City Council - Regular Meeting

Call meeting to order. I pledge allegiance to Council Member Davidson.

I pledge allegiance 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, please.

Mayor Larkey.

Here.

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

Here.

Council Member Lawson. Here. Council Member Richardson.

Here.

Council Member McCallum.

Here.

Council Member Johnson. Here.

We have a quorum. D, no presentations. E, personal appearances. Each person listed on the agenda to address the City Council should step up to the microphone and state the name and address for the record and limit the remarks to five minutes. Number one, Jim Shipley.

I'm Jim Shipley of 8105 East 195th Street, Belton, Missouri. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My wife and I, is the speaker working? Yeah, it's working. My wife and I have lived on 195th Street between Peculiar Drive and Mullen Road for 34 years. We purchased our home on two acres a year after we were married. In fact, our 35th wedding anniversary is later this week. Up until this spring, we have loved living in our home on 195th Street. We love the area and have never had any reason to want to move away until now. You might ask what's happened. We, along with our neighbors, became aware Belton was proposing to amend the 2050 Comprehensive Plan and transform the 600 acres of farmland across the street from us and our neighbors into a business park. The 2050 comprehensive plan that was approved by the City Council in late 2024 designated the farmland across the street from our front door as single-family residential. We soon discovered that Belton's plan for a business park was actually to provide for the development of this farmland and to a supersized warehouse complex by Scannell Properties, similar to the Raymoor Commerce Center on the east side of the interstate. The big difference is that there is no single-family residential housing adjacent or even visible to the Raymoor Commerce Center. Our front door faces north towards the farmland, along with the front doors of my neighbors all along 195th Street. If the 3.3 million square feet warehouse development is allowed by Belton, our homes will forever be changed due to us having to look out from our front doors, our front windows, and our front yards at millions of square feet of 50 foot tall or taller warehouses and semi trucks and trailers only a few hundred feet from the front of our homes. We will be looking directly at semi trucks coming and going to the warehouses from dozens of loading docks 24 hours a day. This area is not appropriate for an industrial development of warehouses. There are traffic concerns, drainage concerns, noise concerns, and air pollution concerns that such a development will have on our residential properties. Matt Wright has been meeting with Scannell Properties for well over one year. Drawings have been developed that show the placement of seven super-sized warehouses on this farmland across from our homes. Some of the individual warehouse buildings are over one-quarter mile in length. That's over four football fields in length, and that is some of the individual warehouse buildings. These warehouses can be constructed to a height of 50 feet or more. Scannell is now actively marketing this proposed warehouse development on the World Wide Web. It's on the Kansas City Area Development Council's website, listed under real estate offerings. Belton's assistant city manager has already responded to RFIs. How is this being allowed? There's been no public hearing with the Planning Commission. There's been no amendment to the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. There's been no annexation of the property. There's been no rezoning change from the current agriculture designation. And there's been no addressing this issue with the City Council, to my knowledge. And there's been no approval from the Council. I am requesting the city to adhere to the 2050 comprehensive plan that this council approved in 2024, a plan that made sense in 2024 and it still makes sense today. And I request the city to plan and guide development on the 600 acre efforts property in accordance with the approved plan, which designated the majority of this area as single family residential. The owner of the 600 acres, Mr. Mike Efforts, was even a member of the steering committee that developed the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. In closing, I would like to read from the 2050 Belton Comprehensive Plan, page 44, titled Graham Efforts Subarea. It lists three key recommendations for this subarea. Residents discuss the need for a variety of housing types, Sorry, sir, your time's up. Can I have another 20 or 30 seconds, please? Go ahead. Wrap it up, please. Residents discuss the need for a variety of housing types and regional draws to Belton. This subarea responds back to these desires. Number two, discourage any major development or disturbance to the floodplain to ensure it is preserved long-term. The number three key recommendation was consider opportunities to develop a golf course in the sub area and construct luxury housing around its perimeter Participants shared the need for high-end move-up housing in Belton as there is currently a limited stock Resulting in residents having to move outside of the community to obtain a larger house Thank you for your time Thank you

item F appeal to the city council pursuant to RSMO 610 determines that the waiver reduction of the fee is in the public interest because it's likely to contribute significantly to public understanding the operation or activities of the public governmental body and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Number one Stephen Baca.

Hey council I'm here. One request before I start. Last time I stood here on a fee waiver the discussion turned to my character. I was called a man with a personal vendetta. No document was disputed and no figure was challenged. Tonight, I ask we stay on the question printed at the top of this agenda. Does this request contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations of this city? Now, what's being charged is described as neither an official nor comprehensive correspondence search. Two questions remain, and both carry a price. Question six is $181.82, just 12 months of audit logs, and it's who searched the system, when, and for what stated reason. Question eight, this one costs $500.25, and it's just complaints that residents sent about these cameras and how the city answered. Not footage, not plate data, nothing about any individual, just who looked, when, and why, and did anyone object. I want to be precise because this is where it matters. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in the person's papers, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A single photograph of a plate on a public street is not a search. The courts have been clear. Your plate is visible to anyone. One camera, one Supreme Court held that collecting a person's location history over time is different in kind from observing them once. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, it gives the government an intimate window into a person's life, revealing familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. And the court said this technology runs against everyone. That, unlike a traditional search, it requires no suspicion, no warrant, no reason at all. Six years earlier, in United States v. Jones, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the aggregated location data reveals trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center. The strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue, or church. The constitutional line isn't drawn at the camera. It's drawn at how much is collected, how long it's kept, and how freely it's searched. One document answers that. Agencies outside of Missouri or searches with no stated reason means it's a different system than the one council approved. Nobody in this room knows which one it is, including you. There's a structural problem. Under Missouri laws, a citizen can be charged for the labor producing records about how their government used power on them. Operations are being examined. You're being asked tonight to price access your own record. Nobody here created that, but that's how the statute is built. But it means only one thing is standing between matters to the argument. The council did approve these cameras in public four separate times. But approving something in public is not the same as having the public having a say in it. Nobody in Belton voted on this. There was no ballot question, no hearing where residents weighed whether they wanted their movements recorded. A resolution just passed on a Tuesday night meeting, and the rest of us found out later if we found out at all. I'm not saying that that was unlawful. I'm saying it's the reason the audit log matters. When people affected by a system never got to vote on whether it exists, they're at least owed the ability to see how it's being used. Authorization isn't the question, operation is. And you've already applied the standard in June. On June 9th, this body granted a fee waiver on a different request of mine, finding it in public interest by likely contributing to the significant By likely contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the city. Same requester, same statute, same standard. That one is about a road. This one is about a system that photographs every vehicle that passes it in a city where the city clerk confirmed in writing on August 25th that the police department keeps no complaint log at all. I have one question for Public Works. While photographing camera locations, I noticed at least three installations mounted on poles that don't appear to have breakaway bases. I'm not an engineer. I don't know whether those sit inside a clear zone where breakaway hardware is required under MoDOT or AASHTO standards, but someone should answer it. Fixed objects in a clear zone are a known hazard in runoff road crashes, and that's why the standard exists. I'd ask this council to direct public works to confirm whether those installations were reviewed and make that review available. And now what I'm asking for tonight is to waive the fee under RSMO 610, the statute printed on your own agenda tonight. If you deny it, the determination on record... The statute requires this body to determine whether this request serves the public interest. That's the legal standard. And it's the thing that was missing the last time a waiver was denied. Here's what I'd ask you to sit with before you vote. Nobody in Belton voted on whether this system exists. No ballot question, no form, no way to decline. Just the resolution passed and every resident who drives through this town has been photographed ever since. That was legal. But the one record showing whether that power is being used property costs $682.07. So if you deny this, the position becomes we collected information about you without asking, and now you can pay to find out what we did with it. And I don't think anyone on this diet set out to build that. But something has changed since 2021. When this was approved, most people in Belton didn't know what a license plate reader was, let alone that the Fourth Amendment has anything to say about aggregated location data. But that's not true anymore. People are reading Carpenter and they're filling out their own requests. They're asking Cass County the same questions about the same system. Council can approve whether it's legally whatever it's legally permitted to approve But once the people it was approved over start reading the law for themselves the arrangement changes, and it doesn't change back One vote decides whether Belton is the city that showed its work or the city that charged for it.

