City Council - Regular Meeting

call this meeting to order. Pledge of allegiance. Council member Thompson to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. Mayor Larky. Council member White here. Council member Thompson here. Council member Davidson here. Council member Bryan here. Council member Lawson here. Council member Richardson here. Council member McCllum here. Council member Johnson

here. We have a quorum. No personal appearances today. So, we'll go on to unfinished business number one.

Can you read the first part? Sure. Motion approving final reading of bill number 2026-04. An ordinance approving the proposed fiscal year 2027 city budget as revised and appropriating funds from the revenue of the city. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. Anyone need to discuss it? All right. Roll call. Council member Lawson. I. Johnson. I. White. I. Richardson. I. Davidson. Yes. Mayor Prom. Pryan. I. Mallum. I. Thompson. Yes.

Motion passes. Item two, motion approving final reading of bill number 2026-05. An ordinance amending sections 42-38 water rates for approved water districts or local governments 42-39 rates for water consumed outside city and 42-296 sewer system user rates of the unified development code of the city of Belton Missouri present second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. Should we see if staff has anything to add to these items? Does staff have anything to add? I'm trying to get through

I just wanted to to do a quick recap of the budget. Um just total proposed revenues uh less the fiduciary funds is 96.7 million with expenses at 123 uh with an ending cash balance of 51,663129. And we've already voted on this, so I'm not gonna ask for any questions. Thank you. See, I can get us through this faster. I apologize.

All right. Now, we've already got a motion in a second for number two. And so, anyone want to talk about water rates? I would just quickly have you confirm the headlines here that um outside of city limits users and commercial users will see an increase but residents within the city limits will only will not see an increase this year even though Kansas City Missouri passed on a 3.5% increase to us and commercial will not receive an increase inside city limits only outside city limits will receive an increase. Gotcha. Okay. So that's just the highlights of that. Correct.

Thank you. I have one other question. This is Casey. How many years have we received a water increase from Kansas City that we have not gone up on our rates about? Or is that a Joe question? Uh so my first budget year was 24 and um the only uh rate group that received an increase was commercial and then 25 26 and now 27. No one except for received regular for Kansas City. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call. Mayor Prom Bryan. I. Council member Davidson. Yes. Thompson. Yes. White. Yes. Johnson. I. Mallum.

I. Lawson. I. Richardson. I. Motion passes. Motion number three, approving final reading of bill number 2026-06. An ordinance amending chapter 11 health and sanitation section 11-016C collection of the code of ordinances of the city of Belton Missouri. Present. Second. Move a motion and a second. Anyone have anything to add to that? Any questions? Roll call. Council member Johnson. I. Davidson. Yes. Mayor Prom Bryan. I. White. Yes. Richardson I McCllum I

Lawson I Thompson yes. Motion passes. Item four, motion approving final reading of bill number 2026-07. An ordinance approving a reszoning from C2 to C2PUD and approval of a preliminary development plan for Uptown District, a 40 acre mixeduse development located at the northwest and southwest corners of North Cedar Street, East 163rd Street and Given Avenue. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. Anything to add? Any discussion? Roll call. Council member Richardson. I. Thompson. Yes. Mayor Prom Bryant I Davidson

no Johnson I White I Lawson I McCallum I motion passes item five motion approving final reading of bill number 2026-09 an ordinance amending chapter 3 intoxicating liquor and appendix A schedule the fees and charges of the code of ordinances of the city of Belton Missouri by adding a consumption of liquor license present Second motion in a second. We have uh anything to add. Uh I would like to ask a quick question. Sure.

Um I know the state has it. So I'm just curious why the city decided to do it or wanting to do it. It didn't initially get added to our code amendment about a year ago. Uh we hadn't had any inquiries about it. Uh recently we had inquiries. So, we decided to go ahead and add it. Okay. And just to clarify on that, there's been three inquiries. Is that correct? That's correct, Chris. Um, I know most of that is regulated by the state, I believe. Um, that's correct.

I would like to make a motion to reduce the fee to $25. No one wants to that. Go ahead. Uh, can I ask uh Chris, what Councilman um why he's wanting to reduce it? Um, it's mostly regulated by the state. The state fee is $60 and our fee, I believe, is going to be what is $90. That's correct.

And it's kind of to help another business with using another business is kind of what this is all about. So,

all right. Uh, we have a motion to amend. Did anyone want to second that? I'll second it. All right. So, the motion would be to amend the consumption of liquor license fee in appendix A to $25. Is that correct, Council Member Richardson? Yes, that's it. And we do have a second. So, yes. Okay. Thank you. Then we do a voice vote to Go ahead. Um, ready for discussion on this? Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right. Um the the reason that the city has asked for the $90 fee, which you know, most cities that adopt this do adopt that $90 fee, um is to to not set a too low barrier for these. There are unintended consequences sometimes. Once you set a very low barrier, then then that you allows everybody to do it. Now, if we wanted to do something, I think that the city's looking at doing some uh amendments that would allow like downtown to have some special rate structures and things to kind of spur growth and be supportive of small business downtown. I think that that that would be an order to consider this as one of those that we might want to amend to a smaller uh a lower rate for just a specific area like a downtown that we're trying to revitalize. But I I wouldn't I don't know that we want to necessarily lower that barrier for the rest for the entire city. Um, if that makes any sense. Um, obviously that's, you know, that's up to you guys. Um, but I I think that the city staff would be in favor of of down the line as we go through looking at all of our fees and our structures um for the downtown, you know, maybe considering that we also look at this one in the same way. If that makes any sense.

It does. And since we haven't voted yet, I'm going to go to the city attorney. Can he amend his amendment if he chooses? I'm not making him he just withdraw his motion if he would choose to do that. Uh I would also point out that it's a mathematical equation. Every liquor license is mathematically equated this way. Can can she explain that a little bit? The state statute allows municipalities to charge liquor license fees at one and a half times the state rate. So it's just math. Okay.

And that's generally what most cities do is they just they adopt that that fee structure for the liquor licenses of all sorts. And so um this would be keep it consistent with all the other types of liquor licenses in terms of how the fee structure is set up. Um again and you know so that's just give you some background. What is the cost of a liquor license? It depends on the type of license it is. Uh the consumption of liquor license is the second least expensive liquor license. That's an annual license that's offered. They can range anywhere. A temporary license is very inexpensive because it's temporary and annual. It depends on if you're doing package or buy the drink.

So, can I withdraw my motion? Make another motion. Yes. To amend the $25 for the downtown district. Is that correct? I believe you'd have to define what the downtown downtown district is as long as you downtown main street main street district better I mean that does that does

it might be better to kind of as the city manager said if we're looking at this in kind of a holistic approach for all downtown it might be better to maybe think of that as a a separate you know a separate ordinance fee structure that we're going to we would adopt later. Okay, that would be my recommendation as well to keep it a little cleaner. Um, if you do withdraw the motion for 25, does Council Member White also withdraw his second? Well, it would be Yes, I would. If he can't if he withdraws his, I will withdraw my second. But I have a question. Okay. Who's approach?

Can I ask a question? We'll let him go. Go ahead.

Okay. So, I I'm uh I I see a big difference between downtown and rest of Belton in a sense of uh downtown when our festivals, parades and stuff, people do move around and then some of the small businesses have agreements. So uh but I don't know if that advantage is is available for businesses on um you know 58 or wherever they might be um to allow that type of so I could see why we would specialize or create a special thing for downtown for that type of you know those types of relationships.

Yes. Go ahead. So my concern is more along the lines I'd like likely of a legal issue um in consistency of our fees. So you know why would we not be consistent andor is that a problem if we're inconsistent or can we just hack apart the fees as is?

I I think it'd be preferable that we stay consistent and yes it could be a problem if we're not consistent. However, there is some precedents for creating special entertainment districts or or for us a downtown district. It has, you know, one of our main goals that we've heard from from the public consistently is we want to try to maintain the downtown the small town feel that we have and and the biggest precursor to that is making sure that we have a vital vitalized downtown. So, if that makes any sense, yes, there you know, you will find different um you know, areas that are essentially set aside as as certain types of districts that sometimes will have different or a varying code if that makes any sense.

Sure. And just to kind of potentially support Mr. Richardson here and his withdrawal with followup on it if if he so chooses, um how would that potentially work? I mean, we would essentially need to bring that to council sooner versus later before because if we pass this, then it will be in place. Then if someone wants to start doing that, say today or tomorrow, um then they would be charged the $150 even though we have a plan in place where it would be um well, okay, $90 from us, 60 total, $150 the $150. uh as opposed to if we have a plan in place to do a much less um you know val or whatever less stringent fee for a specific area um we would need to bring that before the council very quickly right

yeah I mean obviously once this goes into place yes whatever is approved at that rate for everybody that's what's the the rate is for everybody and so yes we would if we want to set up the downtown district as its own entertainment district and or revitalization district, however we want to frame that and phrase that, um, then yeah, that until that comes, then the fees are the same across the board for the entire city. Yes. Is that something staff thinks they can do by two weeks from today?

Well, if we're going to do that, we'd like to do it as with a holistic approach of looking at all the fee structures and which is something we're already doing on the back end anyway. Um, so we want to make sure that we vet it completely, that we it passes legal muster, that we're setting it aside correctly legally. And so all that stuff has to be vetted first. And so I mean, two weeks is is a little bit quick. Um, plus generally our processes are, you know, we like to do a work session first to introduce things to the public, especially something that's that's different and out of the box, and then, you know, of course, bring it back for, you know, a first reading and then a second reading since it would be code uh code ordinance um amendments. then yeah, it would be two readings. So yeah, it it'll it's a whole process. So we cannot promise that we would have everything ready in two weeks for the next meeting, but it's something that's in motion and it would probably take a couple months to get through everything.

I see you right, but Patty was first. So, if we did a restructure on the fee schedule based upon location or a revitalization district, would we and someone had already applied and paid the full fee, would we be in a position where we would refund the difference or they just go on that fee? I mean, I'm just asking would that make things easier for folks who are concerned about cost? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think legally we could do it either way. It's depends on it would need to be part of the code amendment because right now in the code it says that we don't refund fees

but from a legal perspective we could set it up so they've paid this $150 annual fee or $90 annual for the city. I know. I I'm just realistically it's $150 if the states involved, but but it'd be um you know, we could set it up where it's $90 fee unless you're in a very specific district and in which case then it's going to be $25 and uh and you'll be refunded for the year 2026 that it started in. That's that's a legal thing we could do.

That's a way we could look at doing it. I I do think there's, you know, if we're if people know that this sort of change is on the horizon, they do also have the choice of saying, you know, I want to I just want to get my license now and I'm willing to pay that um kind of the the standard rate for that fee or I'm willing to wait and pay a reduced fee. Brett.

