City Council - Regular Meeting

I don't know. Can that be?

Call meeting to order. A, call public hearing to order. A public hearing will be held at 6 p.m. August 11th, 2026 at Belton City Hall and Annex 520 Main Street during which citizens may be heard regarding property tax rates proposed to be set by the City of Belton. You're up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. The public hearing is in front of you, but I do want to note a couple of changes to it. When this hearing went out, we only had the assessed valuation through 625 before the board equalization met. I did publish it, and then we got an updated assessed valuation, so I just want to walk through those numbers real quick with you. The changes, the assessed valuation went up $337,000. The revenue that we stand to gain went down 5934, and the total levy went down 0.0027, so a change of 2.0211. to 2.0184.

Any questions? And anybody in the audience that want to come and speak in favor or against, come to the microphone, state your name and address, and give us your bill. During that, any council member have any questions? Again, public hearing. If anybody wants to come speak for or against the levy rate, property tax rates for the proposed levy for next year, come to the microphone and state your name and address and speak your piece. Hearing and seeing none, public hearing is closed. Call meeting to order. Pledge of Allegiance. Council Member White.

He was up.

They take him off. Oh, they did? Okay. He'll be back. Roll call, please.

Mayor Larkey?

Here.

Council Member White? Here. Council Member Thompson? Here. Council Member Davidson? Yes. Council Member Pryan?

Here.

Council Member Lawson? Here. Council Member Richardson?

Here.

Council Member McCallum?

Here.

Council Member Johnson? Here.

We have a quorum. Item F, no presentations tonight, no personal appearances tonight, unfinished business. Item 1, motion approving final reading of Bill 2026-41.

An ordinance approving a rezoning from PR to BPR for a more or less 12.16 acre property and approval of a preliminary development plan for a 99,000 square foot warehouse development at the southwest corner of West Markey Road and CB Road.

Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Council Member Lawson? Aye. Johnson? Aye. White?

Aye.

Richardson?

Aye.

Davidson? No. Bryant?

Aye.

McCallum?

Aye.

Mayor Larkey?

Aye.

Thompson? Yes.

Motion passes. Item 2, motion approving the final reading of Bill 2026-42.

And ordinance approving a final plat for Built Industries and KPI Solutions Industrial Park, a two-lot subdivision on a more or less 12.16 acres located at the southwest corner of West Markey Road and CB Road in the city of Belton, Missouri.

Present. Second. I have a motion and a second. Anybody? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilmember Bryan?

Aye.

Davidson? No. Thompson? Yes. White?

Aye.

Johnson? Aye. McCallum? Aye. Lawson? Aye. Mayor Larkey?

Aye.

Richardson?

Aye. Motion passes. 3, motion approving final reading of Bill 2026-44.

An ordinance readopting ordinance number 91-2073 as amended, establishing a procedure to disclose potential conflict of interest and substantial interest for certain municipal officials.

Present. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Mayor Larkey?

Yes.

Councilmember Johnson? Aye. Pratt? Aye. White? Aye. Richardson?

Aye.

McCallum?

Aye.

Lawson? Aye. Thompson? Yes. Davidson? Yes.

Motion passes. Item 4, motion to reconsider Resolution 2026-071.

A resolution approving event street closure memorandums of understanding.

Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. I'm bringing this back up since I was in the majority. I think there was some confusion the last two weeks ago on people recusing themselves and not recusing themselves and what the city attorney suggested that happens. So for some clarity, I brought it back up.

So... Yes, and given that I don't believe I was as articulate as I could have been in describing the reasons why the specific conflict of interest statute that was being referenced was not being triggered by the participation of members of the city council on boards of not-for-profits, I provided a memo that is at the desk for each one of the council members. In short, The Missouri conflict of interest statute that was being referenced throughout 105452.1 parenthesis four requires a special monetary benefit. The key in that phrase is special. Special means preferential treatment to the council member, their spouse, or to their dependent child. And when we are dealing with a class or group of persons or entities such as not-for-profits, it requires that the council member The council members, spouses, or dependent child's not-for-profit or member of the class receive preferential treatment over other members of the class, given that the resolution does not even say a not-for-profit's name in it. It just says not-for-profit, and then the MOU itself is blank. There is no trigger, there is no preferential treatment, and there is no special monetary benefit that will flow to any council member, their spouse, or their dependent child via voting on this resolution.

Any questions? Go ahead.

Just to clarify, each MOU still comes in front of the council to be approved, right? If a nonprofit says, yeah, I'll play the game and then we get an incomplete application or there's something fuzzy about it, we as a council have to approve the MOU for them to have the fees waived, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay.

And that is also noted on the memo. It's the last paragraph on page five. The analysis will change once event-specific MOUs are returned to the council for approval. For those items, we recommend a standing practice of disclosure and recusal by any member who serves on the applicant organization's board.

Anybody else? Chris, you got anything?

I was just going to say I watched that meeting two weeks ago that I wasn't here and was kind of like shocked that three people recused themselves right after the attorney said they didn't need to, but we're back at it and I'm good with this.

Anybody else?

Now, will this start this year or will we start off like beginning of the year where everything is... back to equal ground since we should start as soon as I sign it. Yes.

As soon as the council approves the resolution, it will soon as I sign it. Correct. Okay. It will go into effect. I don't have any current pending applications for this year.

Go ahead. You done? Go ahead.

Yeah, I guess I'll talk about recusal here for a second. For those of you who don't know, I have a 15 year career involved in investigating workplace wrongdoing, which includes conflict of interest cases more than I could possibly count. And the simple reason you recuse yourself is when you are in doubt of any kind of conflict, you want to remove yourself and disclose your relationship. And since the validity of my vote came into question last time, I erred with caution and I did that, exactly so. I appreciate Council's advice here specifically talking about the intricacies involved in this I myself is also have also spent a lot of time reviewing this from a conflict of interest standpoint as a as an investigator and So I believe that the conflict of interest is simply a perceived one And that is ultimately why I recused myself to err on the side of caution, but I do not intend to do so this time to be clear And part of that's because my constituents made it very clear that they find this to be a deeply important issue in front of us. And so I want to be clear that based on council's advice, based on my review and the situation overall that that I'll take that risk on a perceived COI and move forward because I believe there is not a real one as described. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say I am on the Belton, Missouri Historical Railroad Board, which is a local nonprofit. But again, I believe there's no real conflict here, and I'll leave it at that.

I would also note for the council and the public's benefit is I do typically err on the side of caution, like Councilmember McCollum just said, and do advise to avoid apparent conflicts of interest. Here, I believe that the law is so clear that there cannot be a perceived conflict of interest, which is also why I provided the memorandum. why it is not closed, and why it does not say attorney-client privileged communication and work product at the top. I would also note that one thing that counsels against the recusal for appearance of impropriety is loss of say by the constituents. And I understand both Councilmember McCollum and Councilmember Johnson wanted to ensure that there was no appearance of impropriety or conflict, but the recusal of both members from that ward meant that for that vote, constituents and citizens and voters of that war did not have a voice. And so I wanted to also specifically provide this memo to ensure that all constituents do have the ability to have their elected representatives make the votes that they believe are in the best interest of the community.