Thank you Any questions

Go ahead. I guess someone, if we wanted to move forward with this, needs to make a motion, correct? Correct.

Go ahead. Would we consider these two requests separately if there was a motion?

You could. Again, just like last time where you guys were determining whether or not, I do believe Council Member White might have made a motion to just partially waive them. It is up to the City Council's discretion as to how much you waive or how you waive it.

Is there, I mean, that's a valid point. Is there, is there interest in tackling these two separately? I'd be comfortable with that.

Yeah. The first request regarding audit and usage records, I'm more comfortable considering a waiver and making those results public. I think the second request, I don't know that that necessarily serves the public good. I don't know. I've got mixed feelings about the two separate issues.

Go ahead.

I think it's fine to take them separately. I have the same concerns as Council Member Lawson.

Anybody over here have anything?

All right. Patrick, can you help me out with some language here?

Yes, that would be, what is it? Is it request four and six? Six and eight. Six and eight. So that would be a motion approving the waiver of fees and determining it in the public interest regarding request six of the Sunshine Law request submitted by Stephen Vaca on... August 15th.

Moved. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion on the question?

So this is wavering partial?

No, this is just wavering on question six on his list. Can someone explain what that is?

Yes, question six from the letter was audit and usage records. On the memo that's in the council agenda packet, it's listed as number one.

Which is... Hold on. Chief, can you explain that a little better? Audit and usage. What he's asking, can you explain what that is a little better?

I'm sorry, I was answering a question for Chief Sapp. What was the question again?

Can you explain what the audit and usage log that he's requesting, what that is, in a little bit more detail, please?

That would be a detailed log that we'd get from FLOC itself. It would require a system administrator to get, and that's one of the reasons that the cost was so high, because it can only come from one person. Okay. Did that answer your question?

Brett, did that answer your question? Anybody else?

Since we are in discussion, can we ask a question of the presenter? Yeah. If comfortable, Mr. Vacca, would you be willing to just kind of explain the, you know, I guess purpose of the request in terms of less, I understood the philosophical piece of what you just described, but I guess more of like what the intent is to produce with the data?

I'm going to report regardless on what our outcomes are of just this vote decision tonight. But ultimately, I'd like to report that the system's being used in the way that it was approved of. But I could also report what I find when the logs are revealed. That's ultimately what my goal is. I want transparency.

And when you say report, can you clarify what you mean by that?

Same thing I did with the North Cass Parkway. I just made Facebook posts.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Chief Lyons, you've spoken to us before about the audit logs and usage and our internal controls for the automated license plate reader data. Do you mind refreshing our memory on how your department manages this information?

The data is 30 days, and so we can go back over 30 days, and we do that monthly. It's also in our transparency portal. You can actually pull it up and look at the last 30 days. But to go beyond that is a deeper search that we have to go into the system and get that from FLOC, and that's done through the system administrator having access and then with help on the back end of it.

I remember reviewing the transparency portal last time you mentioned this. I'll just point it out to the council that a retroactive search going back 12 months, I would be comfortable waiving that, but I would make it known to the public that if you're not making use of the transparency portal and monitoring and keeping us honest that way, I will not feel comfortable continually waiving these at the cost to the city to pull these retroactive reports. So that's my two cents.

Yeah, and just to add to that, because that's a good point, which is the transparency portal became public or created or whatever on approximately when?

We did that about, gosh, what was that presentation? Maybe 60 days ago? Okay. So retroactively, there's some point to be made.

Go ahead.

So any person, any citizen of Belton or any person who's been driving through Belton could request through the transparency portal information about whether their license plate has been reviewed?

Yes, you could go on that portal and look.

Go ahead. I have another question for Mr. Vaca. Have you used the free transparency portal?

Not yet.

Because I went through the sunshine request, which is my right. I understand that. I would think you would want to start there and find something. That would make it an easier decision for us.

The transparency portal is only going to show what wants to be shown. Whereas, again, he just said we're only keeping 30 days. How much data is flock keeping?

All right.

Does it go back 90? Does it go back a year? How much data are they keeping on us? What all are they recording us for? I mean, we've already been told that it's pattern recognition, too. If the system flags another vehicle following you multiple times, you're now put in the system. How do you get removed from the system? Do we have back ways for that?

Chief Lyons, I'd ask you to address his assertion that what is available on the transparency portal is in any way modified or restricted.

I don't believe so. But when we go back 12 months, what I've seen of that data is you do not see license plates. You only see date, time, location. You see reason. And so it's even limited to what is out there past that 30 days. And that is more of who actually searched. And that could be an agency in Florida that runs a plate that comes as a search on your actual flock. Anybody that you're sharing data with.

Thank you.

And I'll just say, I think this is the same concern I brought up previously when we had the work session, which is that it sounds like our internal controls are actually quite robust. And I appreciate that. And I think that's a very important part of Belton. The problem comes external controls that we don't have any control over and whether or not those players are potentially using our data appropriately. And so there's, I don't know, there's some concern there for sure.

Anybody else?

Go ahead. So we are voting on one. Voting on his question six about. It's 181 82, which is number one in the packet. Yeah. Go ahead and just know anybody else.

Mr Mayor, yeah, go ahead. I just want to remind the Council that the standard here is that this is in the public interest to waive the fee. Just might want to remind the Council that the same individual made the same plea previously and levied dozens of baseless accusations against staff and the Council, and then has made no attempts to correct the record, even though the records show that those accusations were false.

Anybody else? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? No.

Can you please state who's next?

Can you do a roll call?

Yes, I can. Councilmember Johnson?

No.

McCallum?

Aye.

Richardson?

Aye.

Lawson? Aye. Mayor Larkey?

No.

Councilmember Brian, no. Councilmember Davidson, yes. Councilmember Thompson, no. Councilmember White, aye.

For that past, yeah, motion passes. Alright.

Anybody else? I'll bite. Mr. City Attorney, can you help me again?

A motion approving the waiver of fees associated with Stephen Vaca's, sorry, I forget the date again. What was it?

August 15th.

August 15th, Sunshine Law request, question eight, as they are in the public interest. So moved.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Go ahead.

