Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and happy St. Patrick's Day. It is 6 o'clock and we're going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. Roll call, please. Council member Selenus, here. Council member Click, here. Council member Saber, here. Council member Bailey, here. Council member Mcgrron, here. Council member Kaine here. Council member Alvarez here. Now we'll have the pledge of allegiance led by council member Selenus.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. Item four, approval of the agenda. Uh before we do that, I'm going to go ahead and pull one just to make a comment. I'm going to pull item nine. Any other items? Okay. Do we have a motion on the agenda? On the amended agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Comments from the public. If you are a member of the public wishing to speak, please approach the podium and state your name for the record. And please limit your comments to five minutes. Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Uh, happy St. Patrick's Day. I thought Snake Saturday was a blast. I enjoyed it. My name is Rita Pierce and I'm actually representing my agency tonight, which is Northland Assistance Center, which is located at 2018 Gentry. Uh, two things. One, I want to give you an update on the hotel rooms. Uh so far as of today uh we have you have allowed uh for 442 hotel rooms uh at a cost of almost $30,000. So we're pretty much on pace. I may end up owing you some money. We'll see what happens. I didn't think we'd have this weather. So one never knows. The uh grant goes for a while. So thank you for that. As I always say, thank you for that. is working very well the way that Jesse and I worked out the new memorandum and then finding other resources. I don't think we've left anybody behind. And my other comment is to thank you. Um Northland Assistance Center thanks you for considering our agency with the Harris funds and your grants of $6,000. Uh, this grant will help individuals in Northtown pay their rent and utility bills. And I get to pick up the check at Harris, which is always a joy to me, at 7:30 in the morning on Friday. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you. Further public comments.

Good evening. Good evening. My name is Rich Gross. I'm executive director of the North Kansas City Business Council and for almost a year we've been uh having a volunteer from one of the businesses to come and talk to you and I thought I would come and give you a perspective of some of the corporate headquarters buildings in North Kansas City and Steve had a presentation. Maybe not we'll do without it. There's one they've got they were working on it earlier. Do I get a buy on the first 30 seconds? You're good. It's It's like soccer. We're clocking the extra time. I have the controls here.

And we're back.

So, I wanted to uh talk about the ones that are have headquarters here. And there are some significant ones. Some of them have been here longer than any of us. Uh and it it's kind of interesting. I think Garnney is the biggest by far. are they're a $2 billion company that uh specializes in water and wastewater infrastructure and their headquarters is tucked away in what used to be a warehouse just south of the Oxbow Apartments and they have u over 20 2500 employees. They're 100% employee owned and there's no Garnney. You probably know that Charles Garney started Garnney Construction long time ago but there's no Garney and Garnney anymore. He started a process 30 years ago to make it employee owned. It's 100% employee owned now. The next one is Hillsburg. It's the one most well known. Most everybody knows about Hellsburg, but and probably you know that it's been hiding in a former penny store for about 20 years. And 10 years before that, it was acquired. It was made in a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. So it's one of one of a component of one of the very largest businesses in the world. Uh Chicken and Pickle, we know that it was started here about 10 years ago and uh its corporate headquarters is right next door in the same building as Restless Spirits Distilling and they now are in 13 other locations in six in seven states. Echos Select uh is noteworthy because it's a woman-owned and minority owned IT consulting and talent acquisition firm. It's located on on Iron Street. It was started in very small beginning 31 years ago by Janette Pringer and she's still involved as the she's still active in the business. Tenemic

perhaps the oldest of these. It's 105 years old. It's been at the location on West 23rd for 75 years. The name most of you know by now the first product was made with some blend of cement and so their name is Tenemic is back cement smell backwards. Uh about 80% of all the water towers you've ever seen in the United States probably have tenemic coating inside and outside. The KRM or Kellen Restaurant Management owns all the 54 street grills and they're in a building on Swift called the Hope Building and there are 30 of 54th Street Grills in Missouri and Texas. I lost the time. How am I doing on time? Okay, I'll keep going. So, I'm going to go to the next slide, maybe. Okay, so KMG Hotels actually has six properties in North Kansas City. their headquarters at 1645 Swift. They converted an old retail store. Uh their North Kansas City operations include the Aloft and the Element Hotels, the Diamond Conference Center, the Holiday in Express and the Diamond Conference Center, as well as Old Chicago. They own all of those. NKC Health is our our favorite hospital. Uh we're proud of that. They actually do have properties outside of North Kansas City. many in PL C play C play C play C play C play C play C play C play C play C play Clay and Plat County and that's why we're they're on this list Unlimited you heard from Julie Edund a few weeks ago