Well, I I'm struggling with uh seeing how many businesses outside of downtown are going to allow people to walk out with alcohol and go into another business and have a relationship that would allow that. So, I don't uh I'm struggling with that because I don't see that option available too much. And so um uh the reason I'm struggling is because small business is what's downtown. Corporate businesses are more uptown are not downtown. And so uh some of these businesses are struggling and uh it may not seem very much but 150 versus 80 can make a month. And so that's partly why I was supporting the reduction. But um you know I'm just one person.

There are are varying um varying businesses throughout our commercial you know corridors so to speak. You know North Scott isn't very I wouldn't call any of the businesses on North Scott corporate or or you know those are mostly mom and pop owned or or locally owned small businesses. And so North

Yeah. But how many of them would allow them to take alcohol out their door and walk down the street to go into another business? I could think of at least one or two um right now that would maybe consider it depending on what's going on. I mean, for instance, you've got and I I don't know what they're doing and I don't want to put it, but if you have a for instance a bar and grill and then maybe there's a gaming machine building next door, you might want to be considering um allowing someone to take alcohol next door to to the gaming machine building um for instance. So there's always unintended consequences when you try to, you know, shoehorn um these types of things. Go ahead.

It should also be pointed out that that's not exactly what this license is. This particular license is to allow people to bring in alcohol or for the business to give them alcohol if the business provides food, beverages, or entertainment. It's it's very specific type of license that will not apply to most businesses. It doesn't allow you to take it out the door, per se. Well, unless you brought it in with you,

there are there are businesses that that have or at least do allow it to leave and then um if they don't if the company or the business uh on the on Main Street, for example, uh doesn't have this license, then they can get in trouble for letting that walk in their door. And uh and it it it happens. I I've been on the main street enough to watch. So uh I I I just am concerned about the small business uh and some of them struggling with making ends meet at the moment and now forcing more money for them to pay. That's just my struggle. I'm not say I'm just that's why I voted. But if Chris wants to remove his, I'll remove mine. Didn't we already remove it?

Yeah, we've already removed it. I think we did. Okay. Okay. And then I've also made another motion to allow it in the downtown commercial area. Right. But I think we want to define that a little more clearly and that's why they want more time. Should we just postpone this vote then till we do all that? I don't know that it's necessary to postpone the vote on this overall. I mean, we could always amend it at any point in the future. And that's the that's what the intention would be for creating the downtown district in the first place. Postponing it keep doesn't allow it to be legal at all. So, if someone wanted to do it next week, yeah, they cannot pay $150, then, you know, they wouldn't have that option if we postponed it.

So, where are you at now? So, can you tell us who the inquiries were? the three at at this point it's probably more of a compliance issue rather than enforcement and so I would rather not say that but there were three there were three inquiries that's correct and there were three separate inquiries to different businesses and the max we can charge is the $90 that's correct but we don't have to charge $90 is that correct that's correct that's very true I will I don't know I know we did some research and checking other cities and seeing what they are doing with this type of ordinance and yes

across the board they're doing the same thing which is you know we're we're essentially following this the lead of our contemporaries it is it's the standard practice of liquor licenses and municipality charges one and a half times I did reach out or research 30 cities in the state of Missouri 26 of them were in the metro and very metro right here in KC it's all one and a half Go ahead. I mean, to answer your question, I got an email from CJ at Battle Axes requesting that we pass it and that we lower the fee to $25. So, you were asking for that context.

Well, I knew I did know of one because I think we all got that email. I believe um but I was trying to find out the other two if there were two others. So, that's all I was asking. One of them ended up not pursuing the business here in town. So if the second one sells food that's the challenge with her. So second I'm sorry Chris what what did you say the second one did what? The second business sells food and the uh third inquiry ended up not coming to town. Okay. Okay.

So without this license you cannot take if you don't sell food you cannot take alcohol into a business unless you have this license. Is that correct? If you sell food, beverages, or entertainment, then you cannot allow people to bring alcohol into your business without this license and the state accompanying license. And so, I believe they were doing a a wine walk or something up here on Main Street coming up. So, will each business have to have one of those? No, that's a different type of license. This one, they can do it for free, though. It's different.

Okay. It's not free, but it's a different license. It's a temporary license for a nonprofit. Uh, this particular one is an annual license for a business. Okay. My my thing is I've really kind of been pushing to kind of work with and help small businesses and I feel like this is just a bad look. That's me.

I think staff is open and agree agreeable to that. I think we just want to make sure we do it in a holistic approach and not shoehorn one thing here and there and then try to fix it in the backside. So this annual license allows businesses that sell food, beverages or entertainment to allow people to bring in their own alcohol into the business or allows the business to give the people who are in their business alcohol for free. Go ahead. Sorry. Got to do it real high.

Okay. Just get this clear. If I would open up a store on Main Street, let's say, um, the painting parties. So, that would be the entertainment. So, then they could bring in the liquor at that point. Yes. If you had the state and city license, then you could allow the people who are painting to bring in their own alcohol. But they're not allowed to take the alcohol out the door and let's say go to the exercise place next door. I mean if you if you bring it in, you can take it out. You can take it out. What if Council Member White was referring to a different kind of license?

Okay. Okay. Yeah. It's confusing, but Okay. This particular license is consumption on the premise. Okay. So to allow people to consume the alcohol in your business. Okay. Go ahead, Brett. I guess if I bought it at one place, it's mine. And if I walk out the door with it and enter the other place, I'm bringing it in with me. And so uh and so then that that's what I'm referencing. So, if I buy it at 1 uh and the next door neighbor has the uh entertainment whatever or food and I want to take mine with me, I could then bring it into their facility.

Yes, that's that's this license. That's correct. Yeah. Assuming it's not open till you get to into the new facility, right? Does that say that it has to be open? I mean, it has to be closed. Unopened. Yeah. Does it say unopened? I didn't hear those words. I believe that's state law. Yes. Okay.

All right. So, do we have a motion to amend or we just going to vote on it as is? I don't currently have a motion to amend. All right. I I thought I did make a motion. You didn't. We didn't get a second, though. Right. So, okay. Could you restate because I've lost it. Yeah. I I thought you didn't do that since the city manager recommended that we do it. I never pulled back, but Okay. I mean, if we're not I apologize. I didn't have that down.

Okay. Second. You are seconding council member Richardson's downtown district to $25. Correct. So since we don't have that, then we need to restate that motion. Find. Yeah. Yes, please. Um to amend it to the $25 fee in the downtown commercial district. And is downtown commercial defined? Not at this time. I guess not.

So the reason I second it is because I do think that is a good idea and I think staff based on what I'm hearing also thinks that's a good idea. I think the question is the definitions, right? Am I understanding properly here? Yes. Making sure we properly define things and and do it. That's why we wanted to take it as a holistic approach. It gives us a chance to research and vet, make sure that the language is correct, the definitions are correct, and that we're not making ourselves liable by just saying we're going to add this and give you guys an exception. Does that make sense?

Yes. Makes complete sense. So, if we were to pass this, I I that's why I second because I wanted to have that discussion. So, if we were to pass this without those definitions tonight, in theory, someone could I mean, what I guess talk about what would happen.

I think the motion as it sits now would also only allow the issuance of the license in the downtown commercial district for a price of $25. So that's that's the sort of thing why we if if we want to take this downtown district, you know, approach, it should really be a separate written out well-defined ordinance. Um, and the other kind of consideration here is that if we're going to set a discount from the base rate, we need to set the base rate. Um there there hasn't actually been an approval of the license and the base fee for that license yet.

Okay. So I mean we could fix part of that problem very easily. Not to make an amendment on an amendment, but we could either withdraw and make a new amendment or we could just make an amendment on an amendment to clarify that there's two things, a base fee and then also a district. But that being said, sounds like even if we did that, uh, it might be an unwise decision at this current time because of the lack of definitions. It would make it difficult for staff to use the ordinance to work with the ordinance.

Yeah, it would be it would be extraordinarily difficult. What we could do is if you wanted to approve just the base fee and then you know the council could you know set a policy decision you know kind of give some direction that you know this is a goal that we want to achieve quickly. Um but yeah I think it's a bit premature to be doing a downtown discount on this license right now. What do you think, Chris? I guess we'll just do with what we got, I guess. So, I hate to do this to you, but once again, do you withdraw your amendment?

Yeah, I'll withdraw it. I'll withdraw my second. All right. So, we're going to vote on the original ordinance. Sorry. um as is and then we'll give direction to set clear parameters for the downtown area and what that discount will be and then we'll vote down that as soon as possible. All right, I'm getting I'm even getting nods from the individual that requested it. So, um roll call. Council member Richardson I. Thompson, yes. Johnson I Davidson yes mayor prom I white I Lawson I mccllum

I motion passes f new business motion approving number one motion approving first reading of bill number 2026-10 an ordinance establishing temporary short-term rental regulations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup special event period present second we have Motion in a second. You're up.

All right. Thank you, mayor and council. Before this evening is a request to provide temporary relief regulations to allow short-term rentals and residential areas uh throughout the city during the months of June and July for the FIFA World Cup. Um the relief regulations accommodate temporary exceptions to the regulations that were adopted in November um which limited permanent short-term rentals to the Oldtown Belton area and properties over three acres in size um subject to special use permit approval. Um, the items modified or excluded are listed in the ordinance and include eliminating both the location and the special use permit requirement for temporary short-term rentals. Uh, that will only be in operation between June 1st, 2026 and July 31st, 2026. Um, all of the requirements, including the registration and inspections, must be followed and will be approved administratively by staff. Um, applications for temporary short-term rentals may be submitted prior to June 1st, however, will not only be issued starting June 1st and will be set to expire on July 31st. Um, staff recommends approval of the temporary relief due to the need for accommodations and multiple inquiry inquiries from property owners who are interested in participating. Um, additionally, staff anticipates increased tourism activity during the summer benefiting local businesses. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Go ahead, Alice. Um, have we received any inquiries from anyone interested in having a short-term rental? Yes. Um, so since these adopt uh regulations were adopted back in November, we've probably received about a handful of different uh inquiries on these. They were all outside of the Oldtown area or on properties less than 3 acres. Um, prior to the adoption of the regulations in November, we've probably over the past year have had about a dozen different inquiries. And again, none of them none of them are within the areas that are allowed currently.

Okay. I'm going to try to restate how I remember the debate around this going and check the logic on it. So, we said that um if folks during the World Cup said, "We're just going to allow our house to be rented out. We want to pursue that." And we didn't allow these exceptions, we didn't have a good enforcement arm, right? because the amount of time the stay could last versus our ability to enforce it kind of made it toothless. Is that

that that's a a big reason for the request is by the time that we receive a complaint on a short-term rental, then we have to figure out and provide the evidence that it is a short-term rental, which would be a listing or some other uh reasonable um response to that. We would then provide notice to the property owner and the tenant. Um and that that process alone is likely to go um go past the two-month period here. Gotcha. Okay. Um so in flipping it and saying, "Hey, we we will allow this. We want the fee." Does the enforcement mechanism change?

