

[1:10:33] neers project and it's really hurt my pad marketing.

[1:10:38] When we decided to do this project, I invited

[1:10:43] u the council members and they I think there was a an actually like a task

[1:10:48] force that said these are the tenants we'd like to see in our city.

[1:10:54] So, but they're essentially like attached, I think, Joe, to to the tiff

[1:10:58] agreement. This is what we want. So, the previous administration, uh, Mayor Davis

[1:11:05] asked me not to do fast food. And out of respect for him, because he

[1:11:12] he was he was a good leader just like Mayor Mary's a great guy and great

[1:11:17] leader, I didn't do it. So, we're trying to develop that. I spent

[1:11:24] I believe it's 11 to 12 million dollars building Turner Road and Marky Parkway

[1:11:28] of my own money that I would like to get back by having this project completed

[1:11:35] and I'm excited about it. So, um, but I've done everything I could. I I

[1:11:43] flew and met with Costco. I put the land under contract, which is now going to be

[1:11:48] the Petra project. I put the land under under uh contract to negotiate the the

[1:11:54] Costco deal. So, I've done everything that I can within my power to bring

[1:12:00] retailers that make Belton successful and a place that people want

[1:12:06] to live. And when I shared with the council many moons ago, a different

[1:12:11] obviously a different body, how are you going to get companies like like that

[1:12:16] went in uh North Point's project when they can't? There's no department

[1:12:20] stores. And so when I brought Kohl's and negotiated that project, I said, "You

[1:12:26] got to have a department store in your city so that the wives, if they're if

[1:12:30] their husbands are being transferred here or they're thinking about bringing

[1:12:34] the company here, they've got some services." And that's what this whole

[1:12:38] this whole thing has been about with me over the years. So, I'd like to invite

[1:12:43] anybody that has questions about me, uh my life, uh the project, these projects

[1:12:49] that I've done here. I'm happy to answer them for one minute or two and then I'll

[1:12:54] talk about the uh the project there at Gateway and we can finish uh our

[1:12:58] conversations. >> Go ahead.

[1:13:00] » Uh thank you for being here. Um, I have great respect for what you've done, but

[1:13:06] I'm going to tell you my personal opinion. I don't want anything there.

[1:13:11] I want it to be because of what's coming down around the corner, the big process.

[1:13:16] I'd like to have some vacant land, some little things for for parks, for

[1:13:21] something there that people can still see grass before they start going around

[1:13:25] the corner and seeing Petra. So, that's just my personal opinion. And if you

[1:13:30] could do something that would promote that, I would be thoroughly involved

[1:13:35] with that. But I do appreciate every effort that you've made. I just don't

[1:13:39] necessarily agree with every effort. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

[1:13:43] I just have a personal opinion. >> Thank you.

[1:13:48] » Anybody else?

[1:13:52] » Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, I'll agree. Credit where credit's

[1:13:55] due. a lot of kind of the creature comforts and and things folks have come

[1:13:59] to enjoy in Belton have been your handy work. Olive Garden is a feather in all

[1:14:03] of our caps. Uh even though you did a lot of the heavy lifting, um I will say

[1:14:07] this concept, I don't know how privileged it is, but um I'm a fan. So

[1:14:12] there's that. >> Go ahead.

[1:14:16] » Yeah, I appreciate everything you've done for Beldon, too. Thanks.

[1:14:19] » Thank you. Been a pleasure. >> Anybody else? [snorts]

[1:14:26] Oh, >> Mr. Mayor, if I may, I I didn't realize

[1:14:29] at the time when we did this work session that he's wanting to do to have

[1:14:32] keep some of this information privileged.

[1:14:34] » We we do have on the agenda for executive session real estate and

[1:14:37] things. If he wanted to hang out a few minutes and get get to the executive

[1:14:40] session, we could put him at the beginning and he and he could be more

[1:14:43] detailed about the individual >> Yeah, we can do that.

[1:14:45] » Stuff if he's if he's concerned with the confidentiality on some of this stuff.