they are a very large nonprofit organization serving adults with the disabilities and they're now in 12 counties and they provide housing and transportation and they claim to have 124 front doors that provide a lot of housing for a lot of people and recently we had a really good conversation with the guest people and how to guest can serve them and they have a a large facility in Liberty and here and they transport their people a lot of places. So, more to come on that. Now, Wagner Logistics, you've seen their big building along I35. It's been here since their founding in 1946. I don't know when exactly that building was built u but they have grown significantly in recent years and they have hubs in California, Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Texas and Oregon and they were recently re named the primary distribution party of the new Panasonic constru Panasonic e battery plant in Dotto Kansas. That's a huge deal. And uh I'll go to uh a few other large businesses in in North Kansas City that I hope that you will know about. Clayco Electric, Davis Paint is probably the oldest in North Kansas City. Areas is owned by Caesar's Entertainment Ingredient. Mid America Contractors is only in North Kansas City, but it's a very large company. Quality plumbing is way bigger than most of us would would know about. And United States gypsum has also been here about a hundred years. And it's one big building that we drive by every every day and have no clue what's made in. It's really the the paper that goes on sheetrock is what what they make there. And a few other

Okay. And so I think that that's all I have and unless you have some questions. Anybody have questions for Mr. Groves? Thank you for all you do advocating for Oh, there you go. One question is, do you have any sense of the total employees of those companies that some of them? I I really don't know. Um, a lot of them don't have huge numbers of employees except ENKC Health. Yeah.

And Harris. I think Ingredient for instance has about 150 200. Same same for Tanimic. Uh but there are significant Wagner logist logistics throughout the country probably has a lot and I think I mentioned that uh Garnney has 2500 scattered around the country. I don't know exactly how many here. I think when Tom Roberts was here a few weeks ago he he might have mentioned that but I don't remember. Thank you and

thank you for all you do to advocate for our businesses here. Thank you. Appreciate you. Further public comments. Good evening.

Good evening everyone. My name is Lindseay Harmon. I live at 23rd in Gentry with my husband Peter. Um and we have just two concerns that we wanted to lift up tonight. One about the intersection safety at 23rd and Gentry Street and the other about daytime parking on Gentry Street. We shared these concerns at the Safe Streets openhouse last week. Um, and we're still a little disappointed to see that 23rd and Gentry on the draft report is listed as one of the lowest priorities. So, we really appreciate the approach of the safe streets planning process. Um, but we really don't believe that that designation reflects what's actually happening at that intersection. Just want to take the opportunity to share our concerns with you tonight. I understand that the the report is one tool that helps inform decisions with council, but just want to make sure that our concern is adequately expressed. So for 23rd and Gentry intersection, um the plan does prioritize projects partly based on land use and the presence of vulnerable road users as they refer to as VRUs in the plan. Um, the plan's own language defines VRUs as exactly the population that we're concerned about at 23rd in Gentry, which are pedestrians and in this case, children walking to and from school every day. The school and surrounding area witness one of the highest densities of pedestrians in the city regularly and not just during drop off and pickup times. As you know, there's frequent events happening at the school during evenings, evenings, and weekends. Um, the plan already identifies the area surrounding North Kansas City High School as warranting attention, calling for intersection redesigns and even closing part of Howell Street for a bus staging area. So, we'd asked the we asked the council to consider whether 23rd in Gentry deserves that same level of attention that's listed as a much higher priority in the plan than 23rd in gentry. Uh, we also recognize and learned that the