All right, I'm trying to, this one specifically, I'd like to better understand The concern, I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand the data. And I'm hoping city staff can help me understand what this data looks like and why we're getting to such a high cost.

Yes, with the request for all complaints and inquiries and correspondence received by staff from the public, that will require an IT query of the date range and the correspondence that staff has had with members of the public. To find the questions, the answers back to the members of the public, we'll have to do a second query with the email addresses that are discovered from the first query.

So basically, am I understanding correctly that it comes to a time of resources situation?

Yes. In the memo, it states the amount of time that will be from my office, and then because this is the PD server, the police department will also need to review the findings to ensure that there aren't any active cases that would need to be closed or other closed information that I wouldn't be aware of.

Things that might be currently investigated, that kind of thing. Yes. OK, I was just. I was just very curious on. The frontier of. Of the complaints. In that situation so. Thank you for the explanation.

Anybody else? Do you have anything since you want to separate it out?

I just don't see. The need for. the requester to access this information. Um, if he's interested in public opinion on the cameras or concerns, he's very good at engaging on Facebook and could request folks chime into him there. Also, I have a feeling that when some people email us or the city, it is not a matter. It is not intended to be a matter of public record. Uh, conversely, people will come to the council meetings much like you have and state their opinions. But I don't think Any email that a ward member sends to me is up to your scrutiny, necessarily. And so in protecting residents who just have questions or want to communicate with their council member, I don't understand the value to the public for that. They could also make those statements publicly, and you're welcome to invite them to do so.

Go ahead. Yeah. Piggybacking on what Councilman Lawson said is... He has the right to ask. Sure. And I support that right. But at the same time, I don't think it rises to the level of public. And so he has a right to ask and the right to be charged for the time that it takes to do that. So that's kind of where I'm at at this.

Patrick, if, sorry.

No, go ahead.

Mr. City Attorney, if you wouldn't mind, again, the last time we were weighing these waivers, you mentioned, like, obstructionist requests, or would you just refresh our memories on that?

Yeah, that was a bigger issue probably a couple years ago. The Missouri legislature has kind of fine-tuned that nowadays, but there have been in the past. I've dealt with one early on in my career in another city. also similarly about a development that was going into an area where single-family homes were nearby that caused quite a bit of contention and in that case the requester was essentially able due to just voluminous requests able to pretty much shut down most city operations and that can occur again there are just certain people that have to do certain things and like Andrea just mentioned, PD has to review a lot of these emails and files due to the fact that they could be open investigations or other closed reports. I might, myself and Andrea would probably have to review most to make sure that there is no personal identifiable information that is also supposed to be closed under the Sunshine Law. So these sorts of, when a request gets to the size of, you know, 50 plus staff hours just to work through it it does have the unintended consequence of causing other issues to slow down and you know there's obviously limited resources here at the city and staff has certain deadlines and obligations that it has to meet and the purpose of the sunshine law fees is to make sure that a requester or anybody who has triggered that level of work is also the one that is paying for that level of work instead of the general taxpayers of the city

So did I hear you right that on a request like this with 3,500 roughly emails, you would likely be involved in the review? I don't see any hours tracked for the city attorney.

You can't.

Okay. Just for you, though.

Yeah, but you can't charge for my time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Hearing none, do a roll call again, please, Andrea. Yeah.

Councilmember Lawson? No. Johnson?

No.

White?

No.

Richardson?

No.

Davidson? No. Pryan?

No.

McCallum?

No.

Mayor Larkey?

No.

Thompson? No. That motion fails.

Motion fails. Item G, Unfinished Business. Number 1, motion approving the final reading of Bill 2026-43.

And ordinance approving an amended development and maintenance agreement between the City of Belton and RPNT Autumn Woods Holdings LLC for public and private improvements in the Autumn Woods subdivision.

Present. Second. I have a motion and a second. Go ahead. Oh, you don't have anything? You usually do, so. Go with it. Anybody got anything? Roll call.

Councilmember Lawson? Aye. Johnson? Aye. White?

Aye.

Richardson?

Aye.

Davidson? Yes. Pryan?

Aye.

McCallum?

Nay.

Mayor Larkey?

Nay.

Thompson?

No.

Motion passes. Item 2, motion approving final reading of Bill 2026-47.

An ordinance authorizing the appropriation and revision of the City of Belton fiscal year 2027 adopted city budget to cover additional costs for the water meter infrastructure replacement implementation project and construction at the public works facility.

Present. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilmember, Brian Davidson. Yes, Thompson. Yes, White Johnson McCallum Lawson Mayor Larkey. Yes, Richardson.

Motion passes.

Item three motion appearing the final reading of Bill 2026 dash 48 as amended an ordinance amending Appendix B traffic schedules table for speed zones of the code of ordinances of the city of Belton, MO to establish certain speed zones.

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

What do you got? So after last time's meeting, there was a lot of questions about where should the beginning of the speed limit change be at? So I went and did a couple more speed studies, and I just took these photos off of Google, so I don't think I have some expert photographer here that was able to label a street or anything. So this is Cleveland looking northbound headed toward Cambridge, the stop signs at Cambridge. And so there's a couple things to consider when you're doing speed limits. One, what's the driver's perception? Is there a change or are there conflicts? Because those are times when people will change their speeds. When something changes in front of them or they think that there's a danger ahead of them, someone's going to stop, someone's going to pull out, something's going to happen, that's a conflict. And so these are things that we look for. So this is looking northbound as you're going up. You cross it, the road looks pretty much the same. No need to change, right? You keep going up. No need to change. We're still going up. We're south of Park Avenue, but north of Cambridge. Things look pretty much the same. Looks pretty much the same. Looks pretty much the same. Then all of a sudden you start seeing something different. So you become a little bit more alerted. Maybe I need to slow down and maybe I need to make a change. And this is Park Avenue. And then you start getting closer to where the school's at and you can see a dramatic change of what's in front of you. And then Council Member Johnson brought up about the difference in speed limit. Now, this is from the same spot. I just blew up the picture. And you can see ahead of you the signs and the black. That's where the flasher's at. So I'll give you an idea of what I'm talking about. So that's how close the change is. So we went and did the speed limit changes. And so when you back up, when you're in this area, the 85th percentile speed is about 35 miles an hour. A little bit further to the south is 36, but it's consistently 35 miles an hour until you get up here to park or just past park. Right here, the 85th percentile drops to 32, and people are seeing a reason to slow down and begin slowing down. So having a speed limit that changes at park is going to fit what the circumstances are there. Hopefully you can see the difference in the areas and the reason why the change would happen. Now, someday if something changes again, for instance, we bring in a trail out there or we change what the park looks like, we build a different entrance for the park, we can revisit it again. This is not like this is it forever. This is it for today, and this is the circumstance we have out there for today. So because of that and what the speeds are and how people are reacting, I'd recommend that we have the speed limit change at Park Avenue. And so it's 35 from the South City limit to Park Avenue and then 25 miles an hour from there north. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Go ahead. I just, it feels very validating when the data backs me up. I appreciate it. Anybody, go ahead.