[1:14:49] Uh do you want to hang out? >> So, I mean the rents in there,

[1:14:52] » that's a signed letter of intent. >> Yeah. the rents in there, what they're

[1:14:55] doing. >> Of course,

[1:14:56] » they don't want it public and there's an open records obviously we just heard

[1:15:01] that a little bit. >> We'll do that.

[1:15:03] » I'm just saying we can push we can postpone the rest of this discussion for

[1:15:05] a few minutes until we get to executive session when it is a privileged

[1:15:09] conversation and the rest of the public isn't available to see that.

[1:15:11] » Whatever you all prefer. >> Yeah.

[1:15:13] » You you okay with that, Patrick? >> Yeah.

[1:15:15] » All right. >> I and I do have some questions. So,

[1:15:17] » that's fine. All right. So, hang out for a few minutes, please.

[1:15:22] to code enforcement parking driveways presented by city manager.

[1:15:34] All right. Um we're this is the third in five installments we're discussing

[1:15:38] discussing code enforcement and it doesn't need to take up all of our time,

[1:15:41] but I just would like a little bit of feedback. Um specifically today, I'd

[1:15:45] like to discuss the driveways and parking um in residential, specifically

[1:15:49] single family residential. Um I've provided at your uh at the uh you know

[1:15:56] kind of the existing code in section uh 26 of our code and ordinances uh uh

[1:16:02] discussing residential driveways. You know um 2652

[1:16:06] is you know driveway sizes and coverage limits. Of course those things um the

[1:16:12] existence of this code comes came after a lot of the housing stock in our city

[1:16:16] was built. So, um, obviously, yes, any new residential is going to have to

[1:16:21] abide by these, uh, guidelines essentially, but that doesn't take into

[1:16:26] account the pre-existing housing stock, which we have a lot of, that may not

[1:16:30] meet these guidelines, right? So we're trying to to uh ex exist in a space that

[1:16:37] marries, you know, what is best practices and what's best for the future

[1:16:41] with what do we have now currently and how do we best utilize it and and make

[1:16:46] it useful for our residents um and for the neighbors that are around the

[1:16:49] residents. >> Mr. Wright, can you can you get sorry to

[1:16:52] put you on the spot here, but can you give us that term you always use,

[1:16:54] non-conforming?

[1:16:57] » Legal non-conforming. >> Legal non-conforming. Okay, thanks. So

[1:17:01] and then and then on the second page, you know, driveway paving materials and

[1:17:04] this is kind of where we really um need to have the the most of our discussion

[1:17:08] or my biggest question for you. You know, obviously paving materials says

[1:17:11] all driveways will be paved with the permanent materials such as asphalt,

[1:17:14] concrete, paving blocks or other approved material meeting the standards

[1:17:18] of the city. Driveway aprons that are accessed in the rightway shall be

[1:17:21] concrete to meet standard specifications for public improvements in the rightway.

[1:17:25] Um, and the entire driving and parking surface of a driveway shall be paved

[1:17:29] with a few exceptions. You know, interior sideyards, rear yards where

[1:17:33] driveways extended, those types of things. It does discuss the existence of

[1:17:36] ribbon driveways. Um, and give some some guidelines to that. Um,

[1:17:42] or PA block driveways, those types of things. So, that that's what's existing,

[1:17:46] I guess, is what what I'm trying to say. Um but that does not by any means or

[1:17:51] stretch um allow us to essentially you know maintain what we have as existing

[1:17:59] housing stock and how do we handle that from a code enforcement perspective and

[1:18:02] what kind of codes do we need to allow those to exist. Um I know that there's

[1:18:08] um if we discussed things like gravel um which we've allowed as a as a kind of a

[1:18:13] legal nonconforming um for those that have it um as long as

[1:18:18] they keep it up. Uh and I know that that public works um will get in up in arms

[1:18:23] in a hurry if we start saying let's just let people use gravel all throughout

[1:18:26] because we have obviously an issue with gravel when it comes to

[1:18:30] our storm sewer um and how that's handled. Um, but what makes sense for

[1:18:36] our residents? Do we do we want to allow and some people don't have anything.