Anybody else?

I'm going to put on my Rob Powell hat and run a what if by you, city attorney. So we've got four board members who have recused themselves for conflict of interest in the past, right? We've got DBMSI represented, the coalition represented, the railroad. If one more of us were on a board of some sort, then those organizations would not be allowed to submit an MOU or support the same events together because we wouldn't have enough votes to pass one. Is that correct? yes that is correct got it okay um i'll just throw a suggestion out there that you know in a community this size it would be so great to see more people involved more people doing the work and sharing the workload because it is a lot of work to put on these events and not put the council in a position to thumbs up or thumbs down events um anyway that's just my two sentences it would be great if we didn't even have that issue

Yeah, no, I agree with that. And hopefully if this passes, we'll fix that to where hopefully it's not a thumbs up and thumbs down because this lays out what they have to do if they want to come to us and close the street or whatever. Hopefully that's all set out so it was either we're going to say yes or no. But it shouldn't be over any of the other stuff that we said yes or no in the past.

So, go ahead. To clarify that, Are you suggesting that I am not able to vote on future MOUs that do not involve the nonprofits I am on?

No. No, sorry. The statement at the end is the appearance of impropriety would at most only arise if the specific not-for-profit you are involved in has an MOU in front of the council. Even at that point, There is not a legal conflict of interest. If you look at the statute that is applicable, it says to the council or to the elected official, their spouse or dependent child. It does not reference organizations that that person or council member may have an affiliation with. which is key because the Missouri legislature specifically amended the conflict of interest statutes to include organizations and entities that a person has an affiliation with in other sections of the conflict of interest statutes. When we read statutes, we read words as put in intentional and at times you have to read words omitted intentionally. The fact that there was various provisions amended to call out that sort of affiliate organization conflict and this one was not, calls into question whether or not that would be a legal conflict of interest just at the outset, but that is one, given public, given the fact that there would be a vote on a specific resolution for a specific not-for-profit that you would be on the board of, I would say that that could be something that you would recuse yourself for an appearance, but not a real.

Sure, so just to be clear, It would take five of us on the same board to then create that problem you're describing.

No, I was floating it as though it was an event co-created, co-sponsored by multiple boards represented on the council.

And I think the city of Belton is unique in its... requirement that five votes be necessary to pass a resolution. Typical Missouri law, just the general, is that a majority of the quorum present is all that is necessary, which has been discussed in the past. And if the council views it, I think that staff would draw up an ordinance to make the city of Belton more compliant with general Missouri law when it comes to the passage of resolutions.

Great idea.

Go ahead.

Just one quick question. On the not-for-profit loss statement, what will we do with that information? I mean, we're not going to... It's going to be kept in-house, right, that information? Yeah.

Yeah, I believe it would stay with us and it would give us a better understanding of what we're paying for. We're using city money and citizens money to pay for this stuff so we know where our money is going and so forth and so on. It has been the thought amongst the people that I mentioned putting this on.

So if Group would show maybe they made a profit for the first five years. I mean then are we going Could Waving of those fees then be changed We have the we're the council right so we always have the ability to waive that We I mean we have the ability.

We're the ones that make to that decision. It's a legislative decision and

You know, this body in five years can change it however they want to change it.

Yeah, but that's all.

I mean, we could change it at the next meeting if you got five yes votes. I don't think that's going to happen, but I think it was just more of an understanding of where the city money is going for these events for the taxpayers to understand and have a little more transparency of where the money is going, the city money is going. Anybody else? Do I need to reread the resolution or? All right. Nothing else, Chris. You good? Nothing. Yeah, I'm good. All right. All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Item 1, new business. Motion to approve and first reading of Bill 2026-45.

An ordinance levying and fixing the rate of tax for municipal purposes for the park fund and for the debt service fund for fiscal year 2027. Present. Second.

We have a motion and a second. You're up.

Good evening again, Mayor and Council. I want to walk you through the tax levy and how it was calculated this year. This year we experienced a decrease in total adjusted valuation from the previous year of 0.36%. And this was mostly due to master's transportation leaving the city and it was related to personal property. We did experience an increase in assessed valuation on the real estate side, however. and revenue. Per rsmo the reassessed growth and revenue shall be the lower of three of these either the actual assessed growth which again was negative 0.36% the cpi which this year was 2.7% or 5% which is the hancock amendment. Because we experienced negative growth we actually couldn't increase the revenue from last year to this year except for on the new Um, year. I have put the assess evaluation calculations in your council action report and again I will repeat the public hearing the numbers that went out were before the board of equalization met with the new updated assess evaluation numbers are levy for general fund is .4480, park and rec .1994 and the debt service is for a total of 2.0184 which is the same that we levied last year. So with that I will stand for any questions.

Uh, how much was the master's transportation?

Their total personal AV was a little over 7 million. It was a hit for sure.

Anybody else? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item two, motion to approve the first reading of Bill 2026-46.

An ordinance approving a preliminary development plan for a 93,440 square foot maintenance facility at a 1,050 square foot car wash addition at 15511 Odessa Drive.

Present. Second. We have a motion and a second.

You're up. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Before you this evening is a request for a preliminary development plan for a maintenance facility and accessory car wash expansion at the Odessa Carvana facility at 15511 Odessa Drive. which is south of 155th Street between North Scott and Kensington Avenue. The applicant is requesting to construct a 93,440 square foot maintenance building, which would be located east of the main office building, which will provide additional interior service space for a variety of vehicle body work, repairs, and detailing. And then a small 1,050 square foot car wash addition is proposed to an existing maintenance building near the southwest corner of the main office building. Both site expansions meet all site design and building material requirements for the M1 light industrial zoning district. As part of this plan, they're also proposing to reorient the drive aisles and parking cells as part of the extension to improve the workflow through the site. Those proposed parking standards are also met by the UDC requirements. The planning commission held a public hearing on July 21st, to which no one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. the commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary development plan and also approved a final development plan. Staff recommends approval. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Question. Go ahead.

Off the wall a little bit, but all the construction heavy equipment to come in to rebuild these are all going to be driving on city streets. Is that correct?

Um, most of them will probably go down 155th street, which is technically Kansas city.

Okay, but then they'll make a turn in and come on our streets, correct?

Pretty much all the streets out there that are accessing Odessa are in Kansas City. Okay. So Odessa Drive is a private street that Odessa already maintains.

Okay.

Anybody else? Chris? You good? I'm good. Yeah. Yeah. All right, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item three, motion to approve resolution 2026-75.