I'll just say later in the packet, um, there's exhibit F for, sorry, let me catch back up here. Uh, community development projects, which shows the Dryden nature preserve reserve, sorry, with an entrance and exit between Cambridge and park on Cleveland. And I hear what you're saying that this isn't a permanent speed limit sign for all eternity. But I think two things to consider. One is if we can get drivers in the habit of reaching, Cambridge and being more alert, that'd be great. And the second thing I was trying to pull up is any school bus routes that go on Cambridge. I've also, I recall residents having issues with what they perceived as speeding along Cambridge. So in my mind, that is still a logical place to alert drivers that they are now in the city and there are going to be people coming and going. It's just my two cents. You're right. It's not permanent, but I still like the idea of having that start at Cambridge.

Anybody else? So the motion on the table as amended is to start at Park Avenue. So just so you're familiar with what we did.

The reduction at Park Avenue?

Yeah, the reduction starts at Park Avenue. I'll just add in there. I agree with Councilmember Lawson, but I think the most important piece to this is that this is now, and we can always adjust for the future. And I think we should be doing that across the city. We should always be looking to adjust in the future. I've personally had to deal with is not the right word, but I've experienced that. That's the word I've experienced that on and you know in Ward 1 right outside my neighborhood when it was changed. So I think I think it's, you know, important to note for now and we can always adjust in the future. Anybody else?

Hearing none roll call.

Mayor Larkey.

Yes.

Councilmember Johnson. Aye. Prion.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Richardson.

Aye.

McCallum.

Aye.

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

Motion passes. New business one motion approving the number one motion approving the first reading of bill 2026-49.

An ordinance authorizing acceptance of funds and execution of a grant agreement with the Missouri Department of Public Safety from the Emergency Management Performance Grant for a total award amount of $89,510.30. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Each year the city of Belton applies for the 50% local match emergency management performance grant. This provides important funding in support of the city's emergency management program. It helps offset costs that are associated with maintaining our capabilities in emergency management as well. The awarded funds will be used to supplement the salary of my position and the city has budgeted a 50% match of that total grant award to come out of the fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 27 budgets. Because this signed agreement is due to be returned to the state by September 15th, I am also requesting that council approve a double read of the ordinance this evening so that we can meet that required deadline. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Go ahead. So if we don't do a double read, it would cost the city money, correct? Because I'm guessing you wouldn't work for half pay.

I'd rather not, yes. Okay.

So this is to save taxpayers money, all joking aside.

Yes.

All right. Thank you. Go ahead.

This is more of a general question. Do we have any other positions that are either partially or fully grant funded? I'm thinking police co-responder, the mental health co-responders one.

Mm-hmm.

Is that the only other one?

I believe the victim advocate too.

Gotcha. Okay.

And this may not be apples to apples, but correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe we also get grants for various specialized positions within the police that may not cover their half or full salary, but covers certainly a portion of the overtime, that kind of thing.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any positions. We do get grants for specialized duties through traffic safety, hazardous moving, that kind of stuff.

Yeah, I guess maybe that's what I was talking about. Go ahead.

Do you know off the top of your head how many years we've applied for this grant and received it?

I think it goes prior to me being police chief in 2021. It may go back at least 10 years. I know it's at least 15.

That's what I was thinking.

It's at least 15. She's positive it's been as long as she's been here.

Yes. I'm assuming you wrote and submitted your own grant application for this? Yes. Way to sing for your supper. That is a talent. And our emergency management director we maybe didn't select in the hiring process, but good job. Thank you.

Anybody else? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes.

Motion for a second reading.

Second. We have a motion and a second for a second reading. Any discussion on the motion and a second for a second reading?

Go ahead. I very much appreciated Council Member Pryan's point here, which is that not doing so would cost the taxpayers money.

Well, just to be clear that we had this on the agenda last meeting, but we had some issues with some language that we wanted to get cleared up. So that's why we delayed it. So that's why we're behind the eight ball on this. Anybody else on the motion to for a second reading? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Motion approving the second reading of Bill 2026-49.

An ordinance authorizing acceptance of funds and execution of a grant agreement with the Missouri Department of Public Safety from the Emergency Management Performance Grant for a total award amount of $89,510.30. Present. Second.

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

Councilmember Richardson?

Aye.

Thompson? Yes. Prion?

Aye.

Davidson? Yes. Johnson? Aye. White?

Aye.

Lawson? Aye. McCallum?

Aye.

Mayor Larkey?

Aye. Motion passes. 2. Motion to approve the first reading of Bill 2026-51.

An ordinance amending Chapter 15, Article 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Belton, Missouri to establish certain requirements related to the habitability of property in the city.

Mr. Mayor and council before you in this ordinance essentially is a response to lots of questions in the public many coming from council members themselves about individuals Being allowed to inhabit or sleep in areas of the city on private property that lack basic amenities that would normally make a property habitable we had the work session on this and we specifically did not want to make put any added burden on anybody who might be homeless or houseless and so that that's not how this was written this is written essentially to try to ensure that property owners. carry the burden to provide the basic habitable necessities that are established by our code and in other areas and It's not designed to be overly onerous, but you know basic things like clean running water adequate sanitary and sewer facilities electric power compliant with code light air and ventilations Protection from the elements and adequate access to heating are essentially what we're asking property owners to to provide to anybody who might be habiting their location. And so I would be glad to stand for any questions. Go ahead.

I saw him. That's fine. Go ahead.

It says the readily available, the services like water, bathroom, stuff like that.

Yeah.

I would like it to say that it has to be available 24 hours of the day all the time versus... Readily available could mean 10 minutes a day.

That's not how I would define. I guess that's a question for the city attorney. My understanding is readily available would mean available at any point in time.

Ready and available access means that they always have access to it. It's not, again, that would be like if we allowed a landlord to rent a house to somebody and then they put a timer on the bathroom door that said you couldn't use it from 12 hours.

As long as that's what we're going to go by.

Go ahead. Councilmember Richardson kind of stole a little bit of my question. So if a landlord left the house unlocked for someone to come in and out, then that would be readily available and they could still sleep outside. Is that my understanding of this?

That's a good question. I thought he said sheltered from the elements.

Well, it depends upon what... Having it available and the person utilizing it might be two different things, but... Again, sufficient protection from the elements is also key.

And again, we didn't... One of the reasons why the ordinance was kind of switched to this is we didn't want to go overbroad and end up capturing people camping with their kids in their backyard. So instead, it was focused on the habitability of the structure. I would also note that it is not common, and Casey can correct me if I'm wrong, for landlords to leave open their property to the elements and to keep on water service that they will have to pay for for other people to utilize, or electrical as well.

Well, I was thinking of people that are sleeping in someone's backyard, not necessarily landlords. Go ahead. You stole my question.

All right. I want to get a little deeper into that. Let's just go with the scenario that was presented in front of us. We had somebody sleeping on a piece of property on Main Street under an overhang of sorts. Would that person have been and if they were allowed to go in for water and restroom and you know and if the tornado came through take shelter that kind of thing would they meet this definition?

I would also note that sufficient protection from the elements being readily available would mean that the In that case, the church would have had to keep their door unlocked 24-7? Because ready and available means that you can access them without anybody else needing to come in and provide consent.

Well, let's just say they did that. Let's say their door was unlocked, the person was on the front porch. Is that allowable under this code?

I think you can argue that it's not because of the extreme temperature changes.

Well, I appreciate that, but I guess I'd like to know officially.