prioritizing framework is heavily weighted towards crash history. We just asked council to consider the absence of recorded crash is not the same as the absence of risk which I'm sure you know the conditions are already there. Kids are crossing midblock. Um there's blocked sight lines. There's no morning supervision um of that intersection and cars are regularly stopped in the no dropoff zones even though there is clear signage. People don't like to read those. Um, and then it's forcing unsafe and illegal vehicle passing because of not following the rules that are currently posted but not enforced. So, we're just asking that the city um act more on what it can see, not just on what has already happened. Um, we think it could be helpful to do a walking study along 23rd Avenue during morning morning drop off times between 7:38 if you haven't been there. It's a little bit crazy. We see it every morning. Uh, we we do understand resources are limited and prioritization is necessary. We just encourage council to ask whether the current framework for the safe streets plan adequately accounts for the known observable risk factors like school proximity, pedestrian volume, and that daily VRU exposure or whether it's primarily capturing the intersections where that harm has already occurred. And then we also wanted to address the parking, the daytime parking specifically on Gentry Street. I think this is something that has come to council before, but we're newbies to the to the Gentry Street, so I want to articulate our concern. So, school and staff um and students are parking on Gentry Street daily. At a town hall where the property across from the high school is being considered for a new parking lot, we learned that the school's existing lot is not fully utilized during the day. Um and the shortages are only occurring during events. So, at a recent town hall, Jesse, you' made a comment about the idea of permit parking to present residential streets from potential Royal Stadium overflow when we were talking about the stadium. Um the reality is that we are already living that reality not from a stadium but from the school.

Um and our belief is that residential streets should be protected for residents and emergency vehicle access regardless of the source of the overflow. And so uh 7 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. permit restriction on school days would address this concern. We understand that street parking is needed for um school events and we're not asking to eliminate that access only to reclaim our street during hours where it is unnecessarily occupied. So just in some what we're asking council to consider is first just that intersection safety at 23rd and gentry just consider the prioritization of where that's falling in the plan. Um consider longer term infrastructure physical improvements the roadway on 23rd and gentry. I do think having a monitor in the mornings would make a significant difference because it is night and day um enforcement of those rules when the officer is there in the afternoon. And then just consider um some parking options for Gentry Street, potentially establishing a permit parking restriction from 7:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. on school days so that we aren't consistently competing with school students and staff for parking on our street. So, thank you for your consideration.

Excellent. Thank you so much for uh taking the time and there is I will look at the camera and say this there's there's no better way to raise the priority of your specific intersection than to come and talk to us just like you did. U so thank you for doing that and for you if you have something that those of you who are watching bring it to us. Um I also uh chafe a little bit the crash history being a primary indicator of uh how we're prioritizing the network. I don't want to wait for something bad to happen or to have happen before we start prioritizing things. So, this is extremely valuable to to bring to our attention. So, thank you for that. Um, actually, uh, as we were talking about the Howell Pedestrian Plaza piece that you mentioned, we sat down with the I think his title is the chief safety officer for North Kansas City School District and the area around 23rd and Gentry came up. Um, it's also where buses park for students with special needs. Um, and as you mentioned, and they brought up people don't read the sign, so they stop and park and get out and go in. Um, which creates a lot all manner of chaos there. So, thank you for bringing that forward to council. It is something that we're definitely going to be looking at. And I have a a meeting with that uh that individual with the school district coming up and to discuss parking solutions potential um and that area that you just mentioned. Um, parking always going to be a tough one because uh you can pull articles back to the 60s. Same kind of stuff. Very difficult one to to tackle. Um, but permits I think are uh going to be in in play at some point. So, thank you very much. Further public comments going once. Yes, sir. Microphone. One of the questions I would want to ask you is permits do have a problem when you have visitors during the day and I know we've talked about

this many times in the past and never really came to a conclusive opinion about how to solve that. Yep. Sure. Yep. I mean, I don't have an exact answer to to how the we didn't either process would work, but I mean, I would recommend looking at other areas that have implemented structures like that. I know the UMKC campus, while it's university and not a high school experiences that same overflow parking and residential areas and have implemented a permit parking and like no student or or teacher parking on those areas. So, I would be curious to see how they enforce that type of permit parking.

Thank you for that. Yeah, the permits are always thorny because there's a lot of things that come up, but if you got a gathering at your house, who's going to enforce it? What is the enforcement mechanism? We're talking students here, so it's not going to really be a financial thing. You don't want to hurt their academics. Um, one thing that that bothers me is that that lot is underutilized. That during a school day, the backside of the lot, which is less convenient than parking on Gentry, is not utilized. And how do we create the incentive structure to channel people into that lot? That would be the overarching goal without being overly punitive. So, a lot of things to consider. Any ideas coming from the public? All ears. Okay. Further public comments? Seeing none, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda?

So, move. Second. Second. Not everybody at once. All in favor? Yes.

Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Uh, so I pulled item nine. I just want to make a quick uh comment on this one because I've had a few people ask me about it. This is an approval of a task order to design and engineer a parks building. Um, it's a $255,000 ask, but it will be coming completely from the parks budget, which is separately funded and has its own tax levy. This is not uh broader tax money from the city being poured in. Uh this is just for the design and engineering parks are funding it and they've had robust discussions at their board about this. So with that said, I'll take a motion on that one. Move to approve. Second. All in favor? Yes. Any opposed?

Motion passes. Very good. All right. Regular agenda item 11, annual audit presentation. Go ahead. Nick's going to come up and and introduce the auditors, but before he did, I just wanted to recognize Nick and his team. He won't recognize himself, but but he will say something about his team um for how well the audit went this year. We were ahead of schedule. We um so I'm going to get that out there as well as Casey Campbell. She played a big part in the in part of the audit with the pension and whatnot. So, thank you. That I'll hand it over. All right, Nicholas.

Um good evening, uh mayor, members of the council. So, tonight is uh the annual presentation of the city's uh comprehensive financial report and independent audit uh for this the year 2025. Um as Mike said, there's a there's a lot of thank yous to go out. Um one that I just want to um call out is um support from the council. So, two years ago, uh, Council Member Fitzgerald, I believe, um, introduced, um, adding a strategic, uh, goal of removing deficiencies from the audit, specifically around internal controls. We've always kind of looked for ways to, uh, address that, but, having the support from council to really um, make some strides in that has been huge. And I think for the first time in probably at least over 15 years as we were talking about it earlier um we've uh removed one of those findings on internal controls and segregation of duty uh from the audit. So a big credit to um my team Brad Miller our accountant who's going to be retiring this year um has played a huge role in that. Um we know we'll get someone good because we got Casey here to help us. Um, but just we've put a lot of work into that and I just want to recognize um, you know, my team, Brad, Michelle, April, and Lisa. They've all come in and just put a lot of dedication into making this a better uh, better function. So, we still have uh, one left um that I think Amy Reichenberger from Ruben Brown will talk about. Um, but we are looking at ways to address that one as well. Just wanted to to call that out and and thank you as the council for making this a priority. Um so with that I will hand it over to uh Amy partner.

Thank you Nick and thank you um all for having us tonight. U my name is Amy Richenberger and I started at Ribbon Brown in 2014 and have been the manager on this engagement since 2019. Um, we have a few documents that we're going to talk through this evening. So, feel free to chime in with questions at any time for me about the audit process or Nick um about his team's involvement. Um, let's start with the auditor planning communications. Um, this will be really brief. So, this document, it looks like this. If you guys have this um this document is required by auditing standards and it's our formal communication of the significant risks that we identify um during our risk assessment and then our plan for audit timing and then our just general audit strategy. Um, I'm just going to skip to page four and point out that that is where we um detail out the significant risks that we identify. Um, and that we do pay special attention to these during our testing, but then we also test the other areas that are not deemed as significant. Um, and then if you flip to page six, this details the timing of our audit. Um, and this is typical timing that um, we always do with the city. And um, you can see there we started our audit in November, which is normal. And, um, we are on track to be done this month um, by the deadline of March 31st. Um, the statements are in draft form still, so we can make changes um, and incorporate any comments that anyone may have. Um, so let's jump to the auditor communications. Um this document looks like this if you guys are looking at it. Um and just to mention we are still in progress with the pension audit um and

the single audit. Um but those don't have the 331 deadline that the city does. So today's materials are really focused on the city's audit that will be done this month. Um, so slide one. Our professional standards as auditors require that we communicate to you our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and standards applicable to financial audits contained in government auditing standards. The document communicates um communicates this and then I just wanted to start by saying we do plan on issuing an unmodified opinion um on the financial statements which is um known as a clean opinion and that is the highest level of opinion that we offer as auditors. Um slide two. Uh this is just a reminder that management is responsible for selection and use of appropriate counting policies. Um and there were a few new gazsby pronouncements that were incorporated in the financial statements this year. You can see um there on the slide it's Gazsby 101 and Gazsby 102. Um Gazsby 101 really focused on compensated absences. So vacation and sick leave um and whether the leave is earned and will actually be used based on past history. So Nick helped us with the calculation for that um and implementing that standard. And then Gazsby 102. This standard would only add disclosures to your financial statements, but none were deemed necessary this year. Um also just a reminder that we do not audit the hospital. Um it's a different entity, but it does roll in. Um and it is audited by other auditors and we do correspond with them during our engagement. Um slide three. This just um details sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures. Um and there were no changes to these