[1:18:39] They don't have any gravel. They've not had anything. There's you'll you can

[1:18:43] drive around. You'll see a lot of folks driving, you know, parking on grass. Um,

[1:18:47] there are a lot of properties where they've essentially taken that front,

[1:18:50] you know, 10 feet or so off of the street and kind of made it like a little

[1:18:54] pad site. Um, and there's any level of things whether it's grass or gravel or

[1:19:02] used to be gravel or just dirt or you know that that exists throughout the

[1:19:05] city as well. And so how do we want to handle that? Um, you know, overall we we

[1:19:12] would definitely like some guidance because this is a situation that exists

[1:19:15] all too commonly and we we want to be working with people but also trying to,

[1:19:21] you know, maintain standards for residents and and neighbors. So, I how

[1:19:25] how do you want us to handle, you know, the drive, the parking, those types of

[1:19:29] of instances?

[1:19:32] » Any thoughts? >> Are you you're talking so people that

[1:19:36] have gravel driveways tell them they got by a certain date to concrete them or

[1:19:41] pave them or >> not necessarily unless that's what

[1:19:43] everybody everybody decides they want to do. I think that the in the past what

[1:19:47] we've allowed to do and I don't think we're advocating for anything different

[1:19:50] is that if they have gravel that they maintain the gravel and keep it. They

[1:19:53] don't allow the gravel to dissipate to the point where it becomes grass and

[1:19:56] then try to bring bring back the gravel is what that's kind of the issue.

[1:20:00] » Yeah. I mean, I I would never support going out there and telling everybody,

[1:20:04] "Hey, you got to have a gravel or you got to have a concrete driveway now." I

[1:20:07] mean, that's >> I don't think anybody's advocating for

[1:20:09] that at this point. >> Yeah. I I I'm not I don't think anybody

[1:20:13] » staff's not even advocating for that at this point. I We just want some

[1:20:16] guidelines. >> Go ahead.

[1:20:17] I I guess I didn't realize if this is a

[1:20:23] prevalent thing, but parking on grass in the front yard, especially specifically,

[1:20:29] uh that is common, you're saying, in various

[1:20:34] places. Yeah. I don't >> places that don't have a formal drive.

[1:20:37] Yes. So you're I can think of maybe only a couple in my

[1:20:43] ward, but maybe I'm okay. Um

[1:20:49] I guess that's essentially not having a drive period, right? That's not gravel,

[1:20:54] that's not paved, that's not a ribbon driveway, that's

[1:20:56] » nothing. Um >> I could see where that might need to be

[1:21:02] addressed. I can think of a couple of instances where we have a house and it's

[1:21:06] on a street and there's not a really good there's not really good on street

[1:21:09] parking available and there's no drive and there's folks that drive and park on

[1:21:15] the grass because there literally is no way no place to drive on the or park on

[1:21:18] the street and there's no place to park at the house formally so that there you

[1:21:23] know they're parking the best place they can.

[1:21:25] » Yeah, I guess my assumption has been you park on the street in those situations

[1:21:28] but okay can we can we get a list? I would like to see some of these places

[1:21:33] like what kind of conditions they are because I I can't think of one

[1:21:37] specifically but I I would like to see what we're talking about.

[1:21:40] » You mean as far as has nowhere to park and they're parking on in the in

[1:21:43] » and they're parking in their yard essentially in their yard? Yeah.

[1:21:47] » I could pick out a couple for sure. >> Okay.