I don't know how we would instruct.

One of the things was we went down the same rabbit hole when it came to trying to go with the camping sort of situation. So there's only two routes we can go down. And so if we didn't think that camping was probably going to get it done or be done in a manner that we could kind of fit it in, which I don't think most of staff thought we could. This is kind of the, this is the route. And I know that hypotheticals, like again, that one, I do not believe that any of. I know, I know.

That's why I actually didn't say hypothetical when I started this. Because a lawyer's worst word is hypothetical.

I'll just say under the facts that were presented to the city based on what was occurring, they were in violation of this. Now, if they changed that to do a bunch of other stuff, aka allowed them the ability to go inside at all times and gave them a key, Maybe they could be outside of the scope of this, but that didn't happen. And so we don't know what the extent of that would be.

Okay. And to play devil's advocate, how would we go further than this and stop someone like yourself from wanting to sleep on your porch at any point in time for any reason when you have readily access to everything else? I mean, again, at some point we don't want to infringe on people's individual liberties. We just want to make sure that they have the the protections that they deserve.

Yep, solid point. I just I wanted to make sure I understood more specifically there. Thank you. Go ahead.

What is our policy if ones if someone gets their water shut off? And how many days do they have to get it turned back on before? It's considered.

So honestly, water shut off to a building is already considered a dangerous structure that we can order them to vacate. So again, typically if somebody gets their water shut off and we know they're attempting to reside in a structure that does not have adequate facilities, which is defined in our UDC, we have a couple of times, not every time again, because there are extenuating circumstances that Somebody could be like, I'm coming down tomorrow to pay it. Don't write me the notice of dangerous building and kick me out. But we have ordered vacated structures in town when somebody did not have running water.

So technically, you get your water shut off one day. They could be at your door the next day, evicting them. Well, that's under the IRC. Not evicting them, but yeah.

That's under the International Residential Code. If there's not adequate facilities, which it defines as water sewer, then a structure is... Determined to be dangerous and that is a and again that was not written by anybody here.

That is the International Code Council Okay Let me come back Can you walk us through what enforcement of this would look like say in the situation We had on Main Street this summer if this had been an effect. What would the process have been?

That's a good question it's a code violation, so a courtesy notice to start and then a citation for the property owner. That's generally how we've handled code violations in the past.

I will add to that that while this was going on this summer, I did reach out to someone higher up in the church organization downtown, and they said, we know you don't have an ordinance, so we know you can't do nothing to us. And they told me that on the phone. So just to kind of answer what your question is, this will give us something.

I mean, we could technically, I mean, the normal code violation notice is how that's handled, but we could always technically say it's not habitable and you're not allowed to stay there. I guess. Essentially post it like we do it with another property.

I just want to be able to visualize what like the final logical conclusion of this would be if we write a courtesy notice and we write a code violation, then at some point we abate it. It's a human. You know what I mean?

Well, I would also note that this ordinance is directed at the property owner and less at the actual person occupying the premises. So it would be a fine. And then honestly, if somebody continued to violate this, my suggestion would be to actually go to the circuit court and get an injunction. Because again, you are correct. Abatement is a question mark. And so if the situation were to arise in that setting, I would suggest instead of abating it in that manner, because I don't know how you do it, would Would we just pick up all of his stuff and set it on the sidewalk? Something like that. Instead, it would be I would suggest that we go to Cass County and get an injunction against the property owner, making it so that they would be defying a court order and could be held in contempt of court by Cass County if they did not comply with the injunction.

Thank you.

Go ahead. So if someone doesn't have gets their water shut off, we could go the next day. and remove them from the premises, correct? We can.

We can put, we've boarded properties up.

The next day. We could.

Yeah. And they could sleep outside, and then if they were sleeping outside, we would write them another ticket, and then we'd also end up in the same situation if they were sleeping outside.

But in this situation, same thing, no water. They could be there for months.

Well, yeah, but the issue is the difference in what abatement looks like. Abatement, to stop somebody from going into a home, is putting up boards on a wall. Again, they could then sleep outside, and then if they were sleeping outside... We would be in the same situation where what does abatement look like? Does it look like, you know, driving out there and throwing away a bunch of tents and moving people's property? I would, in that case as well, suggest that our route would be an injunction to the circuit court, which we did in a case in Lone Jack that was somewhat similar to the hypothetical I just gave.

Okay. Go ahead. Under A, it says it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or entity owning or controlling property in the city to permit. There's been several situations where I've driven and see people sleeping on the sidewalk, for example, underneath the Interstate 49 at 4 o'clock in the morning, 5 o'clock in the morning.

The government is not a person or entity.

So they can do that without having an issue.

Okay. Anybody else? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. One, or I, consent agenda one, motion not available to approve the recommendation noted. Any member of this council may ask for that and be taken from the consent agenda for discussion and separate action. Present. Second. Motion is second. Any discussion? Any none? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Board's Commission, Park Board, Public Arts Commission, K, Communication City Council, Council Member White. I don't have anything today. Councilmember Thompson.

I don't have anything today.

Councilmember Davidson.

I just want to remind everybody that this Saturday is the fall crawl. There will be 40 plus vendors set up inside and outside of different businesses. There'll be yoga at 8 o'clock at Powell Park, music, magic show, just a lot of fun. Thanks.

Councilmember Prime. I have nothing. Councilmember Lawson.

I would just remind folks to stop at school buses with the stop arm out and note that the school district has cameras on those to catch folks if they don't. And as a parent whose child rides a school bus and there's a little kid across the street who has to cross Mill to get on her bus, I'm glad for that.

Councilmember Richardson.

I just want to suggest the downtown Belt Main Street is hosting the fall crawl this Saturday, September 12th, as Council Member Davidson said. Support our downtown businesses. Enjoy everything on Main Street has to offer. The Belt and Chamber has on September 23rd. The Kansas City Symphony will be performing free music in Wallace Park from 530 to 730. And then on September 24th, the Belt and Chamber is hosting They still have openings for the glow-in-the-dark golf tournament at Eagles Landing. This will be the final year for the tournament, so don't miss your chance to be a part of it. Thanks.

Councilmember McCallum. There's, what, two weeks left now to put your, or maybe not even a full two weeks, but anyways, we're still timed. If you want to apply for the Charter Review Board, I want to remind people to continue to apply for that. I gotta give a shout out to our police department who actually last night the railroad, the Belton Historical Railroad received some vandalism and was caught literally moments after it happened all because they were doing a drive-by and happened to notice something that looked suspicious and did a phenomenal job of following up on that and I just really want to give this shout out there because it It's an unfortunate thing to have to deal with, and I'm hopeful that we're getting to the more positive side of dealing with those kinds of things. I also got to bring up schools because especially specifically in Ward 1, there's been a lot. I mean, there's always chatter around drop off and pick up, I know. But Ward 1, there's been a lot of conversation around Kentucky Trail. And so I had some conversation with the city manager, and I know that we've talked about the police presence there is also traffic light timing. I saw Public Works out there working on that. So we're already seeing some improvements, but I just want to say thank you to the residents for bringing that up. And the city's going to try to help out the schools, you know, in any way we can on that front. Switching to parks updates, there was not a meeting in between that, our last meeting, so nothing new to add from an upcoming perspective. I'll just note they still need lifeguards. The farmers market is still going on Thursdays, four to seven. Registration has opened for youth basketball. Oh, and High Blue is running a special right now. where if you join in the month of September, there will be no enrollment fee at all. So just something to consider. And then they have a bunch of events going on coming up. I've already mentioned all of them, so I'm not going to repeat myself, and that's everything I have.