Does that make sense? I mean, we would still I I think by giving the property owners a a route, a legal route to do it, they're more likely to do it rather than try to fly under the radar. So, our hope is by having these regulations in place that people will follow that process and then of course after July 31st, we will continue um enforcing just as we have in the past. And with the legality, just to add to that, it also, you know, means they're following the rules and regulations on that and with and and which includes taxes, right? So, I think that's another piece to what you're getting at in terms of enforcement.

Yeah. I just without changing the enforcement mechanism, we're just going to rely on folks to pursue doing this the legal way on their own without maybe a ton of communication about the expectation. I was wondering more if the enforcement mechanism can say, "Hey, if you've got a property listed on a short-term rental site or we get a complaint that you're using it for a short-term rental in this time frame, you are going to be on the hook for having that license." You know what I mean? But I don't know if that would be enforceable, saying, "Hey, even just having it listed leads us to believe you you've used it in this way."

Yeah. In the past, when we have found a listing on Airbnb or VBO, we do try to determine the exact location of that and once we do, we do send notice. Um, and we've had everyone who has received those notices, they do comply. So, we haven't really had compliance issues once we've identified the locations of those. Got assume the compliance, the difference between this two-month period and outside of that two-month period, the compliance would then mean, hey, you're out of compliance, pay the fees or whatever it is. Uh as opposed to, hey, you're out of compliance, shut it down, right? I assume that's what the enforcement difference would be.

Yeah. I I think that the big difference I think you you're kind of hitting on it and I'm going to try to res restate this is that um if we are allowing it and they are not complying with either the registration or paying of the taxes that are required as part of that and they go through with it then it it's there's the same mechanism to go out to go after them essentially but then we have some renumeration right we can say okay you owe us this fee you owe us this these these taxes is um if we don't allow it at all and they do it then it's the same process and we'll just say yeah you got to shut it down. Well then they just shut it down and they don't have it anymore and they're just saying well we're not going to do it but they got the the two months worth of the of the World Cup and so they they made the money on it and and then it's just a matter of you know it's rather than us recuperating the fees we're just shutting them down. Does that make sense? Make sense or is that difference?

That gets to the question I had. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I he did a lot better job articulating what I was trying to I had the same Thank you. I appreciate you asking the questions because I had the same one. So, any other questions? All right, this one's a voice vote. All those in favor? I I. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Number two, motion approving the first reading of bill number 2026-11. An ordinance approving a final plat for Pyramid Roofing, a two lot subdivision on 1.53 more or less acres located at 17230 and 17232 Belray Place and 17229 South Outer Road in the city of Belton, Missouri. Present.

Second. Got a motion and a second. You're still up. Yep. Thank you. Um the purpose of this plat is to allow pyramid roofing to proceed with a building permit for a new 4,800 foot building um on the portion of the property that's fronting south outer road um which was approved by planning commission on March 3rd. Um this subject property was previously home to comfort systems heating and cooling before relocating to West Marquee Road and the planning commission recommended approval of final plat on March 3rd and staff also recommends approval. Any questions? Go ahead. Are these new? So, these are new owners of the property then, if I'm understanding this properly. Correct. They acquired the property last fall.

Okay. I'm trying to I'm trying to wrap my brain around why there is a need for reducing a lot size or you know, essentially creating a larger lot and reducing lots over there. Um, is there a benefit in taxes or like why would one want to reduce the lots? So right now there's actually three lots or three parcels there. They're combining the north west or sorry northeast lot on Belray with the lot that fronts out a road. So and and the reason for that is there's two different frankly it was a weird I thought it was kind of a weird joint conjoining.

There were three parcels are combining into two. Um, so they have the the new building will function more as an accessory warehouse to the two office buildings that are on Belray. The two office buildings on Belray are still going to stay on separate properties because they're already on separate water meters.

I guess I'm still not following what benefits they could be gaining by reducing the lots if they own all the lots. Part of it is with um bringing the west lot that's on South Outer in with the Belray lot is that if they decide to use utilities in that new building that they will be able to run the utilities off of the Belray lot instead of having to put in an entire new water meter and utility system.

Got it. Okay. I'm I better understand why you would want to do that because typically we have the opposite. We're typically we're encouraging more lots right if or keeping of lots I should say not more but keeping of lots and so reduction just seemed an unusual request that we don't see um the the other piece is I heard or in there it talked about incre uh well I forget the word but better landscaping essentially has said something of that nature y um I didn't see a landscape plan included what what exactly are we talking about when they say landscaping?

Um, so the existing chain, there's a chain link fence there with barbed wire around it that will be coming down um with the new building. Um, and then once they put up the new building, there will be a six-foot wood privacy fence built around the perimeter um to kind of screen their outdoor equipment and the building. And then there will be some landscaping between the fence and the outer road. Okay. Go ahead. Um, I was thinking we required the building to have masonary work at least 50%. But you're going to allow it because of the fence. I mean,

yes. And that and that was all approved by the planning commission through the final development plan process. um the building functions more as an accessory building and having them put in any masonry on it is going to be completely hidden by the fence. Um and so that was the reason for not making that a requirement or giving that exception for that situation. Okay. Any other questions? All right. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Number three, motion approving resolution number 2026-033,

a resolution approving a contract with CJ Johnson Consulting, Inc. for a market feasibility and economic impact study for a minor league baseball stadium and an ancillary ancillary development. Present motion and a second. You're up,

Mr. Mr. Mayor Prom and Council, tonight we are considering the official action uh on the tail end of the work session we had at the last meeting. Um once again, this is for a feasibility study for a um economic development of a potential baseball stadium, which would actually be more than a baseball stadium. It would also be um kind of a community event center. um something that could be programmed for you know 200 250 dates a year as which is the model that we've seen that is pretty successful. Um and then whatever potential development could happen around it as part of the same thing whether that be hotel you know more commercial mixed use multif family whatever you know would would take place around this you know that the study is designed to kind of give us an idea of can Belton support this what kind of things would need to be involved with this for Belton to be able to support this and when I say Belton I say the whole you know economic beltin which means includes a lot of the surrounding communities when when you consider that we we are the economic hub of Northern C County. And so, um, the potential long-term game if this were to, you know, be as successful as as some of the others are in the Frontier League, um, you know, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, which is the tens of millions of dollars in potential taxes, tax benefits over the next, you know, 20, 30 years between sales and property tax. And so the staff is recommending that you guys approve this because we feel like the $69,500 price tag um is relatively small compared to the potential gain. So I'd be glad to stand for any questions.

Brett, go ahead, Brett. You're on mute. This may be a oh a simple question or a simplistic question. Uh when we talk about sales tax, we're talking about uh all sales tax, correct? Parks and all the other.

Yes. If something generates some sales tax revenue, then yeah, it, you know, goes into each of the the buckets that are set up. You know, there's a percentage that goes to the state and some goes to city general, some goes to park, some goes to, you know, public safety, you know, there's all the the normal buckets that are set up for that. So we would kind of have an idea with this about roughly what kind of sales tax could be generated from a facility like this uh for all the all the different types of sales tax.

Well, yeah. I mean, and this is a this is a pretty holistic study. If you looked at the present at what they they gave us in terms of the document um and it was included in the packet. Um it's more, you know, they're they're looking at feasibility, but they're also looking at how would you potentially fund it, you know, those types of things. Um, so this is a pretty all-inclusive study. The hope is that we get this back and we can look at it as a city and as a council and say, "Okay, is this something that we really want to pursue for this region?" Um, or is it something that we can't support or or this is something that's too risky for us to try to support? I mean, there's a lot of these questions we're hoping to get answered by this study. So if if it just this is a small if but if eventually the the comes back with h yeah then all the departments or everybody would would gain parks and us and all the all the sales tax people would gain. Yeah, the long-term benefit could be could be quite large. Um

whether it's sales tax, also property taxes. You know, those who are supported by property taxes could also stand to gain from this, which isn't limited to the city. I mean, that you're talking the county, you're talking the other taxing entities that take um property tax, including parks, you know, you're talking the school district. So, um and I don't want to make any promises because that's what the study's designed to do is is to say, okay, whether we can or can't support it. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Um, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that the tax impact could be tens of millions over 20 or 30 years for the city, right? Potentially. Yes. I mean, this is a a depending on what the nature of the development is. Yeah.

Okay. Um, what do you expect the city would have to pay to build this? Tens of millions of dollars?

It may be. It It depends. Again, one of the things that the study's designed to help us figure out is do we have to be is it going to be a publicly financed stadium? Is it something that we would have to fi, you know, the public builds it and then we create a long-term lease with another entity to pay for that, you know, for essentially that debt or is it a private or is it a public private joint partnership? You know, maybe the public pays for part of it and there's a there's a private component to it. There's there's lots of ways you can structure these types of things and um and depending on how that looks, you know, that that creates a different layer of risk for the public. So, we'll wait and see what it says. Well, let me let me divide that into two parts. One, if it were publicly funded,

um I agree that that would be taking on a fair amount of risk. I also have had no residents express an interest to me in pursuing this kind of economic development activity. Um, on the flip side, if there was investors or, you know, developers that were interested, let's let them pay for a study. Let's let them get some skin in the game. I feel like the process by which this has moved along and now come into the public is not ideal. Um, we've already got some money sunk into this, including council members traveling to vet this on their own. What I'm curious about is what internal economic development vetting have we done? What does our staff recommend before we throw more money to this consultant firm?

If staff were were very very concerned that this was a waste of money, we wouldn't be bringing it to the council for a potential contract. Um because we were able to look into some of the finances of some of the of the and not just the finances, but the mechanisms by which these other teams and and stadiums operate throughout this league that we're we're discussing. Um, we felt like there was a lot of similarities to Belton. Felt like there's there are some templates out there that show success. I mean, you got towns that are much smaller than Belton that are, you know, making a profit on these things. Um, and so and if we can provide quality of life and tax benefit, you know, the profits, you know, even just a bonus.

I mean, where's that data though? Where's that research that staff has already done internally? Why couldn't we have seen that during the work session before jumping to outsource this and and spend a decent amount of money on it?

I don't know that you could look from financials from another town and cookie cutter it and say that that would work or not work here though. I think that's why we have to have our own. That's the point of the study is is yes, we have some templates, but that doesn't mean that that's exactly how we would have to run it.