A resolution approving a sales contract with Revise LLC for website design and hosting services.

Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up, sir.

Thank you mayor and council members. The item in front of you this evening is the approval of a sales contract with revised to update and um, redevelop the city's current public facing website. Um, I did want to point out on the first bullet of the council action report, it does indicate that the city currently uses civic plus. Um, that was a Scrivener's error. Currently the city uses what's called open cities, um, which is owned by Granicus. And so I just wanted to make that clear that we're currently using Granicus. Um, Council approved in April of 2026 in its annual budget included a $35,000 project for website update. This was part of we are currently coming to the end of our contract with Granicus, but also the city needs to redevelop its website in order to align with the federal web accessibility guidelines, which we had initially thought we needed to come in compliance with in 2027. The federal government has since extended that out by one year, and so we're still under a deadline, and we still do need to meet those accessibility guidelines, and it just kind of is more in line with our current contract ending rather than those accessibility guidelines. In May, after Council approved the project and its budget, Staff issued an RFP. We received 21 proposals from a variety of different vendors, both qualified and unqualified. Staff interviewed the top three and ultimately selected revise as the lowest and best proposal. Once staff, once approved by council or if approved by council, staff will begin working with all of our departments, uh, to begin developing an appropriate project kickoff meeting and project timeline. Um, the contract tonight is just to put, get revised in the door to begin the project. Um, we'll be bringing back to council, you know, wire frames as well as some feedback from council and department head on what we want the ultimate website at the end of the day to look like once it's completed. We anticipate this will probably be about a six to nine month project overall. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Go ahead. All right, so when I looked at, so we originally budgeted 35,000, is that correct? Correct. Okay, and when I looked at the Council Action Report, I wasn't, when I read just that, I wasn't exactly clear on what the total came to. And then I went through, I read further on in the agenda, and I saw that chart that they provided on page 57, which I think clarifies it, but given my unclarity, I wanted to make sure I'm very clear on this. So the first year will be 29,800.

Correct. And that includes both the construction of and kind of development of the website itself as well as part of that 29 is there 7,400 is hosting costs for all of our data and other material.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that part, except for the hosting costs were identified in the first year is 7,900. And so, and when I looked through the chart on page 57, I didn't see that anywhere in there. It just talked about essentially the startup costs to get it to, you know, review, change, update, et cetera. And I don't know that we necessarily have to see that in there per se, but I'm glad to hear so. It is under the 35,000 budget, but I guess what caused more confusion, but I think I follow it, but I want to, again, clarify is that so the second year, is 4% on top of that first year, 7,900.

Correct. And I also want to clarify the hosting costs are a separate line item in the budget that was already approved. And so the, Perfect. So essentially it's the $22,350 is what is the budgeted project.

So it's coming in significantly under budget. Correct, yes.

And then there's already, through the IT and the administration budget, a hosting line that we already pay with Granicus that we'll just transfer to Revise.

You already knew where my next question was going then, which is approximately the same hosting fee? Much lower. Lower, okay. And then the one thing I was looking for, because this was part of that discussion during the budget process that I didn't see in there, was converting our domain from .org to .gov. Will this include that as well?

It's something that we'll definitely explore with them. There's several other pieces that we need to talk through. That includes email domains as well as PD and parks have their own separate domains. And so if we're just changing the city, I'd like to have a conversation with them first about what the best strategy and best practice would be for us to change over to that domain.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense. I just don't want that to be lost or forgotten because I think that's I think that's important for a number of reasons, and if I remember, I got the thumbs up nod or whatever from IT when I brought this up last time, so I know it's likely a smart move for us to make, so I just don't want that to be forgotten, of course.

Anybody else? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item four, motion to approve resolution 2026-76.

A resolution providing a procedure and schedule for establishing the Charter Review Commission as required by section 15.8 of the Belton City Charter.

Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up.

Thank you. The resolution tonight establishes the Charter Review Commission. Belton City Charter was first approved by voters in November 2008. Section 15.8 of the City Charter requires a comprehensive review, no less often than every 10 years. Tomorrow, a Charter Review Commission webpage, FAQ, and application will be available. Applications will be accepted August 12 through September 15. On September 22nd, the city council will review the list of applicants by ward. Each council member will choose one applicant from their ward and the mayor will choose four from each ward for a total of 12 commission members. On October 13, a resolution will be presented appointing those 12 members and the commission meetings will begin in November of 2026. The recommendations from the commission will be coming to the council in October of 2027. Approved amendments will be placed on the April 4, 2028 ballot for voter consideration. I did have a question before the meeting asking why the amendments will be on the April 2028 ballot instead of the November 2028 ballot. The April ballot's already a regularly scheduled municipal election with council members up for election, so placing the Charter Commission questions on that existing ballot avoids additional costs associated with an election.

Any questions? Go ahead.

Go ahead. In the event that, so you answered one of my big questions, which is how will people know about the applications, et cetera. You already talked about that. We'll have it up on the website. They can apply. Are people able to turn them in by hand as well? Will that be an option? And if so, do they just come up here to City Hall and?

Yes, they're welcome to drop them off here, mail it if they want to, or email it.

Just, I know some people are adverse to electronic versions. And then I wanna talk, I don't know who this question might go to, but just logistically, because a year is a long commitment for some people sometimes. And there's other things happening in there, like an election, I can, for example, So if someone were to be selected to be on this committee and then for whatever reason had to step down, whether because they became elected to council or just whatever, they decide they want to resign or whatever the case may be, how is that spot then re-picked or how do we go through that process?

Go ahead.

I mean, I think realistically we would hope that everybody signing up would know that this would be for a year. If that issue came up, it would come back to the council.

Okay.

So it would ultimately be up to us to decide. It's clearly on the application that it's a 12-month commitment.

I just know... And I believe that that messaging... Not that something can't happen.

I'm just...

But I would hope that the messaging, that it is a 12-month commitment. And this is also, again, this is the Charter Review Commission. You're going to a constitutional convention, essentially. So...

Really would hope that everybody that would be submitting it would be taking it very seriously in the commitment that they are but again things can happen and it would come back to the City Council for their I mean to be frank one of the big things I thought of was people that are likely going to be interested in making a difference in this particular way Might also then throw their name in the Hat for City Council and could end up being elected in that time period That was like mainly the big thing I was thinking of so I was just curious how that might occur That was all anybody else

I just have a general question about how the commission will work. Like who on staff assists them? What are their meetings look like?