Council Member Johnson. I hope everybody had a good Labor Day weekend, even though it was extraordinarily hot. I'm looking forward to some cooler weather tomorrow. Also would echo Council Member McCallum, If you're interested in being on the Charter Review Commission, please send in your application. Also, Echo the Fall Crawl is this weekend on Main Street and encourage everyone to participate in that. And the Belt and Railroad Days is the following Saturday on the 19th from 10 to 4 with lots of activities for families. And I think there's some corresponding events on Main Street as well and would ask everybody to participate in those. I think it'll be a lot of fun. And that's all I've got.

All right. The only thing I've got is a save-to-date. I set the date for the Marist Christmas Tree Lighting, which will be November the 28th. City Manager.

Mister Maryland have one thing and that is that after the recent storms this weekend. And the heavy winds that we had on one of those evenings. We are going to be opening the limb drop off for any residents you might want to utilize it. But it'll be open tomorrow and Thursday. Look you can look for some correspondence on on our marketing Facebook pages but specifically on on the time for those but.

Is that used often I mean do we have a really good turnout when those are open.

We did, after the tornado, have a lot of people come by. And then after one storm that we had, we did have a few residents come by. There's other times that nobody's come.

But, I mean, it's nice to have it, I think. I've dropped off brush more than one time there.

Yeah, there you go. Sorry, I just want to add to that. I appreciate that a lot. I'm assuming after the other storm you're mentioning, I've gotten a lot of residents talking to me about thanking me for having that open, that kind of thing. So even on the ones where maybe no one shows up because they took care of it themselves or whatever, I know it's appreciated.

I would echo that. I had a neighbor who took five loads of downed limbs and was very happy to have that limb drop off. It was much appreciated.

Hey, I appreciate that too. And I know tomorrow and Thursday, and I know a lot of people have a hard time doing it during the week. Is there any way to do like a couple, two or three hours on a Saturday or something or not? I just thought I'd throw it out there, but... We'll see what we can do. Yeah. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right. Items for review and discussion. Number one, why Belton Plaza TIF?

All right, Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to talk too much about this other than just to say that the Y Belt and TIF has some restrictions on users. And I know that a developer of that area has a potential user that right now would potentially be restricted. So I think he'd like for... you all to consider an amendment to the TIF so I'm not going to talk too much about it but I'm going to invite David Christie up to discuss what he's looking for and what the limit is that there are no automotive uses essentially I believe is what the limit says for the TIF and I think he's got one specific user that in a spot that hasn't developed yet so.

Distinguished council members, Mr. Mayor, appreciate the opportunity to visit. David Christie, excited to be in front of you. I'd like to take a minute, if you don't mind, to open up both my life and my development credentials and what I've done with the city's help, truly. in Belton and other communities in Cass County. It's been an incredible partnership going back to over 20 years when I brought Home Depot to the market. And I've worked with probably five different administrations. And it's just been a wonderful ride for me. So I'm excited about the Gateway project. but I wanted to take a couple minutes to invite questions about what I've done. If I haven't done something, why haven't I not done it? You know, and those types of things. And if you guys would, if the mayor would allow that, to have a little question and answers period. It's a little bit sad for me because every single council member nearly every single one has had my personal phone numbers for 25 years and they've called me and I've called them and I've met him for coffee and I just don't feel like I have, um, a relationship with you all. And, uh, the way that the council, the council members and this city and, and you basically, um, I used to call you alderman. Everything has changed over so many years. But they shared ideas with me. Like when I talked to the mayor and Joe about what they wanted on the property that I bought from you all, they said Olive Garden. And I went and got Olive Garden. And I moved Olive Garden from the Gateway Project, because that's where I had a letter of intent signed, but with Olive Garden, with Darden. And I showed him this property. where they're currently open, and they said, we like that better, and I said, great, so let's go do it. But I can't please this council or anybody else if I don't know, number one, what I'm doing right, because I do a lot of things wrong, but if you all share these things with me, then it allows me to be a better tool for you in your city to do the projects that you need done. So you all may know, I bought 171st and Holmes. I'm trying to do a big grocery store powder center there next to Lock Lloyd. I've redeveloped the Y58 project that the Constantinos were not able to lease. And we just signed another lease today. So that's really going well. I built the other place project in Valvoline. I've provided... a copy of a signed letter of intent from SWIG that we signed in late June, and I'm trying to make that project go forward. They came in and reviewed it, and they're worried about the size of the land is .39 acres. So it's a pretty substantially small piece of property. And so... They said, we want to make sure that we can lay out and get traffic in and out of this project because everybody knows when the SWIG goes in there, the traffic is just monumental. So anyway, so I provided that for, I think some of the council members have had questions about SWIG and what was going to happen there. So there's a sign and agreement that I signed in June. But I just really want to have a better relationship with you because I try to do what you guys ask me to do because you guys are speaking for the citizens of Belton. And I've been here a long time. And so I'm trying to get Gateway developed. I've learned as recently as today that the B for Rue deal is now... the Kneaders deal, and I did the deal with Kneaders, after flying to Utah to meet with them and look at their concept, and I loved it. I thought, this is like Panera. This is going to be amazing. And the folks that were running it, the Four Foods Group, I think is their name, ended up having about 80 or 90 stores, and then the owners of Kneaders Refused to sell the concept and everything and it's entire to them so they bought the needers group out And then they closed all their stores including the one at 119th and Metcalf in front of Target who can't make money there So it was just terrible So as a city and as a developer And as a community, we've lived with a black eye with the needers project. And it's really hurt my pad marketing. When we decided to do this project, I invited the council members and I think there was actually like a task force that said, these are the tenants we'd like to see in our city. So they're essentially like attached, I think, Joe, to the TIF agreement. This is what we want. So the previous administration, Mayor Davis asked me not to do fast food. And out of respect for him, because he was a good leader, just like Mayor Larkey's a great guy and a great leader, I didn't do it. So we're trying to develop that. I spent... I believe it's $11 to $12 million building Turner Road and Markey Parkway of my own money that I would like to get back by having this project completed. And I'm excited about it. But I've done everything I could. I flew and met with Costco. I put the land under contract, which is now going to be the Petra project. I put the land under contract. contract to negotiate the cusco deal so i've done everything that i can within my power to bring retailers that make belton successful in a place that people want to live and when i shared with the council many moons ago a different obviously a different body how are you going to get companies like like that went in North Point's project, when they can't, there's no department stores. And so when I brought Kohl's and negotiated that project, I said, you gotta have a department store in your city so that the wives, if their husbands are being transferred here or they're thinking about bringing the company here, they've got some services. And that's what this whole thing has been about with me over the years. So I'd like to invite anybody that has questions about me, my life, the project, these projects that I've done here, I'm happy to answer them for one minute or two, and then I'll talk about the project there at Gateway, and we can finish our conversations.