year-over-year. Slide four. Um this slide describes corrected and uncorrected misstatements. So uncorrected misstatements don't rise to our level of materiality and therefore um do not require to be um recorded by management or corrected. Um but this year we did not have any of these during the audit. Uh we also have a schedule of the attached to this document that summarizes corrected misstatements that management made. So you can see that and um you'll notice a lot of these were actually just client entries. Um so that's when Nick provides us the trial balance and then provides us entries that he wants to make to that. And so it's not actually adjustments that we make through the audit. Um slide five. Uh we are pleased to report that we didn't have any disagreements with management. Um the management representation letter is also attached. So feel free to look through that. Um this is an indication of management providing everything that we ask for. Um which does require a substantial amount of effort on their part. Um, so we're very grateful um for the ease of that process and that's all credit to Nick's team. Um, and then we'll be walking through the management letter too. So if we skip to slide six, um, this is just a reminder that we do audit the basic financial statements. So, the full reporting package is well over a 100 pages long um and includes things like statistical tables that include information that we don't audit. Um those tables are required by the GFOA. Um but they are not included in our auditing procedures. You can find those tables at the very front and then the very back um of the document. Although we don't audit them, we do read through

them and make sure there's nothing inconsistent with our audit information. We can move to the management letter if unless anyone has any questions. Um this document looks like this if you guys are following. So this is also a required communication. Um although we don't express an opinion on the effectiveness of the city's internal controls, we do consider internal controls um when we are designing our audit procedures and are required to communicate if there are any deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. Um so we can skip to page four. These are the definitions for those are on page two, but I'm just going to skip to where we actually um list our deficiencies. Um and as Nick said, this is shorter than last year. There's only one. Um the deficiency we have listed here is preparation of GAP compliant financial statements. This is a comment that we're required to make when we as auditors prepare the financial statements with the information given to us by management. Um, and then as Nick said, the segregation of duties internal control significant deficiency that has been in this report for a long time um was taken out this year due to the efforts from Nick and his team um really on mitigating the overlap of duties um in the cash receipts process. Any questions on that? Okay. Well, thank you all. Thank you

also to Nick and his team. Thank you very much. Uh Nick got rid of uh one of the big deficiencies. Well done. Thank you to the team. Uh you and Brad and everyone who's worked on this. Um I've been here for almost seven years now and this is uh the first time it's not in the report. So well done. Thank you for that and thank you for all the work from the audit team. I got to meet a few of them while they were doing their work. So, every everybody was wonderful. Uh any questions or comments from the council? Go ahead. Yeah. Excellent. I'm really happy. I know Connor would be too, so he's here with us tonight. Yeah.

Um I just had one question. So, the the remaining um significant deficiency, what are your plans to mitigate that one? So one of the things um is part of financial reporting. So this you know is a fairly common one for cities of our size and so I was talking uh with our team uh beforehand on some things that we could do to address it. Um one which I think we did actually a pretty good job of this year is really reducing those client journal entries after um after the trial balance. Uh we rearranged kind of a lot of our processes this year and got a lot of those in. Um but as I said in my memo, uh we had some outstanding things on balancing our investments, but we feel pretty good about where that's at right now. Um other pieces, you know, there are some things that uh there are some journal entries that the auditors historically do um like balancing pension uh statements and and we've talked to them about taking that part on. Um and then after that, kind of a next step after that would be to really look at starting to prepare some of those financial statements that uh the auditors prepare every year for us. Council member Saber,

uh, do you have the resources you need to do all of this at this point?

Well, we're going to take it as a step-by-step process. I mean, you know, with the the internal control on the delegation of duties that we had before. Um, you know, I remember sitting here six years ago when it was my first meeting. Um there was kind of just some resignation from staff at the time that there was nothing we could really do about that, but obviously we have. So we're going to look at the resources that we have and kind of look at it step by step. And if you know there it calls for more resources or um anything above and beyond what we have, uh we'll certainly take that into consideration and and come back to you most likely with um a recommendation. Well, I just wanted to say I appreciate the last six years you've been doing this. It's made a big difference prior to your coming. Thank you.