[1:21:50] » Go ahead. Um, I've had several people reach out to me just recently about um

[1:21:56] the lack of driveway that their, you know, their rental and their driveways

[1:21:59] are not provided by the landlord. Um, there's also been some big discussion um

[1:22:05] with the code advisory committee about the ribbon driveways. We worked on that

[1:22:10] for quite a long time. Um, I think that probably needs to be clarified a little

[1:22:14] bit because I think, at least in my mind, when we were talking about a

[1:22:19] ribbon driveway that they wouldn't necessarily have to connect to an

[1:22:22] existing driveway, that they could come to the street even if it was with an

[1:22:26] apron. And I think that's been a little bit of um confusion there. Um,

[1:22:33] I can think of two in particular that I know that it's been permitted to do, but

[1:22:37] they didn't they weren't understanding that they couldn't come to the street

[1:22:41] with it, but because them tying on to their existing driveway was a with a

[1:22:45] ribbon driveway made parking a big vehicle even more difficult because of

[1:22:50] the hard turn they had to make off of a existing driveway. So, that I think

[1:22:54] needs to be clarified a little bit. And um I can I can um tell you that in one

[1:23:01] particular instance that there's a house, there's a camper, and

[1:23:06] there's six other vehicles parked there, and there's no grass left. There's um

[1:23:11] it's a it's a muddy mess when it's going on. And I I kind of like Alex says that,

[1:23:17] you know, we need to take a little bit of better ownership with the front yard

[1:23:20] in particular. Um, you know, maybe maybe you know, because there's on especially

[1:23:26] in the old older neighborhoods, there's not room to park on the streets without

[1:23:29] it being a public safety problem. Um, on in my ward specifically, there's four

[1:23:35] houses on one street that have no driveways and they have to park on the

[1:23:40] street and that means it's impossible to get a fire truck or anything through

[1:23:43] there in the evenings when they're all parked there. So, I think we need to

[1:23:46] tighten that up a little bit. Um, I'm for sure would like some clarity on the

[1:23:51] ribbon driveways for sure. And I think we've got to come up with a standard.

[1:23:55] You know, you can't have a camper in five trucks

[1:24:00] or or you can have it, but you've got to figure out a way to manage it.

[1:24:05] » Okay. So, are are you advocating then that on streets where there's not a sign

[1:24:10] not sufficient space and there's not a drive and even if there's not a drive to

[1:24:14] not allow folks? >> No, I don't think I mean, how can you do

[1:24:17] that? That's my Yeah, I guess that's my point, too.

[1:24:19] » But I don't know what the solution. I mean,

[1:24:22] » I'm assuming at one point or the other those houses all had driveways, but I

[1:24:26] don't know that, you know, because it's Oldtown for sure.

[1:24:30] » So, you know, I don't know what the solution is if if there's never been a

[1:24:34] driveway there, then what do you do? I mean, on the, you know, there's seven

[1:24:39] cars parked there at night, >> right? [snorts]

[1:24:43] Okay. Go ahead. I'll say I'm

[1:24:47] Yeah, let's talk about the ribbon driveways. That was going to be my

[1:24:49] second part of the conversation because I know I brought this up previously. Um

[1:24:54] because I had a resident specifically complaining to me that their ribbon

[1:24:58] driveway wasn't allowed and that the city was

[1:25:03] well I don't know the city was they were working with the city but it was somehow

[1:25:07] not allowed but this seems to suggest the otherwise. Can you help what?

[1:25:11] This sounds to me like ribbon driveways are no problem.

[1:25:14] » Specific. >> So ribbon driveways are a secondary

[1:25:18] driveway. So they're allowed to come off of your primary driveway accessing the

[1:25:23] street and they're allowed to be in the sidey yard and going to the back. So

[1:25:27] they're mostly used to accessory structures in the backyard or if you

[1:25:33] have a boat or camper or something that you need to pull on to the side of your

[1:25:36] house or the backyard. So they're just not allowed as the prime. Like if you

[1:25:40] only have one driveway, you can't have a ribbon driveway.