Go ahead.

Thank you for being here. I have great respect for what you've done, but I'm going to tell you my personal opinion. I don't want anything there. I want it to be because of what's coming down around the corner, the big process. I'd like to have some vacant land, some little things for parks, for something there that people can still see grass before they start going around the corner and seeing Petra. So that's just my personal opinion. And if you could do something, that would promote that, I would be thoroughly involved with that. But I do appreciate every effort that you've made. I just don't necessarily agree with every effort. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I just have a personal opinion. Thank you.

Anybody else? Oh, sorry.

Yeah, I'll agree. Credit where credit's due. A lot of kind of the creature comforts and things folks have come to enjoy in Belton have been your handiwork. Olive Garden is a feather in all of our caps, even though you did a lot of the heavy lifting. I will say this concept, I don't know how privileged it is, but I'm a fan, so there's that.

Go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate everything you've done for Belton, too. Thanks.

Thank you.

It's been a pleasure. Anybody else?

Mr. Mayor, if I may, I didn't realize at the time when we did this work session that he's wanting to keep some of this information privileged. We do have on the agenda for executive session real estate and things. If you wanted to hang out a few minutes and get to the executive session, we could put him at the beginning, and he could be more detailed about the individual stuff. If he's concerned with the confidentiality on some of this stuff, do you want to hang out?

I mean, the rent's in there. That's a signed letter of intent.

Yeah.

The rents in there, what they're doing.

Of course.

They don't want it public. Of course. And there's an open records. Obviously, we just heard that a little bit. We'll do that.

I'm just saying we can postpone the rest of this discussion for a few minutes until we get to executive session when it is a privileged conversation and the rest of the public isn't available to see it.

Whatever you all prefer.

Yeah. You okay with that, Patrick?

Yeah. All right. And I do have some questions. All right.

That's fine. All right. So hang out for a few minutes, please. to code enforcement parking driveways presented by city manager.

thank you. thank you. this is the third in five installments we' re discussing code enforcement and it doesn' t need to take up all of our time but I would like a little bit of feedback specifically today I' d like to discuss the driveways and parking in I've provided at the dais kind of the existing code in section 26 of our code and ordinances discussing residential driveways. 26.5.2 is driveway sizes and coverage limits. Of course, those things, the existence of this code came after a lot of the housing stock in our city was built. So, obviously, yes, any new residential is going to have to abide by these guidelines, essentially, but that doesn't take into account the pre-existing housing stock, which we have a lot of, that may not meet these guidelines, right? So, we're trying to... exist in a space that marries you know what is best practices and what's best for the future with what do we have now currently and how do we best utilize it and and make it useful for our residents and for the neighbors that are around the residents.

Mr. Wright can you can you get sorry to put you on the spot here but can you give us that term you always use non-conforming legal non-conforming legal non-conforming okay thanks.

So and then on the second page you know driveway paving materials and this is kind of where we really need to have the most of our discussion or my biggest question for you. You know obviously paving materials says all driveways will be paved with the permanent materials such as asphalt, concrete, paving blocks or other approved material meeting the standards of the city. Driveway aprons that are accessed in the right-of-way shall be concrete to meet standard specifications for public improvements in the right-of-way. And the entire driving and parking surface of a driveway shall be paved with a few exceptions, you know interior side yards Rear yards where driveways extended those types of things it does discuss the existence of ribbon driveways And give some some guidelines to that and or paver block driveways, those types of things. So that's what's existing, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. But that does not, by any means or stretch, allow us to essentially, you know, Maintain what we have as existing housing stock and how do we handle that from a code enforcement perspective? And what kind of codes do we need to allow those to exist? I know that there's if we discussed things like gravel Which we've allowed as a as a kind of a legal non-conforming for those that have it as long as they keep it up And I know that Public Works will get up in arms in a hurry if we start saying let's just let people use gravel all throughout because we have obviously an issue with gravel when it comes to our storm sewer and how that's handled. But what makes sense for our residents? Do we want to allow and some people don't have anything. They don't have any gravel. They've not had anything. You can drive around. You'll see a lot of folks parking on grass. There are a lot of properties where they've essentially taken that front 10 feet or so off of the street and kind of made it like a little pad site. And there's any level of things, whether it's grass or gravel or used to be gravel or just dirt, that exists throughout the city as well. And so how do we want to handle that situation? Overall, we would definitely like some guidance because this is a situation that exists all too commonly and we want to be working with people but also trying to maintain standards for residents and neighbors. How do you want us to handle the drive, parking, those types of instances? Any thoughts are you you're talking so people that have gravel driveways Tell them they got by a certain date to concrete them or pave them or not necessarily and that's that's what everybody Everybody decides they want to do I think that the in the past what we've allowed to do and I don't think we're Advocating for anything different is that if they have gravel that they maintain the gravel and keep it they don't allow what the gravel to dissipate to the point where it becomes grass and Then try to bring bring back the gravels what that's kind of the issue

I mean, I would never support going out there and telling everybody, hey, you got to have a gravel or you got to have a concrete driveway now. I mean, that's... I don't think anybody's advocating for that at this point.

I'm not. I don't think anybody.

Staff's not even advocating for that at this point. We just want some guidelines.

Go ahead. I guess I didn't realize if this is a prevalent thing, but... Parking on grass in the front yard, especially, specifically, that is common, you're saying, in various places? Yeah, I don't...

Places that don't have a formal drive, yes.

So you're... I can think of maybe only a couple in my ward, but maybe I'm... Okay. I guess that's essentially not having a drive period, right? That's not gravel, that's not paved, that's not a ribbon driveway, that's nothing. I could see where that might need to be addressed.

I can think of a couple of instances where we have a house and it's on a street and there's not really good on-street parking available. And there's no drive, and there's folks that drive and park on the grass because there literally is no place to park on the street, and there's no place to park at the house formally. So they're parking the best place they can.

Yeah, I guess my assumption has been you park on the street in those situations, but okay.

Can we get a list? I would like to see some of these places, like what kind of conditions there are, because I can't think of one specifically, but I would like to see what we're talking about. You mean as far as it has nowhere to park and they're parking in their yard, essentially?

In their yard, yeah. I could pick out a couple for sure. Okay. Go ahead.

I've had several people reach out to me just recently about the lack of driveway that their rental and their driveways are not provided by the landlord. There's also been some big discussion with the code advisory committee about the ribbon driveways. We worked on that for quite a long time. I think that probably needs to be clarified a little bit because I think at least in my mind, when we were talking about a ribbon driveway, that they wouldn't necessarily have to connect to an existing driveway, that they could come to the street even if it was with an apron. And I think that's been a little bit of, um, confusion there. Um, I could think of two in particular that I know that it's been permitted to do, but they weren't understanding that they couldn't come to the street with it because them tying on to their existing driveway with a ribbon driveway made parking a big vehicle even more difficult because of the hard turn they had to make off of an existing driveway. So that, I think, needs to be clarified a little bit. And I can tell you that in one particular instance that There's a house there's camper and there's 6 other vehicles parked there and there's no grass left there's it's a it's a muddy mess when it's going on and I I kind of like Alex says that you know we need to take a little bit of better ownership with the front yard in particular. You know, maybe maybe you know because there's an especially in the older older neighborhoods, there's not room to park on the streets without it being a public safety problem on In my Ward specifically there's 4 houses on one street that have no driveways and they had to park on the street and that means it's impossible to get a fire truck or anything through there in the evenings when they're all parked there. So I think we need to tighten that up a little bit. I'm for sure would like some clarity on the ribbon driveways for sure and I think we've got to come up with the standard, you know, You can't have a camper in five trucks. Or you can have it, but you've got to figure out a way to manage it.