Yeah. And obviously, if we were going to throw tens of millions of dollars at building something, we would go through the proper steps. What I'm saying is from this seed being planted to where we are now, I feel like it is very much um driven by the council, which as the elected representatives of the people of Belton, to some degree that's normal. Um what I have felt is has been a little abnormal or missing is what internal vetting we've done. Um you know you talk about cities that are smaller that have seen a great impact with that. What what are they like? I I feel like I need sold on this idea more than I have been. And if I feel that way I can tell you again that the people I've talked to my neighbors are like it's out of left field to use a baseball pun. Well, it's it's interesting because, you know, we've heard nothing but positive comments and and and it's interesting. I haven't heard a single negative comment come to the to the city or to staff. Um, and I've talked to other council members that have had the same kind of uh of experience. Um, for instance, Saji, Illinois, much smaller town than than the the city of Belton. Uh, they're making over $200,000 a year in profit on theirs and it's been around for over 25 years. And you know, they use it as a as a a event center. They've got 250 dates a year. And that's one example of of some of the research that the city did to show that there are templates that work.

So that is outside of St. Louis, correct? Correct. And so St. Louis has the Cardinals. Do they have another minor league team in the St. Louis metro? That I don't know.

Gotcha. Um I mean there's there's more to my apprehension about this. Um, you know, I think the Kansas City Metro is fairly saturated with professional sports, let alone professional baseball. Um, I also think that this is kind of missing um the energy and excitement around changing consumer attitudes towards sports. Um, and you know, in terms of generating positive resident interest, I could put a post on Facebook saying we're going to open an ice cream factory and give free samples on Monday and probably get enough buzz to come talk about it here, but that doesn't mean it is aligned with the priorities of the people and what the city really needs. In my years on the council, so much of what we fought to do is to rectify deferred maintenance and make Belton a better place for the residents. And that's something like storm water improvements, uh, waterline maintenance, sidewalks. That's what I want to talk about. I I'm just surprised that we're already considering throwing money at a baseball study.

With all due respect, I I don't know that any of us could accurately um educate take an make an educated statement as to whether the Kansas City market is fully saturated with professional sports teams. That's what the stud is designed to to figure out. And so this is a relatively small price for a relatively large economic impact. Now, if the city, if the residents don't want it, I don't anticipate that the council and the staff are going to, you know, push this through. I mean, it's just again, will it work? I mean, we can all we can all take our educated guesses.

I guess before I say no, I want I want to know will it work? And then at that particular point we can have a discussion about whether whether we want to go there or not. It may come back and say no it won't work. Then we know I just don't want it to be I want to be nice about this. I just don't want it to be another where we lose the opportunity and our students still have to go out of town to get things done. Uh and so we have an opportunity to explore it. And I think I think we we should explore it. That's I'm gonna vote yes. So, I'm just letting you know that. Go ahead, Carl.

Um, we sent, if I remember right, three council people down to this baseball game and if it was for economic development, why wouldn't, let's say, Mike, who's the economic developer, to me should have been there. Maybe you and the mayor. I was there and there. Yeah, I was there. I went as well and Mike couldn't go because it was this came down toward the end of the season. They made an offer at their last home stand and Mike had a conflict. So he was otherwise he would have gone.

Allison um I haven't talked to very many people that are in favor of us spending all this money. Um, I also had um a citizen of Belton send me a chat GPT study, a feasibility study of this Frontier League. Whether or not it's good or not, it was 30 pages worth of information talking about population. It gave it only a seven out of 10 and it was dependent on a lot of different criteria. I just I feel like I'm I'm going to also compare this to the valley volleyball building that you wanted where we spent all that money and then it didn't come about. Um so I'm I'm really not in favor of this.

You mean the $20,000 we spent on the sports facility feasibility and we came to a conclusion that and the council decided not to spend the rest of it. Yeah. Not not not the city. Yeah. Go ahead, Chris.

So, Ofallon had Ofallon, Missouri had a Frontier League team that was played from 99 to 2019 and then they folded in 2019. Um, I don't know if they're trying to get us to replace that team. I don't know. Um, also I looked up the the Kansas City Monarchs over there. They have their uh attendance last year was not great. They average about 1300 to 1500 fans a game which is well under what they needed to be. They're losing money. Um that stadium was privately built for $12 million back in 2003. The they folded the county had to buy the stadium back 5 years later at half the price. They had to remodel it at an expense that is not easily found. It was a lot of money and it got bought. Now the a certain person is running that team and they are losing money every year. So looking at where the Monarchs are, how are we going to be different to where this stadium or this team doesn't fold in three or four or five years because I mean you're going to you're going to have good attendance for the first two to four years. After that it's going to fall off. Council member,

how are we going to maintain that? That's what the point of the feasibility study is, sir. It's not it's not this isn't a a go no-go on us spending tens of millions of dollars. And what is what is the cost of the stadium? Again, that's part of the process. It depends on what the stadium entails. This process is going to put the stadium cost down. Well, it's going to show us what kind of things have to go with the stadium for this to be successful. So, do we need to build a 3,000 seat stadium? Do we need to build a 4,000 seat stadium? Does it does it need to have luxury boxes? Does it need to have other things? So, there's been no issue of what this stadium might cost. It depends. I mean, the scope can go it can go 20 million, go $50 million if you really want to go top end.

Well, I actually I talked to a a firm today that actually builds stadiums. They're based here in in Ken City and they said you're you're looking at least 50 to $60 million. Well, and I've talked to folks who said you can do you can do a a high quality stadium for 30-ish. And so, I mean, but that's all guess 30 million that the city would front the money on, right? We don't know that. That's the point. Council member Richardson. I'd rather know if we're going to have private investors. I would rather know that upfront before we just spend $80,000. Well, and and that's me. $69,000 to be perfectly frank. Okay. 69. I'm sorry.

But again, whether there's private how whether it's privately funded or publicly funded is part of this process. And we already have we've already been, you know, so a feasibility study is going to find private investors. No, but we already have had interested private adventure in investors reach out to the city. Okay. So, it's not like we're going into this blind. I just feel it's a lot of money to spend knowing that we're most likely going to be on the hook for the $30 million to build this stadium, which I believe it'll be more, but I don't know how you can can ed can make that statement yet. We we haven't done the study. Okay.

Um just another quick question. Um, if the Frontier League is so sure we'll be a good city, a good match, why do we not ask them to pay for this study, and they could spend the se the 69,000 instead of the city because baseball's a very small component of this. It's it's a multi-event center and and the baseball is just a small component of it.

Go ahead. We don't know what we don't know, right? And everything has an opportunity cost. Everything. Whether or not we do this feasibility study, that's a 70 I was going to say 70,000. I $69,000 opportunity cost. Um and uh and could we use that money for something else like sidewalks? Something that I talk about all the time, sidewalks. Um maybe. But sidewalk project Our estimates on putting sidewalks everywhere we wanted to is $165 million. $70,000 is um not even if we sucked that away every year is not going to make a uh big difference in that that um problem. the I I don't if if we were talking about spending a lot more money on our $120 million plus budget uh than the 70,000 just to look at an opportunity. I could I guess understand a little more on the thought process there, but I'm this is just an opportunity that's coming before us and it's not um as as was pointed out, we've had other feasibility studies that then resulted in us saying no. So, I don't I I think we should at least look at an opportunity.

Go ahead. I guess um where I'm having a hard time with this is um how how the whims of certain people can progress to this point when there's nine of us up here and we're making these decisions. um you know to hear that three folks and the city manager took a trip you know uh were treated to dinner whether it was stadium hot dogs or steak you know doesn't really matter to me when I hear that the process is moving along like this and months later it comes to all of us to talk about and then months later from that it comes to the public it makes me really uncomfortable um there's a lot of opportunities that we could be pursuing I guess this to me does not feel rooted in what the majority of Belton wants or what would be good for Belton and I have my own doubts just in general about if if this opportunity would even be worth it or a good fit and I understand where a study is needed to vet those concerns but I think the whole process itself has left me really uncomfortable with moving forward um if I you know if we put it out to residents to say hey how excited are you about specifically a baseball this is what it baseball um stadium this is roughly what it would look like we haven't spent 70 grand on it yet then we could keep talking, but I just we've gotten to a point so quickly that does not make sense to me.

I don't think it was on a whim of anybody. It's not my whim. I did go to see what this opportunity could possibly be. I went with an open mind to see if this would be a benefit to Belton, if it would increase the quality of life of our citizens, if it could generate potential revenue for the city. That's what I went and looked for and I thought that's part of my job as a city council person is to find out things that would benefit this city and increase the quality of life and provide the things that not just the infrastructure do that obviously needed maintenance but would also provide a reason for our students to want to stay here and bring up their families here. That's what I care about and I'm sorry if that's not a problem for you.

Well, let me unpack two pieces of that. Um firstly, how what planted the seed? Why did three council members go on an economic development trip with the city manager un unbeknownst to the rest of the council? How's that happen? I don't know if it was unbeknownst to the rest of the council. I have no idea. But what I do know months later, what I do know, council person Lawson, is that a a citizen of Belton came to us with the idea. One citizen. Yeah. But it was pitched and it was pitched to staff as well as the mayor and city council people. Two up, three of us, I think.

Okay, that feeds my discomfort. I'm going to be honest. If one resident can corner, you know, some staff and city council members and then we're off to the races. I guess we're entertaining ideas for anything, you know, but my my question is if there's nine of us and again, we have to be the checks and balance on each other as the council. I mean, ultimately residents can vote us in or out and hold us accountable, but when we're in these seats and the nine of us have to be able to look each other in the eyes and say, "Okay, this makes sense." Or, you know, here's some points I disagree on. That didn't happen here.

Well, I think that's what we're doing right now. And what we will do, depending on what this feasibility study does, I don't think anybody's in the dark here. I don't think there's any cabal or any secrets going on here. I think this was an opportunity that was looked at. We're discussing it. We'll continue to discuss it. The citizens of Belton are going to have plenty of opportunity to tell us what they like and what they don't like. And if they think we're all crazy, they certainly have that opportunity. We're just saying, is this something we could possibly do that would be beneficial to the city and to the residents of the city. That's it. The accountability is still here. It never left. So, let's talk Olive Garden. One of the big reasons that exists here is because our mayor coupled with, I believe, someone from economic development went to a um

Oh, you know, it started before going to Vegas for the economic development. Sure. That's been a resident request for decades, right? But but exactly my point. That's been a that's been res saying, "Why are we getting an olive garden?" Yeah, there's been a huge resident request, which I I don't personally understand, but that's not my not the point. The point is part of what made that happen was an elected official going on a trip with a city official to talk to them to make it happen.

And having been here for that process, I can tell you the council had plenty of conversations saying, "Should we pursue this?" prior to even this city manager that was not like, "Hey guys, we heard about Olive Garden and they heard about us and guess what? It's happening." I mean, there was collaboration and a level of awareness that was not duplicated here. It's It's very apples to oranges. This has been around for months. When When did you guys go on the trip? Was it August? Yeah, August. September. Last year. We went last year. It was last year. It's It's been discussed. It's not like they dropped it on us in in a week. No, I know. But I found out about it I want to say November, December.

Yeah. So, you've had five months to look into it and think about.