Further comments or thoughts? All right. Very good. Thanks everybody. We're going to move on to item 12. Consideration of an ordinance approving the first amendment to the reciprocal emergency water sales agreement between North Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri. Bill number 7973, ordinance number 9770. All right, Anthony, you have this one or Tom? No, no, I'll start it though.

All right. Um, good evening, mayor and council. So, this is, as it reads, an amendment to what's been a long-standing agreement between the two cities for sharing water resources in the event of an emergency. U, the basis of this uh the basis of this uh is twofold. one um Kansas City is doing a project down at Tenth and Atlantic which will intert our two water systems in kind of a different way than they have before. Uh we down there can feed their system. Ours their system has never been able to feed us. So that is something that has been adjusted. Uh at a previous city council meeting we brought forth that cost and that was approved a while back and this is just kind of the formality of adjusting the agreement. But one of the other bigger things on this is the emergency connection for the hospital. So the hospital came to the city wanting to establish an emergency connection to Kansas City in case of a redundancy issue. There's something about our system that goes down. Uh this is kind of their plan they put together for achieving that uh goal and um again it involves our uh agreement with Kansas City being amended. So if there's any questions, happy to answer them. Um but that's

Council Member Bailey. I believe you talked at one point about whether our water chemistry would mix well. Is that going to be a problem? Probably not based on emer just emergency use.

So that's something we ask the hospital's design team to look at. Um when you intermix two water systems they are a little bit different in chemistry and so those uh parameters they need to be evaluated they need to be adjusted. There needs to be a plan and process for that. Um, Mccclure Engineering, who was hired by the hospital for this project, uh, has evaluated that. We had that looked at through Barnes & kind of a double check. Um, and they've identified what they can to put back to the hospital team to make sure that they include in their processes when they ever have to switch to check for certain things that could be a hazard there.

Do we need to worry about that at the interchange down um, near Burlington? the so the intertie between the two systems there's been there's four of them altogether and they've existed um or there will be four sorry um they there's been three that have existed since the 70s um when that happens it's usually a short-term use and then the water chemistry issue is not usually as big of a concern. Um what the hospital is proposing is a connection that would actually be used long term as well. So that kind of prompted us to ask some deeper questions about their plan and incorporate different um strategies. Other questions? As much as I don't love uh letting the dirty river water from Casey Mo into our beautiful aquafer uh system, I think this one I'll let slide. Uh do we have council member Saber?

Yes. Uh could you explain what the differences in the chemistry are and how impactful it really is?

A little bit. I can um one of the bigger things is the way that we um disinfect the water. So we use free chlorine in our system. Kansas City uses chloromines. They're just kind of two different disinfectants to kill bacteria and any kind of problems. um when those two components interact, they can um cause different issues and in in chemistry that can be a problem for certain things like dialysis machines. So when you're dealing with a hospital in a building that has dialysis machines, that's one thing they have to consider. Um the other thing is the way that we coat our pipes to prevent corrosion from happening. um if there happens to be any lead in our system that corrosion protection coats that you don't want that to fall off and so we have again one of the things we've tked them to look at was to that protection level that that would not cause a change so these are all things that they've been reviewing are all are any of these very difficult to manage or are they just something we have to manage

it can be difficult to manage um again the hospital this being their kind of preferred redundancy, their their proposed solution to having some kind of redundant water connection. Um, we've kind of kicked that back to them that when they need that, they need to test certain things. Uh, DNR has different testing levels. As a hospital, they have different testing levels. So, these are all things they're going to have to evaluate if and when they have to use this connection.

Thank you. And as uh tricky as it may be to mitigate that there's not really another option. If we need redundancy and our plants not pumping uh hospital needs water that's the the other source. So seems correct. Yeah. As we as we have seen is possible. All right. Uh do we have a motion on item 12? First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Any opposed? Item passes.

An ordinance authorizing and approving the first amendment to the reciprocal emergency water sales agreement between the city of Kansas City, Missouri and the city of North Kansas City, Missouri. I move that bill number 7973 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9770. Second. Call the role. Council member Selenus. Yes. Council member Click. Yes. Council member Saper. Yes. Council member Bailey. Yes. Council member Mcgone. Yes. Council member Kaine. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Yes.

An ordinance authorizing and approving the first amendment to the reciprocal emergency water sales agreement between the city of Kansas City, Missouri and the city of North Kansas City, Missouri. All right. Item 13, discussion of proposed code modification for above ground storage tanks with conditions. All right. And I'm going to kick it. I also note that we have uh some representatives from uh CNC Produce here which are the uh the folks that we're discussing in the ordinance here or in the option. Go ahead.