So this would be the second charter review commission that the city of Belton has undertaken. The last time it was the city manager, the city clerk and the city attorney were very heavily involved. Um, there have already been, again, I've been your guys's city attorney now for, nine years so basically immediately after the charter review commission and the charter amendments were passed but there during that time frame we've already come up with kind of some drafting issues some things that we think could use a little bit and more additional clarity. So that'll kind of be the kickoff. But again, this is a constitutional convention, I would hope. And the goal would be that the members of that Charter Review Commission would also take a very earnest approach to reviewing the charter, reading the charter, and then kind of that first meeting, we would address our issues that we see, and hopefully they would kind of lead a little bit of the way. Because the goal is, is this is a citizen review of the governing document for the city of Belton, it is up to them to kind of highlight any issues that they believe they've heard about or they've seen or they think could arise and address them that way. I do believe in the last Charter Review Commission, one of the major changes was elected police chief. That was viewed by staff at the time and members of the Commission as something that you know kind of didn't fall in line with the general concept of what the Charter was attempting to frame and they noticed that and addressed it and suggested removal so again I would hope that it would be a citizen led with staffs kind of input into here's what we think and then they could obviously address questions to us and we can come back just you know I write a lot of these memos I'll be fine writing them for them too

Thank you. In October, the commission will make their presentation to the council of their recommended amendments, and then you'll decide if that's something that you want to pursue, put that on the ballot.

So October of next year?

Correct, October of 27.

So ultimately, we vote on everything that they produce, up or down, and then send it to the citizen. Anybody else? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Consent agenda one motion on to be able to approve 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. Motion is second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Ports of information there for your purview. Communication City Council. We'll go. Council Member White.

I have nothing. Thank you.

Council Member Thompson. I caught him off guard. That's his only answer.

I had an interesting week. A couple shout outs to Sergeant House from our fine police department who graciously called me at midnight one night at his regular drive-through and told me about some unusual occurrence at the railroad and I went down there and lo and behold, there was some unusual occurrence happening and the Depot might've gotten left on lock with all the lights on, but he was very nice about it and we handled the situation very nicely. And then, um, this week that was two weeks ago. This week, um, I got to use the T and R also through the police department when I was having, um, a real long episode of chicken counting. Uh, officer Brad gave me the information on this great program. And I captured Lawrence this week after three attempts of trying to capture him. And he's been sent off to the big house and he's been returned. None the worse for the wear. So I give a shout out to these women and to animal control. They do a fantastic job. And I think I'm going to sign up to be one of their trappers. So.

Council Member Davidson. Council Member Pryor. I have nothing. Same. Awesome. Councilmember McCallum.

I got a shout out to the household hazardous waste people. I know there was a lot of city folk involved in that as well. No, keep going, keep going. The only thing I would say on that front is I would like to see us, I don't know if that's a city-led initiative or not, but I would like to see whoever's in charge of that look into doing more than one event per year. Because I know we go back and forth with Raymoor, next year it'll be Raymoor hosting, this year it was us. But the lines were long enough that, in my opinion, clearly warrants another look at how we can potentially host another one. I just want to say the water meter replacement crew came through my neighborhood. They were very efficient and they're doing a good job. The only other thing I'd put there is please let's just remind them that they should be knocking before they do the install. I've heard a little grumbling about that, but they knocked on my door for what it's worth. And the only thing for me personally is I just want to remind everybody, this is the last meeting that we will have before the start of school. It is already that time of year, which is crazy. And so I just want to remind everyone, please stop for the school buses, keep an eye out for pedestrians and kids and all that stuff. Cause it's, you know, it's about to get a lot busier on your way to work or wherever you might be going. From a parks perspective, a couple of updates. The fitness level at High Blue is currently closed because they are replacing the floor. Anticipated reopening of that is Tuesday, August 18th. Is that still correct? I'm getting the nod that that's still correct. And as a reminder, so that's the only level that's not open right now. Everything else at High Blue is still currently open. And from an events perspective, farmer's market is still ongoing every Thursday. That's from 4 to 7. We have August 16th. That will be the last day for the outdoor water park. That will be its closing day. August 22nd, a subsequent follow-up to that will be the doggy dip day at that Memorial Park pool. And September 19th will be Chalk the Walk at Wallace Park. And that is everything I've got.

Council Member Richardson.

I just want to say that I missed last two weeks ago. We had a new granddaughter added to the family two weeks ago, so I did miss that. And now this week we are down here swimming in the Gulf of America. So I will be back in two weeks for sure.

You mean the Gulf of Mexico? That's Gulf of America.

I don't know how to follow that. I don't either, so go ahead. Just a shout out to staff and everybody who was involved in providing the place for people to take their trees after the storm damage Wednesday. That was really great and very helpful to a lot of my neighbors and folks in Ward 1 as there was a significant amount of tree damage and it was much appreciated having somewhere to take it. So thank you all very much for all your hard work.

Can you talk about, I figured he was going to cover it, but talk about the new water lids on the pits? why we're going away from the metal ones to the whatever they are, poly, or do you know anything about that?

I haven't heard anything specifically about that.

I can speak to that. Okay, go ahead. Somebody, yeah. Get that out there more, yeah.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. As we're going through and replacing water meters as part of our upgrade to automated meter infrastructure, which we've had multiple discussions about here at the council level in public meetings, essentially that technology requires a radio read from the meter. And so that read goes essentially to an antenna, which we can read remotely and allows access online directly so people can follow their water. That component isn't up and running yet. It will be in the next six-ish months. But yes, that infrastructure, that technology requires that radio transmission between the meter itself and a receiver and the old cast iron lids that we put on the water meters you can't the signal can't get through that efficiently and so that's why the the meter lid is being replaced as they're going through and replacing the meters uh the only other thing i got andrew you deal with the drop off he was talking about can we look into that if that's possible to do more than one i can speak with public works about that

I didn't know that was a mark.

The lady I spoke with, I think, was from Mark or something of that nature. Again, maybe it's not possible. I don't know. I just know that the line was very long. They were very efficient, but the line was very long, and so it was very clearly a good event.

That's all I got. Go ahead.

I don't have anything further, Mr. Mayor.

All right. items for review and discussion item 1 travel train economic development committee policy review.