So, the part I'm I'm struggling with is that a handful of people went and did this thing based on one person's presentation and now we're here. I And and what I will say is that let me go ahead and let me finish this real quick. Um, what I will say is that in the meantime, we have established an economic development committee for the council to vet police, set goals for when council members are traveling and and operating on city business. We were supposed to have our first meeting for that, but we had to reschedule it. Um, I'm excited to have that fail safe in place because it is to me just a very hard change in I would say procedure that these trips are happening that council members are taking on AC or economic development activity. And we're getting to this point without everyone on the council having a chance to say, "Yeah, that makes sense or that backs up with residents ask me for."

Ideas come from a number of places. Most a lot of times they come from elected officials and sometimes it's one elected official, sometimes it's a couple of them that are that have been discussing it and they bring it forth. Sometimes residents bring forth ideas. They all start somewhere. Totally.

And so in going to to vet this, when I first heard this idea, I thought it was crazy. I thought I'm I was extremely skeptical. I'm still skeptical. That's why I want to want to do the study. I'm still very skeptical. I'm not sold on this 100% yet any in any way, shape, or form. And it's our duty to vet this. But on once I was able to look into some of the the these teams and and how they operate and how they're able and the the venue and what that would bring to this city, we don't have anywhere for conferences and conventions, small conventions and those types of things. We have nothing like that here. That's something we could definitely use. Oh, and and here's a way we could we could get something like that done and also find a way to go ahead and program it for 51 dates a year. That's not a bad not a bad thing to at least look into. At least from from my perspective, I don't I don't think that there there's definitely no this idea that there's some weird, you know, ve, you know, changing of policy or changing of procedures just to go on, you know, to to look into this potential possibility. Council members do that all the time in in in in other cities. That's that's part of the deal. You you go down, if you have an idea, you go check it out and see if it's worth our while.

Yeah, sure. That that can happen in other cities. That has not been my experience going back to my time on the council in 2021. The amount of council travel has increased interestingly to me. Well, there's a couple of conferences for council members that that some council members do take advantage of and then I've heard of this and then maybe one pickle ball in Witchah at the you know two two council two elected officials went to look at a pickle ball site and it's just unusual is all I'm saying which we've got a a plan to address that but this feeds into my like apprehension of what it takes to progress something to the point that we're spending 70 grand like my ice cream factory idea.

Again, I you know, we've got big needs as a city. Yes, we've got $120 million price tag on sidewalks. If we want to do sidewalks, right, in this city,

it's not going to come from the sky. The only way that's going to happen is if we do some major economic development in this city, we're definitely not going to get it through tax dollars. We don't want to tax the the public any more than they're already being taxed. So, the only way that's going to happen is through growth, through big projects, through big ideas. I don't know that this is one of them, but I also don't know that it isn't. And I think that it it would be a little irresponsible for us to just every time something's big that's different that that kind of is outside someone's comfort zone that we just, you know, shoot it down. I I don't know think that that's necessarily the best approach. I think if we look into something and we see there's a template here that works, there's there's a a reasonable rationale that Belton fits that template, why would we not pursue that? That to me, that's that's what we're all here for as staff. That's what the council's here for is to start looking through some of these ideas. And yes, we are going to formalize a process for some of these things in the future. That that was a need that was expressed by some of the elected officials and you yourself included, council member Lawson. And so I think that that's that's coming. But at the same time, we don't want to just, you know, slam the door on a potential opportunity just because we're not sure about how it came about. I mean, that's that seems like cutting our nose off to spite our face. I mean, let's just look into it.

Go ahead.

That dovetales well into I I again opportunity costs. I understand the ideology. I understand the um concern over the the dollars. Um, as someone who regularly is questioning budgeted process and items, uh, I think the more important question is, do we, um, think of, you know, the city of Belton wants to be known as a min as having a minor league baseball team? And I don't know, at this point, I would say maybe. Um, you know, I think a lot needs to fall into place for that to happen. But I mean, I I've heard enough positive from the from the residents and community that um I would say again, it's an opportunity that I would be remiss not to at least explore.

Call the question. All right. This is a normally a voice vote, but I'm going to ask for a roll call. Do you have to have a second on that? Yes, we have a call for the question motion. So, do we have a second for the call for the question? second and you can do um I'd like to do a call for the question. Oh, we'll take a vote. All right. Voice vote for call the question. I No. No. So, I have three nos and four yeses. Is that correct? He's on mute. Oh, sorry. He's muted.

I don't know what you're saying. Brett, you're on mute.

Brett, you're muted. What are we voting on? Calling the question. Okay. All right. So, the an if you vote yes, that means you're ready to vote. Yes. Correct. Correct. Correct. I vote yes. Okay. Was that a no? No. He said yes. He said yes. Okay. Yes. And I have Davidson, Lawson, and Richardson as a no. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, the call to question passes. And now I'm going to request a roll call for this because I think we're going to get varying votes.

Thank you. And give me just one moment, please. Okay. This is the vote on the resolution. Council member Johnson I. Prian I. White. I. Richardson. No. Macllum. I Lawson. No. Thompson. Yes. Davidson. No.

That resolution passes. Um, item four, motion approving resolution 2026-034. A resolution approving the third amendment to the contract for waste collection services with GFL Environmental, Inc. present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up, sir.

Before you use the third amendment to the contract with GFL for uh our trash service. Uh basically this change in this uh amendment is changing uh of course the price but it also changes how we're going to uh deliver service. Uh currently this city of Belton takes care of the trash cans in this contract. It will go over to GFL to do this work. They will have to actually purchase all the cans, deliver all the cans, and then maintain all the cans. Uh we negotiate this contract. Uh they'll also be providing a person in town every day to maintain all the carts that are in town, both the recycling and the trash carts. Um so they're going to do all this work and they're not going to actually raise their price at all to do this uh this service. Um they uh in lie of doing that, they're also going to have a three and a half% increase in the price of trash for this next year. uh we're going to have a cap on that price not to exceed 4% or whatever the US Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index whichever one is lower. Um the contract will start again on April 20 April 1st, 2026 and run for a period of 5 years and have two two-year extensions that the council can vote on to extend the contract. And so this is a for us is a I think it's a major improvement and I know from public work side to get out of the trash can business it's a great benefit to the residents because now they have one place to call to get cans instead of calling the city for one can calling GFL for another can. It's one place to call for your service and have everything combined. I'd be happy to answer any questions they have. So the the person that's on call, they're here to answer issues andor if my trash can blows up, you know, they rip the lid off, there's one person in town at all every day to take care of that.

Yeah, there be one person in town who takes care of trash can maintenance. Okay. I have a question. Sure. Is the new can that they provide going to be bigger than the recycling can or is it going to be the same size? It's 96 gallons, so it should be the same size. Okay. Because is the recycling can we have now from them smaller than our trash cans that we have that the city provides? I recycling is smaller. The same size recycling smaller. Recycling smaller. This is the same size can we have. It's 90 96 gallon can.

All right. Well, the reason I'm asking on the overloaded can issue. If we're giving them a small, this is the question I've had is if we're giving them a smaller can and they still have the huge output of trash, you know what, you know, if it's stacked up four bags high because the can's a little bit smaller. Just I just had a a resident asked me that. So So technically, you're supposed to be fit all the trash in the can with the lid closed. I know all the technicality. Great. And so, you know, that's I'm going to tell you that now they do try to take if they can lift the can because it is a machine that grabs a can, throws a can in. So, they're not supposed to get off the truck to grab extra trash. I just didn't know the comparable sizes. That's that was the question.

It's going to be the same size of the can is today. Hey, Greg, our current cans are 96 gallon. Correct. Correct. In the contract, it says they have to provide 96 gallon cans. But the recycling is not a little smaller. I can't say it does say 96 gallons in the contract. They'll have to up up the size of the cans. I'll have to just buy a different can than what they're recycle. What do we do with our old cans? They're going to take the old cans and they're going to recycle them. Most of our cans have a the carts have about a five to sevenyear life. Uh we are in coming to the close to the end of those lives and that's how we're having so many that are broken right now. Okay.

Any other questions? Go ahead. Do we know the size currently of our recycle? We don't. Okay. I don't know off the top of my head. I mean that that's a that's a question. That is a that is a very good question. I guess I'm I feel confident though if we know that our current size is 96 and that's what the contract says then I then we can hold them to that. Okay. For the regular trash cans. Yes. Yeah. That's I'm not referring to cycling but I just you know if because the recite they provide the recycling, right?

And those are smaller than the trash. So, but you know, they might h My point is I hope they understand what's in their contract that they're signing that we're potentially agreeing to here because we might have some uh push back if it's not. They know exactly that is the size of the can because in the agreement that they sent us that was the language their their language is actually this exact language. Any other questions? You good Brett? All right. All those in favor? I I. Anybody opposed? I

number five. Motion approving resolution number 2026-035. A resolution approving change order number one to the contract for services for the design build of water manes project from with SDI LLC in the amount of $456,297. Present. Second.

Got a motion in a second. You're still up. So, this is a uh change order that we have proposed to uh move a water line at 173rd and and Cunningham. Uh originally, and I'm not sure when it was originally uh designed, the original road when they were going to build 173rd Street was supposed to tee into Cunningham. Uh going through the design process, we determined that it's much better to have 73rd go all the way from Peculiar Drive to Mullen as a straight road. And so Cunningham ended up teeing into 173rd Street which made a better design. Uh the only problem was that the water line was originally laid uh in the first uh design and so now we are moving property lines around. We did a shift in who owns what property with the deans because we actually moved the road. So we just traded the property back and forth as part of that movement. that our water line now lies in the dean's property and so we need to move the water line back onto our property and so this change order will move it's a 16in uh water line it's the largest one we have in our city it's coming right from our tower and uh it's about $363 a foot which we've been paying a little over $300 a foot for water line so it's really uh actually a pretty good price and so now that we've basically completed everything on our uh replacing our cast iron lines on our first project that they're going to go come in and do this work for us. I'd be happy to answer any questions they have. Any questions? Good presentation. All right. Voice vote. All those in favor? I

I. Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Number six, motion approving resolution number 2026-036. A resolution approving the sale of city-owned property described as lot 186 in West Belton to Blue Rooster LLC for $15,000. Present. Second. Got a motion in a second. You're up, sir.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Council members, the item before you, actually, the next two items before you are the real estate contracts or resolution approving the real estate contracts and authorizing the city manager to execute those contracts. Wanted to council just a quick history. Uh shortly after the first of the year, staff advertised both lots that'll be before council for sale this evening um for public RFP uh or they were advertised publicly. Staff received several proposals from various homebuilders uh in the area. Staff evaluated through initially before bringing them to council, staff evaluated really three different areas um operating under kind of the state guidelines for bids. We are looking not only at price, but we were looking at what kind of the state considers the lowest and best of these RFPs. We're looking at price. Um we were also looking at what the land was going to be used for, but then also we asked as part of the RFP for the proposals to include um construction and building plans as part of their responses. Um so staff was able to evaluate three different data points before making recommendations to council. For this first resolution, the uh what was recommended to council was to award the RFP to the Blue Blue Rooster LLC. This is for lot 186 in West Belton or 17257 South Benton. Happy to answer any questions about the RFP itself or this real estate contract.