[1:25:42] » Yeah. We were trying to balance the aesthetics because there were concerns

[1:25:46] of ribbon driveways are in the front yard, people and our people are parking

[1:25:51] on the ribbon driveway. All the grass and everything underneath is going to

[1:25:55] die. So then then it's just a mud pit. Somebody eventually comes back in and

[1:26:00] puts gravel or something else in between. So we're kind of back to this

[1:26:04] the place where we started. So, we were trying to avoid that and

[1:26:09] trying to push those into the side and rear yard that aren't as visible to the

[1:26:12] street so they don't become as much of a nuisance. The the ribbon driveway with a

[1:26:17] gravel in the middle. Now, I understand that's, you know, not allowed based on

[1:26:21] what is currently in here, but is the is there a concern that that is problematic

[1:26:26] from an aesthetics standpoint as long as again it's maintained? It's not, you

[1:26:30] know, we don't have weeds growing up through it. We don't have, you know,

[1:26:33] it's not a mud pit. not, you know, it's truly a is that I mean just generally is

[1:26:39] that where that came from? Is that concern with the aesthetics?

[1:26:43] » Yeah, I mean that's the primary concern is to

[1:26:47] the the reason why there's a solid paved surface in the current code. So again,

[1:26:51] we just added this a couple of years ago because it was a cost-effective approach

[1:26:55] for people, especially because the requirement was if you're putting a

[1:26:58] detached garage in your backyard, you need to have a paved surface and that

[1:27:02] can be very cost prohibitive for people. So the ribbon driveway was the solution

[1:27:07] to make that more affordable and feasible for people. Um, but the concern

[1:27:11] of putting them in the front yard was the aesthetics of that. If it's not if

[1:27:16] the area between the pavement tracks is not maintained,

[1:27:22] then you're just you either end up with an area that's has no vegetation or they

[1:27:27] come back and put rock or something else. And the concern with the gravel in

[1:27:31] the front is that it washes out into the street or into the storm drains.

[1:27:36] » Go ahead, Brett. I saw uh one ribbon with artificial turf

[1:27:42] in between to make it look quite attractive.

[1:27:46] » Go ahead. >> So, I know W three has a lot of back

[1:27:49] alleyways that are gravel um with grass grown up. Who is responsible for the

[1:27:55] alleys behind the behind the houses? Is that city? Is that okay?

[1:28:02] So, are we going to hold ourself to the same standard that we're going to hold

[1:28:06] everybody else to? cuz there's a lot of alleyways that have a lot of weeds and

[1:28:09] grass growing up through. Some of them you can't even get through. So, it's

[1:28:14] it's the same thing as a driveway. So,

[1:28:20] are we are we going to hold ourselves to that same standard?

[1:28:24] » We should. >> I'm just I'm just asking because I know

[1:28:27] » Ideally, we would again, if you have the money tree to help us to fix all those,

[1:28:31] then we'd be glad to utilize it. >> Go ahead. You're done. So, are you done?

[1:28:37] » Go ahead. >> I under my my biggest problem is front

[1:28:41] yard parking and the fact that, you know, that you can't in some of these

[1:28:45] instances, you can't see the house because of the vehicles. Um, I know that

[1:28:49] this is not something we're talking about now, but I would like it to to

[1:28:53] look at in our um in our comprehensive plan code ideas is, you know, there are

[1:28:58] other solutions to loose gravel that involve gravel. you know, they have the

[1:29:03] new spring form things now that you put down and it holds gravel in place and

[1:29:06] there's epoxy and there's all sorts of stuff. So, you know, I um I recently uh

[1:29:13] looked at adding an extension on my driveway and

[1:29:18] resurfacing my driveway because I was adding an extension and it was uh

[1:29:23] $14,000 which is a little cost, you know, then I

[1:29:27] had to in turn do the sewer so, you know, it was kind of a wash there. But,

[1:29:30] um, I'd like to look at something, you know, in our community development,

[1:29:37] you know, to to come up with some more permeable ideas or some more

[1:29:41] cost-effective ideas. And I know that that's not what we're talking about now,

[1:29:44] but um I, you know, ribbon driveways are the thing I get the most complaints

[1:29:49] about in people parking so that they they no longer have a yard. There's so

[1:29:53] many vehicles. So, >> all right. [sighs]

[1:29:58] Anybody else? Item three, Cozy Pet Hotel, SUP Renewal.