All right, Mister mayor and council with 3 work sessions here and they're all mine so we' ll start with the travel training and economic development. You' ll notice in your packet in the agenda packet there was a memo that I wrote to the council on behalf of that committee. The committee met a few times. I' ll give you the highlights. Essentially we' re asking council members they' re still being encouraged to share economic development ideas with the city manager and the mayor. Any leads that could come from those discussions that could require some kind of outlay of city Would would then come to the full council? The council can look at it and decide as a council if any representation from the council is warranted And who that representation might be now this doesn't preclude staff from pursuing economic development leads obviously part of my job description part of our economic development directors job description is to make sure that we pursue economic development leads and And so we will continue to do so. But if there's any council involvement in that process, that will come to the council directly. And then for training, council members are encouraged to participate in professional development conferences when money allows. That means when we have money available and in the budget. The two predetermined professional development opportunities that council is encouraged to attend are obviously the Missouri Municipal League Annual Conference and then the National League of Cities Annual Conference. Essentially, the recommendation from the committee is that council be free to attend those if they choose, if money allows. Any further professional development, we're just leaning on the mayor's leadership to determine the benefit and the necessity to the city. If you want to go above and beyond those two conferences, you see something else, maybe MML is offering something new or different in addition to their conference or there's something on the side that you think could help the city, then We're just asking, and I say we, the committee is asking that you bring that to the mayor for his leadership on whether that is something that should be attended. Council members who attend training and professional development events are to provide a written summary to the city clerk upon their return, which would be included in the agenda packet as a report for the next regular council meeting, which that is a new, would be a new development essentially from what we're doing now. And then council members will also generally follow the same travel procedures as staff. And I did include in the memo the portion of our personnel policy that does discuss travel training and education. So that way you could have that and see that. And so essentially that was the work of that committee. If there are any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. And I know we have a couple of the committee members here present as well. Any questions? Go ahead.

I don't know if it's a question. Well, I guess I'll have a question. I got two things. The one is I really like the inclusion. I don't know who to look at here. I really like the inclusion of the current travel policy for city staff. It just helps. I mean, I think we were already doing, or at least to the best of my knowledge, I'll put it that way, we were doing this, or at least I was doing this, but I think it just helps clarify, and I think that's good for anyone involved. It's pretty standard stuff when it comes to, you know, corporate travel or something, or in this case, government travel, but, you know, whatever the case may be. So I'm glad to see that in there. I think that was a good idea. I don't know whose that was, but I appreciate that. A written summary is interesting. You guys want us to do some homework, or I don't know, you guys is us, so us wants us to do homework. And I guess it makes sense, we have previously, or at least I'll just say I have, I don't wanna speak for everybody, but I have previously done that, usually using this microphone. But I thought that was an interesting.

I will add that there's no reason that you can't give a verbal report of what you wrote either.

Well, I don't know. It says very clearly written here.

I'm just telling, I'm just so people can... We're just trying to shorten his mic time. Is that what it is?

Written isn't to the exclusion of your personal comments. Fair. So we could read the report into the record as... as well as submitted comments at the council meetings.

Happy to explain the thought process if you would like me to.

Sure. Go ahead.

Yeah. Um, so when we spend this money to send folks to development and training, uh, providing a written report in the record, uh, shows the investment was worth it additionally it might show room for improvement that if you know five council members go to the same conference and they all sit in on the same breakout groups or you know what i mean we can go hey if we're going to spend the money why don't we switch up who's going to which breakout groups right it's it's a way to get a little bit of feedback about the investment and you know no one's saying it needs to be 10 pages but i don't think a written summary is too much to ask

Is that a challenge?

No, please. For Adrian's sake, like, be cool. Just get to the point.

For the record, I am being facetious here. But thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Anybody else?

I do have one item.

Where did Chris go? Oh, okay. All right, go ahead. Okay. That's fine, no, there he is. Oh, okay, I'll just make sure we didn't lose you. All right, go ahead.

I noticed in the staff travel portion, reimbursement for alcoholic beverages isn't included or written. I've gotten feedback from former council members that that was a real sticking point in previous travel policies, written or unwritten, that no reimbursement for alcoholic beverages. I'm assuming that standard is for staff?

Yeah, our staff, we have a strict, we don't, reimburse for alcoholic. I mean, if you want to go and you want to go to a dinner and it's within, you know, the realm of it, the alcohol bills on you.

Perfect. That's not included in the little sub, you know, summary here, but that is something we should spell out.

Anybody else? I think the finance director would love to chime in on this part. Go ahead.

Well, I just want to say that you get a per diem. Yeah. So there's no receipts that get returned back to us. So if you're, yeah, I mean.

So it's more of an HR policy that the alcohol is, you know, on your own dime.

Generally, that's a good point that Casey's making about the per diem. We made the move to per diem to not have to dictate so much that the no alcohol thing is if there's a weird something one-off that would happen to occur because every best laid plan and policy sometimes there's something that comes up that doesn't fit into that. That's where that no alcohol policy would essentially come into play. When you pay per diem, you're not asking for receipts. If you decide you want to drink your dinner. That's up to you.

Sure. I get that. Just clarifying.

Anybody else? Chris, you got anything?

No, I'm good.

All right. Item two, definition of habitation.

Mr. Mayor and council at your, at the day is set your seat. There is a draft and it's, and, our city clerk was great at doing a nice big red draft and old letters at the top of the page of a potential habitability code amendments. Um, that's been discussed by staff and, um, city attorney. Uh, we've, it take it's taken us a while to get this point and I and I know that seems for that's very frustrating for some members of the public. But we've been really looking at this from lots of different angles and it was kind of later in the process that we kind of pivoted and rather than making this a camping type of ordinance. That is very directed toward the individual involved we made it more of a habitability definition so that way essentially rather than then focusing on The individual involved and try and punishing essentially someone who might be houseless or homeless. We're and we're essentially putting some of the onus on the property owner themselves. We want to make sure that people that are in that are living anywhere are allowed the basic necessities that are required. Clean running water adequate sanitary and sewer facilities. electric power, light, air, and ventilation, sufficient protection from the elements, and adequate access to heating. The last thing we want is people to essentially be treated as livestock and told you can sit outside and sleep outside or sleep on a porch. I don't think that that's quite a humane way to treat them. And so it is essentially on the property owners to provide those Um, or else they, they've, um, could face a violation. Um, so that's kind of where we started. I would love to hear any feedback you may have on this proposed ordinance. Um, if there is any, any questions, thoughts, go ahead.

I'm ready to bring this to a resolution. I guess I, you know, I know, I know there's been a lot of legal discussion and you've pointed it out and shared that whatever, but, I guess I think this sounds like an acceptable solution, and I'm ready to put it in front of us officially. Go ahead.

I understand the need to define habitability. What would enforcement look like?

Well, that would essentially fall under the normal code enforcement realms that we have, warning, citation, similar process to what we normally do.

That is correct. Also, this is going under the offenses section. So PD's involvement is allowable. I think obviously when this gets, this is the draft of just the ordinance section. But once we build out an additional enforcement section, specifically saying how notice is provided, how all of those things are done, similar to our discussion about the campaign where it's like, hey, we'll give you a you know, I think that one had 30 minutes. You have 30 minutes to remove your stuff from, because also I will note the last one was specifically kind of more focused on houselessness issues and that this is much more in depth in regards to habitability, clean running water. I mean that, that could be somebody's home. So there will be a notice and an opportunity provision provided in there.

Anybody else? Chris, you got anything?

Go ahead. So you say this would be done through code enforcement or police department?

It would be either one of them could honestly enforce this, which is one of the reasons why it's been put into the section that it has. Because that is sometimes an issue with code enforcement and PDE having sometimes overlapping duties and responsibilities, but not overlapping duties and authorities.