Go ahead. Thank you for that clarification. I think that's important for the public to understand how we got to the point where we are. Um the only thing I would add is my understanding, but I would like correction if I'm wrong, is that this contract, this um for sale will hold them accountable to what they presented to us. Is that correct? That is correct. So I, as I was flipping through um so we do include it as an exhibit in here, the RFP response. Um, I don't believe the building plans came through in the council packet, but it is incorporated in the contract as an exhibit that they have to follow. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

No other questions? All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Number seven, motion approving resolution 2026-037. A resolution approving the sale of city-owned property described as lot 361 in West Belton to Chevier Construction LLC for $20,000. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. And you're still here.

Excellent. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim and council members. Uh if I could just copy and paste my previous presentation. Uh this is for a city-owned property lot 361 in West Belton uh or 17510 Montgal to Chevelier Construction LLC. Happy to answer any questions. Same question as the previous one which is this holds them accountable to the uh design presented. Correct. This uh the exhibit B also includes their RFP response with the building design and building plans. Um, like I said previously, I don't believe it came across in the council packet, but it is incorporated as an exhibit in the contract. Go ahead.

And both both uh both um things that you feel the city feels like these houses are appropriate being built in those neighborhoods, right? Y any other questions? All right. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Consent agenda. Will you please read that part and I got to read that part, too. One motion non-debatable to approve the recommendations noted. Any member of the council may ask for an item to be taken from the consent agenda for discussion and separate action. Present. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any questions or anybody want anything pulled? All right. Poise vote. All those in favor? I I. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Um reports and information. There are some items provided here. Does anyone have any comments on the three items that are um have been presented? Now we're rolling. Communications from city council.

Just want to thank everybody who participated in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Um I it appeared that everybody had a good time. Um we had lots of entries in the parade and I've never seen so many tow trucks all in one place at one time in my life. So it was great and that's all I

um wow that was St. I know the weather was nice but in my time here in Belton I think that was the largest St. Patty's Day parade turnout I've ever seen. Um it was fantastic seeing that many people um crowd Main Street and the downtown area. Uh it was just really really awesome. The other uh thing that I um was able to participate in is uh the youth commission uh had a meeting with us at the high school and uh as always it was very refreshing to hear from them. Um you know and I think it's mutual. I think they really enjoyed hearing from us. Um they did share a few ideas for some main street revitalization things. So that was nice and um just generally think that's a really great um endeavor that we are participating in. Uh the TDD board did meet honestly I don't have like there's not any new earthshattering thing other than we the work has started on Northcast Parkway. So that's exciting there. There's you know dirt's being moved. Um but otherwise it was a relatively normal process. Um and of course I do have a number of things from parks. Um the uh as a reminder youth baseball, softball and t-ball registrations are currently open. They will close on April 12th. So uh get registered if you haven't. Uh summer camp registrations will open on April 1st. The outdoor water park season will uh pass the season passes will go on sale April 1st and I have gotten word that they will be discounted uh between April 1st and April 15th. So if you're thinking about doing it uh there might be some incentive to do it uh as soon as possible and uh the opening date is currently planned for May 23rd for that outdoor water park. Uh this weekend we

got a couple things coming up. the Oil Creek uh stream cleanup, which is just south of Wallace Park. That'll take place on March 28th in the morning. And also taking place in the morning, a little later in the morning, is the Easter egg hunt uh at Memorial Park, which again is even if you don't have a big re, even if your kid is, you know, a senior in high school, it's worth going over there just to watch the chaos because it is something. Um, and uh, and then we have on April 11th, the spring craft show at High Blue will be taking place. That's everything I got.

I just want to say the St. Patrick's Day parade went great. Um, I want to thank Darren Jones for all the work he did on it and in the past that he's done on it because it is it is a large job and a lot of work to do. So, I appreciate that. I don't have anything.

All right. I'm going to keep on the St. Patrick's Day. That was the secret sauce. Darren Jones uh was the grand marshal and I personally feel that's why everyone showed up. So, thank you for uh giving him a good sound out. He has been running that for years and it's always been a fun time. Uh weather definitely dictates how many people we have out there to collect the candy we carefully drop on the ground. We don't throw it. Um and so we're looking forward to new adventures with um the new um Main Street taking it over, but I think it'll continue to be a great success in the city. So, um thanks again, Darren, if you're watching. I know you are.

All right.

Well, I have to stay on the same St. Patty's Ter was very, very good. We had um a huge turnout. We've already got um the two food trucks that came that want to recommit for next year. We've got uh three other ones that would like to come. We'd like to see more civic groups like the Rotary or something, you know, the police or throwing out challenges here. Uh the fire department maybe having floats. you know, we had a large showing of wreckers, but it would be nice to have, you know, emergency management could do a float or, you know, we're just try parks and w, you know, we're just trying to throw out the gauntlet here that we don't want to be shown up by a record company, even though they it was impressive. It was impressive. Um, also, we've had some of the kids from the high school come down this week, last week, and shoot reels that they're going to start posting about our downtown and the train and stuff. So, that was really cool. and had a nice trip to New Mexico and I'm glad to be home.

All right. And our mayor apologizes. He is stuck in an airport right now. Well, actually hopefully he's on a flight by now. Um but he did have some fun in the airport. And he did want me to congratulate Travis Kelce on his uh new the new sign on for the Chiefs. He'll be with us for at least one more year. Could be two or three though. But he wanted me to make sure you all knew he was very proud of Travis Kelce. And then Brett, did you have anything? Thank you. Uh, no, thank you. All right. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead, city manager. I don't have anything to report. All right. Did you still want me to call a recess? All right. Items for review and discussion.

Thank you. Did Andrea approve these handouts? Okay.

Okay. Nothing about chickens.

Good evening, U Mayor Pro Tim and council. What we have before you is some proposed amendments to city code of ordinance chapter 4 for animals. Um we'll take some notes tonight. If you have any questions or have anything that you think that we need we didn't cover, we could add it. We intend to bring this back for the first reading on uh Tuesday, April 14th. And so, uh, I have an expert standing right behind me, uh, animal control officer, uh, Brett Wet, uh, Brad Wetlander. And so, he did the research for a lot of these, a lot of these issues came up in the course of his work. Um, came from questions about stuff that we didn't have in ordinance that the citizens uh, were asking about. Um, it provides better clarification for them, but also better clarification for how you want enforcement of animal control ordinances to be

a question. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. I hope to be a beekeeper. I have been a beekeeper in the past. Hope to start that again this next year. So, do you I mean do you have specifics in mind that I need to keep in mind or

Well, actually, I heard tonight that there was someone mentioned buzz and so that is the first issue, beekeeping. And so, u we have several different uh residents that have inquired about beekeeping. Uh this particular beekeeping ordinance is the um he uh animal control officer Wicklander actually uh got a subject matter expert, the KCB lady. He also found ordinances in other cities and combined them for the one that's proposed. And if you go to page five after my memo, we've got some uh highlighted areas here. And that would be the new beekeeping ordinance. We're suggesting it. It's on page five. It's highlighted right here. And uh we have it slated as would be a new section 4-34. I don't know if that will end up being that. Um it's under review with legal, but like I said, by the time we come back on April 14th, this could have been changed because of your input. And so one of the things that I'll just go through the highlights and then if you have particular questions about it then I'll turn it over to my partner. And so this ordinance introduces uh clear standards for residential uh beekeeping including hive limits, placement requirements and a permit system. It ensures that uh there will be responsible beekeeping while mitigating risk related to public safety uh nuisent complaints and neighborhood conflicts. And so we have uh hive limits based on lot sizes and their standards in regards to hive construction.

And so we are saying that uh setbacks would be 25 ft from the property line. This in unless there is a barrier, 50 ft from any uh streets or occupied structures and flyaway barrier required of six feet. And you would be asking like I did, what is a flyaway barrier? And that is that bees typically will return at the same height that they left. And so we are asking for uh somewhat of a privacy fence that would make the bees fly at six feet and then return at that hive that height. And that would be around the area where the hive is. We're asking also for continual water source required and a nuisance prohibited enforcement measures included. And so I'll uh pause here in case you have any questions.

Do you want to talk about just the ordinance in general?

Uh the ordinance was actually interestingly put together. Um, I began by looking at other cities ordinances and I found a lot of discrepancies in distances and some things that I were not familiar with. Our detective Sergeant Lane, maybe I shouldn't bring up his name, has done some amateur beekeeping. He we did have a situation where there was a swarm of bees on a vehicle in a Chipotle parking lot and we had an organization come out and resolve that situation for us. So, I reached out to them and I spent some time with them and I brought up my concerns and questions and they were very good at providing accurate intelligent responses to why a lot of those things existed. I also took a look at some of the distances. I wanted to make sure that this was available to people, something that they could realtime factually do and look at some of those distances in backyards and measure them out myself to see what that would actually look like. So combining with what was recommended as well as what was actually possible for people requirements for people to meet that's where I came up with a lot of these from um a lot of the interesting things especially like the flyaway barrier. I did not recognize that if a bee has to reach a height of approximately six feet when leaving an area it will continue to fly at that height which can greatly reduce nuisance to neighbors. um the the water source required. A lot of times bees will if there is not a nearby water source, they will go to like a pool or something like that and they could swarm a neighbor's pool. So we wanted to make sure all of those things were occurring to reduce the potential of nuisance but again make it possible for people to keep bees. Is there any questions?

I'll have more questions. Okay, sure. This appears very well thought out, especially from a bee perspective. Uh, from a overall logistics standpoint, I want to make sure I understand. Anything in yellow is new. Is that correct? Highlighted yellow is new. Yes, everything in yellow is new. And then obviously I assume strike out means elimination of. Yes. Um, and then I noticed a couple of like random like there was a there was a somewhere it was bolded and I'm assuming that was just for the that's not intended to stay in the ordinance that bolding that font change that type of thing.

Yes. Okay. All right. Personally, I'll need I look forward I'll have to look through it. Right. That's a lot to go over in a short time here. Yeah. All right. Any other questions before we proceed to the next one? Simply because I drank too much water, I'm going to have a fivem minute recess. Okay.