[1:30:06] » Yeah, Cozy Pet Hotel is located at 342 North Scott. Um, and they are an animal

[1:30:11] services boarding use that provides overnight and longer term stays. Um,

[1:30:16] they received a 5-year special use permit in 2021, which is due for

[1:30:19] renewal. Um, since then they've also acquired 400 North Scott um, back in

[1:30:24] 2024 and they completed a remodel of that building and opened in 2025 for

[1:30:29] grooming and other non-boarding services. Um, staff recommends adding

[1:30:33] that property or that building to their special use permit to provide additional

[1:30:36] flexibility. Um, to their business needs if they decide to use part of that

[1:30:40] second building for boarding. Um, a public hearing for the renewal will be

[1:30:44] heard by the planning commission next Tuesday, September 15th, and this item

[1:30:47] will be brought forward to council in October. Any questions?

[1:30:55] Hearing none. Number four, Little Fleet SU and final plat. Yes, we have um also

[1:31:01] received a reasonzoning and a special use permit as well as platting request

[1:31:04] for Little's Fleet maintenance um which is proposed to be located at the former

[1:31:09] Master Transportation facility at 800 Quicktrip Way. Um, Little's fleet works

[1:31:13] with commercial customers on the upfitting of vehicles for commercial

[1:31:17] vehicle fleets, uh, with most of their customers using small trucks that do not

[1:31:21] require CDLs. Um, they have at least one customer that has semi-truck vehicles,

[1:31:25] which they estimate, um, submits about 100 vehicles to them a year. Um, based

[1:31:31] on the nature of the business, uh, this is a vehicle repair heavy use requiring

[1:31:35] reszoning to C3 regional commercial, uh, with a special use permit. Um, this

[1:31:40] would have been the same requirement to make Masters Transportation a legal

[1:31:43] conforming land use had they remained at that site. Um, as part of the special

[1:31:47] use permit, staff is coordinating with the applicant and the owner on bringing

[1:31:50] the landscaping and screening up to compliance with the code along with an

[1:31:54] updated parking plan uh, which includes paving the gravel lot that is along

[1:31:58] Marquy Parkway. Um, the property is also currently two unplatted parcels that

[1:32:03] will be combined into a single lot. Um public hearing is scheduled for October

[1:32:07] 6th planning commission and this item will be brought forward to council

[1:32:11] after. >> Go ahead.

[1:32:16] » See there you used legal conforming not not anyways. Um which means they must

[1:32:20] have been legal non-conforming prior. So that's where my question's going

[1:32:23] essentially is that so this sounds very similar. I mean I know not the same but

[1:32:28] similar in idea of masters um for that area. Is that accurate in

[1:32:35] how I'm thinking about this? >> Correct. It's very It falls into the

[1:32:37] same land use category. >> Okay. And yeah, updating of landscaping

[1:32:43] would be nice in that area, I think. So, >> I think they've already talked about

[1:32:48] that and are getting ready to work on that, too. So, anybody else?

[1:32:55] Item, I'd entertain a motion to enter executive session to discuss mayor tain

[1:32:58] to legal actions according Missouri State Statute 610.021.1 021.1 pertain to

[1:33:03] lease and purchase seller real estate according to Missouri state statute

[1:33:05] 610.021.2 pertaining to negotiated contracts state

[1:33:09] statute 610.021.12 021.12 as the record be closed and meeting adjourned from

[1:33:13] there. >> Present.

[1:33:14] » Have a motion in a second. Any discussion?

[1:33:19] Roll call. >> Council member Richardson.

[1:33:23] » I. >> Thompson.

[1:33:24] » Yes. >> Mayor Larkkey.

[1:33:25] » I. >> Davidson.

[1:33:26] » Yes. >> Brian.

[1:33:27] » I. >> White.

[1:33:28] » I. >> Lawson.

[1:33:29] » I. >> McCllum.

[1:33:30] » I. >> Johnson. Hi. Motion passes.

City Council Meeting - September 8, 2026 - 6:00 pm

Transcript