Okay. I know that if you park a trailer on the street, that police department takes that and they put a notice in 48 hours, you got to have that moved or they tow it. So is this going to be a similar type of situation?

It would be, I don't think that the time, I don't think the timeframe would be as long as that 48 hours, mainly because again, right now, when we're talking about this, we are talking about human habitation. Um, when it comes to the purpose, When it comes to the purpose of towing a truck, we can give you more time or a trailer. We can give you more time because there's not an objective life health safety issue that is impending right then and there. If an individual is inhabiting a building or structure that is not suitable for habitation, there is potentially an emergency situation that would decrease that timeframe.

Got it.

Anybody else? Item 3 code enforcement inoperable vehicles.

All right, sorry, a new clicker here. Have not that I've not used before. slide presentation. Um, and at your, at the dais as well, I gave you a kind of a copy of section 14 three through subsection four, um, for you guys to follow along our current code when it comes to, and we're essentially what we're talking about here. today is inoperable vehicles. Um, the direction you guys gave us last time we were talking about code enforcement issues that we might want, that we want to get some clarity on as a staff. Um, we're going to break this up into five smaller sections. And so this is the first of those five smaller sections. So, um, in the future we'll have one discussing vegetation. We'll have some discussing, you know, normal nuisance issues. property maintenance issues and so I want to keep this one kind of focused on essentially the vehicles would also do one on on parking you know source like parking lot and drives. Whether people can park on grass where they can where we can allow for gravel drives that kind of a thing we'll talk about that in a future one as well so this is just inoperable vehicles that I'd like to address so moving back to what I where I started our current code essentially says that any you know, dismantled, wrecked, junked, or discarded, or otherwise non-operating motor vehicle under repair or not, or just inoperable for longer than 48 hours, all of a sudden, or that deems it a nuisance, okay? And so that is already on the books. And then if you go to for unsheltered storage or unsheltered parking of old, used, stripped, junked, or other vehicles not in good or safe operating condition, Those are also deemed a nuisance okay, so that's that's very important. Because one thing it does not address in there you'll notice is that putting a car cover on it does not allow it to necessarily keep existing. I know in the past and in the in practice that's essentially what's been allowed in the city is if you cover it. In the reason it's been a lot that ways because it's harder for us. to prove that's inoperable if it's covered because the one, the biggest way we've proved it's an operable in the past is if it doesn't have up to date tax. And so if you cover the car, we can't see the tags. And so that's kind of been the workaround that residents have used is we cover the car. You can't see the tags. You can't prove that it's not an operable. You can't prove that it's not up to date on its tax.

Some of the times it covers looked worse. than what they covered.

Sure. And, and yeah, in car coverage, I mean I say car covers loosely, I'd guess that the majority of the covered cars in the community aren't covered with a real car cover. They're covered with some form of tarp. Um, that's kind of a makeshift car cover. Um, so, uh, I guess what I'm asking for us today is to kind of come to some sort of if we can consensus or at least an understanding for staff, Um, and, and if we want to change the code, this is where we would probably look at, you know, making some changes is do we want to address the tarps? Do we want to address cars covered? Um, we could essentially say that cars covered or tarp will be considered an operable unless proven otherwise in the witness of a code enforcement officer. So if someone has an old car in there and it's covered up and we're just, we're going to say it's an operable, um, we could issue the warning and then if they, say, you know, they can start it up and drive it in the presence of a code enforcement officer. I guess they can prove that's proving that's not inoperable. Um, and so that's one thing. And then of course, uh, the tarp thing is a bigger issue. Um, I know I mentioned, I want us to keep on, on cars, but you know, there's, we could potentially even also define tarps is not permitted along the same lines as junk, trash and debris in 14 three subsection two. So those are the, those are kind of the two things I'd like us to kind of focus on today. Um, And, of course, that and then do we want to do abatement? Because if we do abatement, that goes, you know, a lot further. And if we were going to consider abatement, when I say abatement, that means forcefully towing vehicles off of people's lots that have been considered a nuisance or deemed a nuisance. We would want to, of course, start with a big education campaign saying we're going to be doing this, you know, in 30 days, in 45 days, whatever. We're going to be siding for this or we're going to be, you know, holding property owners accountable for this. So we provide ample time for the residents to come into compliance, do a huge campaign, social media website, maybe even a mailer if we wanted to. Maybe we can go, you know, we have code enforcement, neighborhood improvement officers that are out doing code enforcement consistently. Maybe we have them, you know, tag, you know, houses that have this issue, uh, as part of the warning process, part of the education process. Um, and maybe we could even go a step further if you want us to and create a program where we find a holler, find a place to take the inoperable vehicles that, you know, so if someone has an inoperable vehicle on their property and they don't have the means to financially get it taken care of properly, maybe they qualify for the program and we can haul it off, um, and, and take care of it for them. Um, and then of course the, the very backend is if someone just is indignant and, and they, they allow the nuisance to persist. Uh, eventually we could go to an actual abatement where, you know, the city essentially takes it, uh, disposes of it or, or, you know, toes it off the property at the property owner's expense. Um, and I say property owner's expense. Generally there's, there's ways that we can do that depending on how we legally set it up. So, um, I guess now's the time where I'd love to hear some feedback from the council on how far we want to take this and where we want to go with this. Cause that's the extent of my presentation. What say you?

Go ahead.

It's certainly a problem. It's a problem that I probably get the most complaints about in ward four. And, um, the, the, uh, the dandy, um, example we have that goes right into our park. Um, it's a problem. I think we've got to address it in a way that doesn't feel invasive but at the same time makes Belton the city that folks want to live in. I'm in favor of it.

Go ahead.

At the same time, we have to be compassionate because there are a lot of citizens out there that do not have the resources and that's why it's sitting there.

Go ahead.

This might be a question for community development, but do you have any data or info on the number of code violation requests or notices you get from residents?

Complaints like through my Belton? We probably get 15 or so a week, not exclusively on this. A lot of them right now are highways and grass and other things, but for vehicles, I don't really have a number off the top of my head for that.

Okay. So, but the total rate is about 15 a week of code complaints. Correct. Through the e-track it, but they're not all vehicle related.

Correct.

Okay.

And there's about 400 right now we're averaging three to 400 new violations opened on a monthly basis. So. And I'd say I don't have an exact number. That's a report I can pull. But probably less than 20% of those, I would say, are vehicle related.

Of the 400 or of the 15?

Of the 400. Gotcha. Okay. And again, this time of year, a majority of those are going to be high weeds and grass violations.

Gotcha.