And we're back. We will now start with permit timelines. Huh? Oh, we had more. Yeah, we have more. Oh my goodness. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Um the next uh ordinance that we need to adjust is uh running at large section 4-61. Uh we're trying to clarify a definition of running at large. We want to require safer tethering restrictions uh especially near public walkways. We've had a couple of incidents where dogs have been tethered near public walkways and been able to jump or uh growl or go after people trying to walk through on a public rideway. And that needs to be those dogs need to be tethered away from a public walkway. And so the other thing is is that we want to require confinement on pre premises and restrict uh again restrict uh tethering near sidewalks and public streets. And so if you turn to page seven there is u a section there we are just eliminating some language. We're adding or tethered and then we're keeping the language uh adding the language underneath there. such leash, rope or chain, cable or any other similar um similar uh tie tie out. So, I don't know if you have any questions in regards to that.

I guess I do since we're bringing it up. the if I eliminate the added language of the yellow highlighting and it goes back to saying regardless of the length of to come to within 10 ft of the walkways. I mean that either way before this change or after this change they weren't supposed to come within 10 ft of the walkways. Is that correct? That is correct. this. So, were we having a hard time enforcing it then?

Yes. The language of it wasn't quite accurate. What we were experiencing was the initial one said that animals can't be staked with uh any sort of restraint that comes within 10 feet of a walkway. The problem we were seeing is people were like tying animals up to a railing or something which would be tethering and not staking. those animals were coming within 10 feet of a walkway or and we're having the same problem, but the language only referenced staking the dog using a stake into the ground and not tethering it as in tying it to a tree or a railing or some sort of structure. Okay, makes now I understand. I didn't understand why. Okay, then the second piece of that though is

I I assume when someone's walking their dog with a leash that is not tethering them. Is that No, that is not tethered. That is somebody who is in control. That is not tethered. That is somebody. Okay. That uh that is not tethered. That is somebody is holding the that is animal is in control of the person who was walking it at the time. Okay. All right. No other questions about tethering. All right.

We're going to go to page 11 next. Animal bites. Um, this is a critical update that we want to make to the ordinance. Uh, currently we do not have an ordinance if a uh dog or cat bites an a person. And so we're trying to include a language for that or uh the biting of another domestic animal that's subject to citation. And so this prohibits unprovoked bites or attacks. It defines provocation, trespassing or abuse. Um, and then exempts law enforcement animals, which it would exempt our police canine from that because when we uh have the dog, we are biting under the provisions of use of force under the and obeyance with the US Constitution. We have uh reasonable suspicion that someone needs to be apprehended. And then this also allows for quarantine and control measures related to that. There any questions? The reason this came about is the existing ordinance which was labeled as animal biting only required a quarantine after the time of the bite. So, if an animal bit somebody, uh, state law requires that that animal, regardless of its rabies vaccination, still has to do a mandatory 10-day quarantine. If they didn't fall in line with that, then there was, um, punishment. There was no punishment for the animal actually biting a person or another animal written into our ordinances. So, we needed to correct that. That's where this comes in.

Go ahead. Okay. I understand everything you're saying. Mhm. What I don't understand is that the highlighted area is only it's only for covering or domestic animal. Is this all new? Should this all be highlighted there? I I experienced the same thing when I was reviewing this. Um when I reviewed it before, I skipped down to a lower section where there is more information. Yes, you should read the whole if you read all of the highlighted parts going throughout the rest of the sections. It kind of talks about some of the different things that he just went over. I believe it's on the very last page. Is that correct?

Um you'll see a section where it says it shall be unlawful for the owner, harbor, keeper, having possession or management in whole or part of any animal to permit such animal to bite or cause injury unprovoked to any human being or other animal. This shall not apply to animals trespassing on the owner harbor keeper premises and shall not apply to animals under control of law enforcement officer. Gotcha. Okay. So yeah, that'd be 14 uh section 1-45. So yeah, that section is kind of a previous one. It is addressed further later on in the paperwork.

Oh, that makes it even more. So there's we have two section 4-145 in here. Well, what I'm talking about is the fully revised part. The other part is not the fully revised part. All right. So, here's where I'm going with my questions if it's not become very abundantly obvious. The I just want my concern is not that you've done a great job because again, it looks very thorough. Um I I suspect you've done a great job. Um, but the I just want to be able to quickly and I want anyone else in the public to be able to quickly look at this and say this is what's changed, right? Um,

Alex, that's what the memo on the very front is. The first two pages, it's just a it's a No, I get that too, but we have So, when I look at section 4145, there's one on page 11 and there's one on page 16. So, I guess I'm it's just very confusing. Am I the only one that I think the highlighted sections are proposed changes and if we are in agreement and don't have any edits, those two would be condensed into one change section. Correct. The latter one is the one that will be the changed one. And this is an easy problem to fix. It's just

a preliminary and then a secondary one. the preliminary one can be removed and the secondary would be the complete amount of changes that we were going to put into this. Yeah. As far as internal consistency and like where we codify those things and making sure the language looks really nice, that's something that legal can do as we work through um you know, this whole process. It's, you know, do you all like the idea? And then we can help codify it correctly and make sure the language looks good. Yeah, just looking to make it as clear as possible.

Sorry for the confusion. Again, I I don't doubt that you've done a very thorough job here. That's that wasn't the question. No, it's very technical stuff to begin with. Any other questions about animal bites?

Uh, rabies vaccinations. We're looking to clear up the language in regards to um rabies vaccinations. Um, as it states in city ordinance, it has to be yearly rabies vaccinations. and we want to replace it with language requiring animals to have a current rabies vaccination and tag as determined by a licensed veterinarian. This will allow um people to have uh have the choice of getting a one-year rabies vaccination or they can get the three-year. um they would still be in compliance if they get the three-year because we come across a lot of animals that actually have the three-year uh vaccination and we just want to clean up this in regards to the the ordinance. It also requires vaccination at 4 months or older and proof of vaccination is required and the rabies tag must be worn off the premises and this sometimes is the issue because the animal doesn't have that on them. Any questions? It would be pa just right below on page 11. Page 12. Um we're going to talk about impoundments. Um this is an ordinance that formalizes procedures for impounded animals. It identifies um identification efforts such as microchipping u prior to release and improving the return to owner rates and long-term accountability. We have a number of dogs that run around that run off the premises on a regular basis. We know them by sight or neighbors know them. Uh but sometimes it's a reoccurring problem when the ACOs are

not working or we don't have the ability of a neighbor to identify them because we have police officers picking up the dogs and they are not microchipped. They are not tagged and they do not have any type of vaccination or any type of um ability to identify. Uh this allows the seizure of animals in a violation. It requires reasonable attempt to identify the owner. Um, a lot of times we we can do that um a number of different ways, especially if we have a picture and we can um show it on social media or another sources. And then this also will help us transfer the animal to a contracted shelter and then v uh vaccination and microchipping um may have to occur after that. I actually think this is a nice change in our ordinance and is very progressive.

Go ahead, Alec. The um will the owner like Okay, so we follow this through. Will the owner be charged for the microchipping? No. Okay. So,

well, I shouldn't say that. Um, we had a discussion with the shelter that we currently use and they're very much on board with all of this and at that time it was discussed that there would not be a charge imply involved. When a dog goes into a shelter, it receives necessary vaccinations to be in that shelter regardless because the vaccination status is not known and we don't want anything going into a shelter and transmitting anything. This would that's not at any charge to the dog owner and this as it is now would not fall under that either. So if we changed the shelter we work with it might change the outcome of that and okay I understand what you're saying but currently that yes okay

um do we have any you know liability to microchipping without you know um request of the owner. I mean on my end that falls underneath the animals getting a vaccination when it goes into the shelter. I mean if it's in circumstances where it ends up into the shelter, there are certain things required going into it and this would be part of that. Okay. So that's certainly something that we could look into.

All right. Just food for thought. No other questions. All right. And then uh the last change would be to 4-169. And that is that owners reclaiming animals at the city contracted shelter shall pay all applicable fees to the shelter including redemption fee, boarding costs, and veterary expenses. And so this is how the owners of the animal would be responsible for paying fees related to the um uh us picking up one of picking up an animal u because it got off the premises.

Can I sorry go ahead. Um may I ask do we know what the um fees are or what they would charge for vaccinating or microchipping? As right now, there are not any. The fees that exist now is Belton charges a $50 impound fee and the shelter charges a $40 um daily fee, which goes on for 5 days, which is the length of a stray dog hold. And I will say the microchipping, if an animal is microchipped, whether it be through the shelter or the owner has decided to do it, that greatly reduces costs of empoundment, not only to the city for people who can't reclaim or maybe don't come to reclaim because of the costs.

But also to the owner themselves. Um, if we pick up a dog that's got microchip with current information, we take it home. So that makes a big big difference.

Yeah. I should add that when the police officers are serving in the role of an animal control officer when they're not working, they have access to the scanner that they scan the dog. Either it's brought out to the scene by a supervisor or another officer or they take the dog to the station and conduct it and then they can return the dog if it it has a microchip. And so it's faster for us. And like you said, we don't have to take it to the contracted shelter. We don't have to take an officer out of service to drive all the way to uh northern part of uh Grand View. It works out better for us and the resident.

Any other questions? And that's the end of our presentation. Sorry. Sorry I cut you off too early last time. No, that's fine.

All right. Now without further ado, permit timelines. That is not the same presentation I had. Sorry. Um, I did provide the presentation um to the council ahead of time. Uh, see if I have the other one. Just one second. Okay, that'll be brought up here shortly. Um, but I wanted to kind of have a recap with with council uh what was discussed at the April um or sorry the February 10th work session uh regarding some code amendments that were proposed uh related to the rental registration program and uh permit timelines. Um, I know I that was all a verbal discussion, but I wanted to provide um more of a um the code amendments that are proposed in writing um as well as some uh graphics to kind of help illustrate those changes in the timelines that are proposed. Um so the the primary reason for bringing this forward is to help achieve additional

compliance through both the rental registration program as well as through permits where we have a lot of um instances where work continues to be done without permits um or permit is issued and inspections are not um called in in a timely fashion. Um, one thing I do want to stress is that none of these changes impact um, property owners, contractors, residents, and businesses who are already following those processes and procedures. Um, there's only one item where a timeline changes um, that applies citywide. Um, but that is not one of the timelines that we've had issues with in the past. Um, so the first thing is with rental registrations. um on the screen there, that's just a screenshot from the draft code amendment. So everything that's highlighted and underlined in red, it would be the new language that's being added. Um so one of the challenges that we've had is there's no penalty u built into the system for or into the code for rental registrations that are not uh registered or renewed within a timely manner. Um so we we are taking proposing to take a similar approach to what business licensing has added to their code which essentially they have up to 30 days past due as kind of the grace period and then after 30 days uh the penalty fees start accumulating and increase every 30 days without um compliance. Uh the last work session there was some conversation um and concerns about the fees associated with that where we were looking at $5 per unit. Um instead we are proposing to a $50 per registration flat fee um for each 30-day period passed due. The reason for the flat fee is it really doesn't matter um if it's a somebody that has one or two units or a 300 unit apartment complex. the amount of staff

time um and violation notice fee is roughly the same for those either one of those entities. Uh the second so moving on to the building permit uh there's two separate timelines in the code. There's an application period which is currently 180 days. Um that is essentially the from the date that you submit an application to when the permit needs to be approved and issued. um if it's not issued within that um 180day period, it's automatically determined to be withdrawn. Uh we're proposing to reduce that to 90 days because generally anybody who is actively seeking a permit will obtain a permit within that 90-day period. There are occasionally some exceptions for some bigger projects where the permit is approved within that time frame, but it may not be issued within 90 days just because they're waiting on contractors or things of that sort. That's typically for the million-doll plus projects that we see where there's a lot of new construction and they may um um have a number of challenges with getting the contractors through the legal process. Um the permit validity period is still 180 days. That is um not proposed to change. Um, and we're actually clarifying that um, a little bit more clear in the code by adding the language that says after a passing inspection, it automatically is extended another 180 days from that date. So, that's all that's how we've been acting um, for many years. It's just not clear in the code. So, we're actually adding that clarification. Um, so here's just kind of a visual of what that looks like on the calendar to kind of show, you know, if an application was submitted on January 1, um, the expiration date of that is April