Okay. So are you advocating then that on streets where there's not sufficient space and even if there's not a drive to not allow folks?

No, I don't think. I mean, how can you do that?

That's my point, too.

But I don't know what the solution is. I'm assuming at one point or the other those houses all had driveways, but I don't know that. You know, because it's Old Town, for sure. So, you know, I don't know what the solution is. If there's never been a driveway there, then what do you do? I mean, on the, you know, there's seven cars parked there at night.

Right. Okay. Go ahead. I'll say I'm... Yeah, let's talk about the ribbon driveways. That was going to be my second part of the conversation because I know I brought this up previously. Because I had a resident specifically complaining to me that their ribbon driveway wasn't allowed and that the city was, well, I don't know. The city, they were working with the city, but it was somehow not allowed. But this seems to suggest the otherwise. Can you help? This sounds to me like ribbon driveways are no problem. Specific.

So ribbon driveways are a secondary driveway so they're allowed to come off of your primary driveway accessing the street and they're allowed to be in the side yard and go into the back. So they're mostly used to access accessory structures in the backyard or if you have a boat or camper or something that you need to pull on to the side of your house or the backyard.

So they're just not allowed as the prime, like if you only have one driveway, you can't have a ribbon driveway?

Yeah, we were trying to balance the aesthetics because there were concerns of if ribbon driveways are in the front yard, people and our people are parking on the ribbon driveway, all the grass and everything underneath is going to die. So then it's just a mud pit. Somebody eventually comes back in and puts gravel or something else in between. So we're kind of back to the place where we started. So we were trying to avoid that and trying to push those into the side and rear yard that aren't as visible to the street so they don't become as much of a nuisance.

The ribbon driveway with the gravel in the middle, now I understand that's not allowed based on what is currently in here, but Is there a concern that that is problematic from an aesthetics standpoint? As long as, again, it's maintained, it's not, you know, we don't have weeds growing up through it, we don't have, you know, it's not a mud pit, it's not, you know, it's truly a... Is that, I mean, just generally, is that where that came from? Is that concern with the aesthetics?

Yeah, I mean, that's the primary concern is to... The reason why there's a solid paved surface in the current code, again, we just added this a couple of years ago because it was a cost effective approach for people, especially because the requirement was if you're putting a detached garage in your backyard, you need to have a paved surface and that can be very cost prohibitive for people. So the ribbon driveway was the solution to make that more affordable and feasible for people. But the concern of putting them in the front yard was the aesthetics of that. If the area between the pavement tracks is not maintained, then you either end up with an area that has no vegetation or they come back and put rock or something else And the concern with the gravel in the front is that it washes out into the street or into the storm drains.

Go ahead, Brett. I saw one ribbon with artificial turf in between to make it look quite attractive.

Go ahead. So I know Ward 3 has a lot of back alleyways that are gravel. With grass growing up, who is responsible for the alleys behind the houses? Is that city? Is that... Okay. So are we going to hold ourself to that same standard that we're going to hold everybody else to? Because there's a lot of alleyways that have a lot of weeds and grass growing up through. Some of them you can't even get through. So... It's the same thing as a driveway. So... Are we going to hold ourselves to that same standard? We should. I'm just asking because I know that question.

Ideally we would. Again, if you have the money tree to help us to fix all those, then we'd be glad to utilize it. Go ahead. You're done.

Sorry, you're done.

Go ahead. My biggest problem is front yard parking and the fact that you can't, in some of these instances, you can't see the house because of the vehicles. I know that this is not something we're talking about now, but I would like it to look at in our comprehensive plan code ideas is there are other solutions to loose gravel that involve gravel. They have the new spring form things now that you put down and it holds gravel in place and there's epoxy and there's all sorts of stuff. I recently looked at adding an extension on my driveway and resurfacing my driveway because I was adding an extension, and it was $14,000, which is a little cost. Then I had to in turn do the sewer, so it was kind of a wash there. But I'd like to look at something in our community development you know, to, to come up with some more permeable ideas or some more cost effective ideas. And I know that that's not what we're talking about now, but, um, I, you know, ribbon driveways are the thing I get the most complaints about in people parking so that they, they no longer have a yard. There's so many vehicles. So.

All right. Anybody else? Item three, cozy pet hotel, SUP renewal.

Yeah, Cozy Pet Hotel is located at 342 North Scott, and they're an animal services boarding use that provides overnight and longer term stays. They received a five-year special use permit in 2021, which is due for renewal. Since then, they've also acquired 400 North Scott back in 2024, and they completed a remodel of that building and opened in 2025 for grooming and other non-boarding services. Staff recommends adding that building to their special use permit to provide additional flexibility to their business needs if they decide to use part of that second building for boarding. A public hearing for the renewal will be heard by the Planning Commission next Tuesday, September 15th, and this item will be brought forward to Council in October.

Any questions? Hearing none, number four, Littles Fleet, SUP, and Final Plat.

Yes, we have also received a rezoning and a special use permit, as well as platting requests for Littles Fleet Maintenance, which is proposed to be located at the former Masters Transportation Facility at 800 Quick Trip Way. Littles Fleet works with commercial customers on the upfitting of vehicles for commercial vehicle fleets, with most of their customers using small trucks that do not require CDLs. They have at least one customer that has semi-truck vehicles, which they estimate submits about 100 vehicles to them a year. Based on the nature of the business, this is a vehicle repair heavy use requiring rezoning to C3 regional commercial with a special use permit. This would have been the same requirement to make master's transportation a legal conforming land use had they remained at that site. As part of the special use permit, staff is coordinating with the applicant and the owner on bringing the landscaping and screening up to compliance with the code, along with an updated parking plan, which includes paving the gravel lot that is along Markey Parkway. The property is also currently two unplotted parcels that will be combined into a single lot. Public hearing is scheduled for October 6th Planning Commission, and this item will be brought forward to council after.

Go ahead. See, there you used legal conforming. Anyways, which means they must have been legal non-conforming prior. So that's where my question is going, essentially, is that... So this sounds very similar. I mean, I know not the same, but similar in idea of masters for that area. Is that accurate in how I'm thinking about this? Correct. It falls into the same land use category. Okay. And, yeah, updating of... landscaping would be nice in that area, I think so.

I think they've already talked about that and are getting ready to work on that too. Anybody else? I don't know. I'd entertain a motion in our executive session to discuss mayor's claim to legal actions according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.1 pertaining to lease and purchase sale of real estate according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.2 pertaining to negotiated contracts according to Missouri State Statute 610.021.12 and the record be closed and meeting adjourned from there. Present. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call.

Council Member Richardson?

Aye.

Thompson? Yes. Mayor Larkey?

Aye.

Davidson? Yes. Bryan?

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Lawson? Aye. McCallum?

Aye.

Johnson?