Go ahead. One of the concerns I have is... As a vehicle enthusiast, having a project car, having an older vehicle that you intend on working on someday is a pretty common situation. There is potentially a difference. You might not have, especially a very old vehicle, you might not necessarily have registration tags on it at the moment, but it doesn't mean it's not necessarily inoperable, right? You could run it, you could drive it, you just couldn't drive it on a public street kind of a situation. Same thing could occur for literal tracked cars or that type of thing. So I'm just trying to think through potential concerns that may come up. And then in terms of coverage, if someone were to go on vacation for a week and they have a vehicle that they very much care about, that they want to have covered in case of storms, whatever, while they're gone on that vacation for a week, I think that kind of consideration needs to come into play as well in case they don't have a garage or don't have enough space in a garage. I'm not disagreeing that that tarps around you know floating around the city after a big storm as I've seen or or just haphazardly covering something as a is a good as a good it's it's an eyesore I'll just be frank on that but I also wanted I got a I'm also just trying to think of other pieces of this puzzle I can hit that from two different perspectives one

the code enforcement process is not a quick one. And so if someone, for instance, your, your example of someone going out of town might want to cover their car in case there's a storm with a legitimate car cover. I don't, I mean, generally there's a warning process before, you know what I'm saying? So it's like, you know, it's, we're not going to give you a citation if you've, you know, essentially just put a car cover on your car and then the next week, it's still there because you just got back into town or you haven't got back into town yet. Um, and then of course there'd be a warning and then you'd have time to essentially fix that. So it's an, it's a, and we'll, we would be willing to work with people in that situation. 100% the intention of this is not to address that, right? The intention of this is to address the actual and operable vehicles. And so, um, And going to the car enthusiast side, obviously we allow storage, internal storage. You know, you've got a car, you can store it in a garage, you can store it in something, you know, that's got walls and a roof, as long as it's a permitted structure on your property. And most cities do not allow you to just keep an inoperable car, even if you're using it as a hobby car or working on it just out in the yard or out, you know, parked in your driveway. most cities are going to have the same exact issue that we're dealing with now, and they'll enforce it. Some cities enforce it a lot more than we do.

Anybody else? Chris. Go ahead, Chris.

I'm with Alex on this, on the classic cars, somebody out there. I'm sure we have a lot of people in Belton. have a classic car covering it with a tarp or covering with a car cover. I don't see a problem with it. And I thought that in the definition there was we could go after 48 hours and take it off their property and tow it. I thought I saw that somewhere, but I don't like that either. And I would also love to have numbers on how many cars that you get calls on codes on inoperable cars. If there are numbers, I'd love to hear what those numbers are.

We'll get them. I haven't read it 100% over and over, but I don't think it's 48 hours a car would be towed. I don't think that's in there. If it is, it shouldn't be, and we won't do that. It's not, Mr. Mayor.

It'll go through the due process. It's not. Okay. I didn't think it was. The 48 hours can deem it a nuisance, but it's not, you know, deeming something a nuisance isn't the same as abating it. You know, towing would be an abatement measure, which is on the tail end of a very long process when it comes to nuisance abatement. A very long process. Go ahead.

You done? Chris, you done? Go ahead.

I like the idea of doing an education program first, if this is what we decide to go with. And then I also like the program for those who may not have the means in order to remove a vehicle. I think that's very important that we take that into consideration. I understand the concern about hobby cars, but I have a feeling that most people who have a classic car are keeping it covered, probably inside somewhere, maybe, you know, whether it's a shed or a carport or something like that. You might be surprised at the amount of classic cars that are beloved, that are rusty. Yeah, well, that's true, too. I have seen those driving on the street, actually. So I don't know if they necessarily fall within our inoperable vehicle, stripped, junked, or not in good and safe operating condition if they're driving on the street. But anyway, I like the ideas that you presented.

And I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, and I don't want to create more and more programs. That's never the intention, but we could potentially do something for classic cars that allows folks just a voluntary registration of it, which would essentially say, yeah, this is a classic car that I'm working on. Maybe that's the solution to that rather than just classifying it with everything else that's inoperable.

Go ahead, sir. Microphone's on.

Okay.

I would like that kind of option to where they could say, this is a classic car. I'm doing something with it. Might even be with some type of time frame. It may be a year long. It might be. So that way, six months or not, if it's said it's going to take me a year, people understand it takes a year.

Anybody else? Go ahead, Chris.

I got in the city get involved in making a short term registration for a classic car. I didn't think the city could get involved in that.

So the attorney.

I don't think we would have a registration requirement for vintage cars, but it would just be a carve-out to, and I don't know which one of these videos of you to look at, so I'm kind of bobbing my head all around, but it wouldn't be a sort of registration list. It would instead be a carve-out into the definition of an inoperable vehicle that was a nuisance. It would not include, you know, classic or historic cars with, you know, the, do they still do the historic license plate?

Yes, I believe so.

So, I mean, you could easily just say cars that may receive this license plate and based on evidence presented to the city by the property owner are in the process of being either restored or, you know, worked on. The thing that this gets talked about at city attorney conferences all the time is the HOA and the truck with the patina. case from like 10 years ago where an hoa towed and junked a like 1957 chevy that had uh rust patina on it which i guess is something that collectors actually do want so we would make sure that the carve out would relate to the nuisance related issue of inoperable vehicles and not the the car enthusiast or hobbyist that pulls the car out of the garage to work on it and then put it back in or puts it to the side or does some other step to ensure that it is not a nuisance.

Anybody else?

I can just hear my dad's voice in my head saying two things. One, he doesn't want to tell the city what cars he has, it's not their business. Two, the timeline on maintaining and repairing those vehicles is unknowable. This is a man who lives on a dirt road and that's fine, that works for him, but I anticipate there are people in town who would share that frame of mind that it's none of the city's business what they have and they couldn't commit to a repair timeline. So I don't know how viable some sort of carve out exception would be.

And again, I think right now we've gone down a road looking for a problem at this point. I am not sure how many classic cars we have currently in the city that are out front of somebody's house with a tarp on them. You know, there was probably some, but it is probably a small enough number that it can be addressed on a case by case basis with those individuals via process. some sort of minor mechanism that we include within the code. I think what Joe and staff has prepared today to present to the council is more related to maybe not a classic car, but a car that just has a tarp with bungee cords holding it down.

Bungie cords is half the times I just see a tarp with like, Cinder block on it.

I guess 1990s Raytown, we used bungee cords to put those on the cars in the front yard back then. So, again, that's the problem that we're looking for. We're not so much looking to address the classic car with a car cover on it because the guy had to clean his garage.

And let's be frank. We don't consider the classic cars a nuisance, right? We're trying to deal with what the actual nuisance is. It's the inoperable cars that just have been collected here.

one man's nuisance is another man's treasure. I w I would just suggest that. And sometimes we get in these conversations and talk about solving problems and I don't know what the impetus is, right? Like in my ward in six years, I've helped someone submit one code complaint about inoperable vehicles outside of a house. That's pretty good. My thought is if we wanna do a small targeted community improvement operation saying, hey, we've noticed you've got an inoperable vehicle under a tarp, It would be considered a nuisance. Here are some resources to have it towed. I mean, a lot of these vehicles, you can even have someone come tow it for you, and you'll make some money. I did that with my old van. Why don't we just see how effective that is before we, again, start looking for problems and solutions?