1st. Um, if a permit's issued, if it's a submitted January 1st, it's issued on March 2nd, um, you're you're good 180 days from that date. So the new expiration date is August 29th. um built in some different inspections as well. Um just to show, you know, if if three weeks after your permit's issued, you have your first passing inspection, your permit, then the original expiration date was August 29th, that now jumps to September 27th. So, it's it's const the the expiration date is moving along with your pace of construction. As long as there's a passing inspection within that 180day period, it's automatically extended. If not, then the permit's been deemed to be abandoned, and we'll work through that process if it is an active construction site. There's also uh opportunities for permit extension requests that we also work with property owners who may be under construction, but are having some additional hurdles on site that they're working through. And we do um we do give those extensions fairly regularly. Uh the biggest changes that we're proposing to make are related to kind of expedited building permit timelines. And this is really for work that is being done without a permit or somebody submits a permit application, does the work, but never comes in and actually pays for the permit and calls in the inspection. So with that, that would be the new section that we would be adding to this code, which is work without a permit. And we determined that it's easiest to split this into minor versus major permits. So minor permits are permits in which the scope of work typically takes less than seven days to complete. So that's most of your electrical, mechanical, plumbing, um re- roofs, um water heathers, those types of things.

Uh the major permits are basically new structures, um major tenant finishes and things like that. um the building official will have the authority to make the determination on which um scope of work uh qualifies based on what the work is being what work is being done there. Um and so the minor permit has a little bit faster timeline. So essentially if they get caught doing uh are caught doing work without a permit, they have three business days to submit the application to us um and then must obtain the permit within 10 days. Um those are relatively easy permits to obtain. There's really no reviews. Um it's just we confirm that they've submitted the application. Um and that the contractor is licensed. So the biggest hold up there may be the contractor getting a license um and then they have to complete that work within 30 days or or complete the inspection within 30 days. And there's some additional timelines in there. If we inspect and it's deficient, uh the major permit, they have 10 days to submit their application and then they have 90 days to actually obtain the permit. The reason for that is those permits typically require additional plan review through multiple departments and typically we see revisions required at least once before we're able to issue that. So, and once that's issued, it just goes through the normal um permitting process, 180 days. Um the biggest issue with those that we have added on there is that if there is clearly work that was done that is in violation of code, getting that corrected up front um while they're working through other pieces of that. And so again, just a visual just kind of showing what that looks like when work

is done without a permit. The left side is the major permit timeline, which is a little bit lengthier. The minor permit is the thing or the types of permits that we expect to um resolve in a timely manner. Any questions on any of those? Do you have a question? Hey, can we get a copy of that? Yes, thanks. I did email this out before for before the meeting. Yeah, I did not catch that. Thanks.

Um, we do plan on bringing this forward to planning commission um April 21st. So, this will come to council as a code of amendment in May. Okay, no other questions. Thank you, sir. Number three, Autumn Woods Development Agreement Amendments.

Yes. The ongoing project that's been you've seen a few times. Um so Autumn Woods is the townhouse development um on the north side of Marquy Road um between the railroad tracks and Westover. So this development was previously approved in 2016. At that time it was 101 town homes. Um all units were on a single lot and all units were on a single water meter and that was memorialized in the development agreement at that time. Um in 2024 uh the development plan was uh amended. Uh the developer at that time uh wanted to replplat the property to where each building each 3lex was on its own lot. um they believe that that was going to be an easier way for them to get the financing to complete the development. And so we worked with them for about a year on taking that all through the process. Um and that agreement required that all new construction have individual meters per unit and that the existing buildings eventually be retrofitted before they completed the subdivision. about a few months after that was approved. The developer sold the uh project and now we have a new developer that we've been um meeting with over the past nine months and they would like to move forward with completing this subdivision. As part of that, um, obviously the cost associated with the the cost and challenges of going back to individual meters on buildings that have already been construct constructed under a single meter is a challenge. So, they're requesting to essentially go back to the plan that was uh approved in 2016, replplat the property all on one lot and utilize the master meter. Uh however that would be the only change here. Um all the other approvals that

were done in 2024 including the increased amenities, the improved landscaping, the driveway expansions, all those would still be required and they are agreeable to not amending any parts of that plan. Um, one of the biggest challenges that we have had uh with this development is because trash service is not tied to a water bill um is is trash fees being collected here. So the developer is um willing to work with us on revising the agreement to where the developer pays a single trash bill monthly to the city that covers the cost of all the trash services within the development and that ensure that ensures that the trash bills are getting paid there. So the next step would be if if council um thinks of that that is a viable solution. We have an agreement that we've worked up with the developer. It's currently in their legal review and we would bring this forward to council sometime next month. If the council approves the revised agreement, we would then um work with the developer on filing the replat to consolidate all the lots back into one and then they can uh move forward with building permits. Any questions on that?

Does this solve this? Well, we thought it was solved last time. So hopefully this has the potential to solve this problem. Uh we hope so. Uh the contract the general contractor that they are working with um has has been a reputable contractor in other cities. They've done a lot of town home developments elsewhere and I believe that they were involved with the um the Eagles Crest um town homes on the south side there of Marquy across the street.

I know that I know just on the railroad end of things they've He's waving my hand. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. I know that on the railroad stuff, we've we've been having issues with the stuff that they dump over on railroad property. Okay. So, and that's something we can work with, okay, with the contractor on. And the extended driveways are for the new and the the new and the old. Okay. They have to go back and retrofit um the old driveways. Okay. as they I know that huge concern was street parking and yes that would help alleviate that. Yep. Okay.

I I'm just trying to look to the future, which is hard to do since I don't own a crystal ball. I really need to buy one. Um I Man, what a mess. the what other problems may we come across with a single meter?

Well, one of the things I think you could come across is how do you do rental inspection when there's no a obvious shutting off of the water supply for a new tenant moving in. So actually the the easier way to track and what a few other cities are doing is they utilize electric service for that um because the develop typically the landlord is more likely to make you pay for your own electricity as opposed to your water. So there's a lot there's a number of different um apartment developments in the city that are where the whole building is on a single meter. So that's not really the best way of tracking the turnover. I don't know. Yeah. Okay. I'm just trying to think what other issue might come from a single meter because obviously it's not ideal. But

yeah, and and ultimately we're just trying to find solutions with the new developer to try to finally finish this once and for all since it's been hanging out here for a decade unfinished. Yeah. I mean, understand. Any other questions? All right. Last but not least, item four, efforts sub area plan amendment.

Yeah, I did include the council as well on the public notice that we put out last Monday for the Graham Edford sub area amendment uh which will is a future land use map amendment that we will be bringing forward um here over the next month to the planning commission. Um, so the future land use plan was adopted in the comprehensive plan back in November 2024 and this particular sub area um was kind of tucked down on the southeast side of the city. Um, we knew that there's a lot of development potential at the time, but we at that point hadn't really received a lot of development interest. Um, now with the continued grow uh southward trajectory of growth down the I49 corridor and some of the recent development that's been occurring in on Raymore side of the I49 Northcast Parkway interchange, uh, we've seen an increase in development interest um, specifically on the efforts property because uh, they're a more willing um, seller um, than some of the other property owners down in this um, sub area. And so we have taken a lot of feedback from the from different developers who have approached us of uh you know kind of what they're seeing in the market of how this area could potentially develop. And so these changes reflect um those development interests and kind of the way that the market um seems to be heading in the southeast part of the city. Um, we also think that it it's a better balance between employment, housing, and retail services. Um, so previously this sub area was very heavily residential. Um, we think with the proximity to I49, putting, you know, a higher concentration of residential within a mile of I49 is probably not the most ideal long term. um especially when we have limited other areas within the uh this is really the the only other large

track um near I49 for business park development. So that's why we have um put that in kind of the southeast corner of this development. It's also heavily buffered um from the west uh due to a stream buffer um and also is buffered with some additional stream buffers and natural uh topography and utilities on the east side along I49. Um we still retain a lot of the residential and um kind of move some of the medium density residential a little bit closer to Pickering Place. Um also for whatever reason Pickering Place was not given a designated land future land use in that plan. So we have designated that as medium density residential to reflect um essentially how it is developed. Um and so that is the reason for bringing that um forward. Uh we believe that we need both the jobs and the housing um in this location. and the jobs help drive housing and then the housing and the jobs both drive the commercial development um that is designated um along I49 at North Cass. Um so we did send out notices last Monday and it's also posted on our website um and at city hall for the neighborhood meeting that will be held March 31st, next Tuesday at 5:30 here in the council chambers. And then the public hearing will be held by city uh by the planning commission on April 21st. Um the future land use map amendment is not zoning. It doesn't approve any specific plan. Um currently the efforts property is in unincorporated Cass County. So, uh, if a developer were to move forward, they would need to the property owner would need to voluntarily an voluntarily annex into the city and then once that takes place, they would be allowed to submit for reasonzoning, development plan applications and those things which would come before the city council at that time.

If they didn't voluntarily annex, it wouldn't they'd have to go through county, right, to do whatever thing they wanted to do. Would but the likelihood of that um sewer typically is where what drives development is the sewer access and our sewer line runs. Ah, makes more sense now. So, so the county would likely tell them to go annex into Belton anyway. because yeah, there's a a decent portion of this is not Belton.

Correct. No, actually none of it um on the south side of this 187th Street line is in the city limits. Yeah. And I understand you know our comprehensive plan as well as our future use uh you know involves outside of city limits because that's the part of future planning. But um okay, I just was trying to figure out why they would pick Beltton over, you know, Cass County when it came to, you know, potential development, you know, uh or permits. So, any other questions or comments?

Thank you for those great presentations, sir. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed? We are