Well, I would note we would first need to have a code that would allow us to do it, because as currently written, it's just 48 hours inoperable, and as soon as they put the tarp on it or the car cover or anything on it, the only enforcement mechanism we would have to show that it is inoperable is by going and getting an administrative search warrant. So that's why instead having what is currently in here right now as proposed drafted where it being covered by a tarp and it being covered by a tarp for 48 hours is I'll use the term that Patty and I learned, but prima facie evidence that it is a nuisance, that you get a 10-day notice and all you have to do is call community development, pop the car cover off, start the car and say, not inoperable, turn the car back off. That's the extent of what is trying to be addressed here. It is not, again, it is not somebody that has a that have parked an operable vehicle in their driveway that they maybe are working on for a week. Because again, our notice timeline under nuisance is still 14 days. 14 to 10 days is usually, those are the two timeframes. So if you have a classic car that you're working on, you get one of these, you do not have the ability to put it inside, then the answer is, okay, you have 10 days to get it operable. or you have 10 days to show us that it is operable right now before any notice or citation is actually submitted, then the citation is submitted, then maybe you'll have a municipal court hearing date in four months.

It just feels a little... I'm saying not the classic cars, not the collector, not the guy who collects them as a hobbyist. I'm imagining a resident whose vehicle has become inoperable saying you have 10 or 14 days to get it running again.

Or moved to a location that is not in your front yard. Because again, that is these code provisions. They all came about right around the same time. And I think everybody can picture it in their head, but it's the couple of junked cars pulled off into the grass and with a tarp on them that somebody's trying to work on. That is the issue that is trying to be addressed. It is not somebody's car that has valid tags on it, because if it has valid tags on it, we're probably not even gonna think that it's inoperable.

There's no, so if like- It gets a pass if the tags are valid.

Because one, there is no evidence from the street that that car is not operable.

Even if it doesn't have wheels?

Well, if it doesn't have wheels. I'm not joking.

Let me make one clarification real quick, Alex, if you don't mind, or Council Member McCollum. This code exists. Inoperable car code already exists in our code of ordinances.

So what you just described is already in violation. The problem I have on that front, though, is there are vehicles that are covered. I can almost assure you I can drive around the city and find there are vehicles that are covered, but I can see they are missing a wheel. or they have four flat tires, or they have various things that we can still see underneath that tarp, but we don't address it because we say, well, we don't know if it's operable or not, but I can clearly see the tires. You know what I mean?

Also, if you're a code enforcement officer that drives by and you see a flat tire on a car in somebody's driveway, that is not proof that it is an operable. That is not even going to be evidence for a reasonable...

Even if it's been there for the last three months?

But is the code enforcement officer sitting there...

And I'm going to stand up a little bit for the neighborhood improvement officers here. If they take that to the municipal court, that's not going to be proof enough for the judge to say, yeah, that's an inoperable car.

Yeah, but you see my point. That's unfortunate because there's, I mean, every common sense person's neighbor, let's just put it this way, their neighbor knows that's not an inoperable vehicle, right? Because their neighbor has seen it sit there without the tires or without the wheels or Because I have had this complaint come up in my ward specifically about a vehicle sitting on the street in front of their house that gets moved a little further down the street every month or two months just to appear to be operable, and it sits there with a flat tire or two or three or four.

And so that exact issue, the ability to circumvent a code, which I'm pulling it up right now, but I'm going to go ahead and guess has been on your books for decades, 30 to 40 years, that's what this is seeking to prevent is the ability of somebody just to move the car halfway down the block so that it doesn't That's just so it doesn't get inspected because again, right now in your code and that has been in your code since probably before I was born, you could not have a junked, dismantled, discarded or otherwise non operating motor vehicle in your yard or in the front of your house. What people do now because they know that the city is not going to go to the extent to go get an administrative search warrant to make them pull the tarp off is they just put a tarp over it. That person putting the tarp over it in those instances is no different than the person that's moving their car halfway down the block every month so that code enforcement can't pick up that it's an inoperable vehicle or since it was on the street, since PD couldn't pick up that it was an operable vehicle.

That's just, I guess my point is it's unfortunate that we are in a situation where we can't use that common sense, but I hear what you're saying.

And again, laws aren't drafted for the 90%. Yeah. Just plain and simple.

So do we clarify what the cover has to be? Yes. Should it be a car, actual car cover and not a blue tarp or?

Can we clarify car cover versus tarp?

Well, I think right now, yes, again, the law is reasonable. You would assume when you're thinking about nuisance, you're thinking about detrimental to the public health, safety, or property values of those around you. Just having a car with a car cover on it that is not tattered, that is not torn, there's no issue of it potentially blowing off in a storm. That Assuming it's in your driveway. In your driveway, that does not decrease the, or that does not rise to the level of a nuisance. When you have a tarp that is not properly secured, that is not properly covering a, because I honestly, when Joe and I were talking about this today, I thought by tarp he meant car cover. And he was like, well, no, those are two different things. But a tarp that is held on by some bricks on the hood, or maybe a bungee cord, that could fly off in a storm that is detrimental to the property values of those around you. If you're trying to sell a house with a car like that in the front yard, you're going to have a not very fun time. That is something that could be declared a nuisance and is a very reasonable delineation to make.

I hear you, and that's fine. I'm okay with moving forward on this. I just hate that common sense is so lost, that's all.

Go ahead, Chris.

I know a lot of people have Jeeps that they take the tops off during the summer. They put car covers over them, motorcycles, convertibles possibly, I don't know.

All of those are operating motor vehicles. And if they're just taking the top off and putting a tarp on during the summer, then all they would have to do is, again, start it or move it. And then it would no longer be the prima facie evidence. Right.

This still comes back to we've had multiple complaints with inoperable cars. I think Council Member Thompson said that was most of her complaint she gets is from inoperable cars. I just want to see the numbers, if we've got that many numbers, and I'd love to see them.

Anybody else? All right. Item P, motion to enter an executive session to discuss matters pertaining to legal actions according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.1 pertaining to leasing, purchase, sale of real estate according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.2 pertaining to negotiated contracts according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.112. And the record be closed and the meeting adjourned from there. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call.

Council Member Richardson. Thompson? Yes. Mayor Larkey?

Aye.

Davidson? Yes. Bryan? Aye. White?

Aye.

Lawson? Aye. McCallum?

Aye.

Johnson? Aye.

Motion passes. We'll stay in here.

That's when your guys' code included that three and four.