So this item in front of you is actually a request from staff um for city council's direction regarding to a proposed potentially a proposed code amendment from our current um international fire code that's being adopted by the city. Currently the code addresses um the above ground fuel tanks for um combustible basically fuel tanks materials within them to be limited to 1,000 gallons um throughout the entire zoning district everywhere in the city. This is a um limitation has been set forth for over a decade and staff has been in um in contacted by staff has been contacted by few businesses regarding to this particular u code requirement for the business operations. Um, more recently we have been requested by CNC Produce regarding to their plan to install a 12,000galon above ground fuel tank at their property for their transportation operation particularly for filling up their trucks and logistic component of um their business characteristic operation. So staff reviewed it. Currently the code prohibits that from happening and staff has issued a memorandum regarding to their request and we denied their um alternative means methods request. But we believe moving forward a discussion should be considered for um evaluating the potentiality for above ground fuel tanks giving the pros and cons being listed over there. And we do believe um staff do not oppose to a coachment particularly for these type of tanks being under certain conditions such as

the zoning districts uh to be limited for um such uh M district that manufacture and for particular setback requirements from buildings and property lines. Also for operation characteristics, they shall be subject to operational permitting and being um inspected by both fire department and the community department annually and also other conditions. Could it be uh related to secondary or accessory uses only? Means we're not turning a site particular to a fuel station but more to support the business operation. And if the business can discontinued for whatever reason it is, they shall remove the tank appropriately. We believe there are uh potential gains for the city for doing such um particularly for spill control and monitoring system um versus underground. So generally for the tanks you have above ground or underground components. So I have listed a few items in the memo. I know it's short and if you have questions I'm happy to answer it. All right. Uh, I I'll start out and then we'll It looks like we got lots of questions. Um, okay. Shu, you and I have had a couple discussions about this. Um, help me understand 1,000 gallons being the limit currently. Now, I know I know that's in the code and it's code department job to enforce the code. So, um, how do we get to a th00and and if that number is flexible, where are we recommending that we go from there? So whenever you're having a number there, it's always a little arbitrary, there is always a component to there. Why is that 1,00 versus 101, right? This number was there from the point when the general IFC is written. So the international fire code, it's its own book like a international building code IBC. They have its own series. And in

the code particularly what they do um is they leave the number blank. So they let the municipality who choose to adopt the IFC to fill out the blank. Meaning this is more of a local level decision whether you want to fill in 1,00 2,000 5,000 10,000 or more. That's up to the local community. And as far as I know, the 1000 was there about two decades ago from the former fire chief um I don't believe and this is probably something more embedded in the fire department history who propo because this is a fire code. So who proposed the 1,00 gallon over there with the understanding at that time even until today we still have nonconforming above ground tanks that's over 1,000 gallons such as uh the railroad yards and the ingredient there might be some other business as well.

So is that was it a life safety thing? Is that where fire landed? I we got our chief fire guy here. I have so I wasn't available or I wasn't the fire marshal when it was put in. Um I cannot explain to you why it was they picked that number. Okay. I mean I don't I don't know why they picked that number at the time and I couldn't you know in my mind I can't come up with a reason why. Okay.

A lot of the things we decide are arbitrary. I we at some point you pick a number. Is it substantially logically it seems more is less safe at a certain point, but um is 12,000 gallons significantly less safe than 1,000 gallons in an above ground tank? I'm just trying to get to how do we put a number here if we're going to amend the code? To me, as long as it's contained, it's no more it's no less safe than 1,00 gallons. Okay. And did uh Gary Loftess, who's the current uh would be inspecting this, did he have concerns with life safety or any of that with the proposal? No. Okay. He's on he's on board with what shoes promoting or putting forward.

Okay. Council member Saber, the question I have is uh what kind of containment is being proposed for these tanks? Microphone. What kind of containment is being proposed for these tanks? I can is that in the code? I can specifically talk a little bit about that part and why it's 12,000 being requested by CNC produce but they can come forward talk about why it's that number. So generally for manufacturing the tanks there are certain requirements about their capacity actually caps for above a certain threshold then you have to do XYZ basically. Mhm.

Um and for 12,000galon tanks, typically there will be a double wall requirement or other mechanism for secondary contaminant components. So um containing methods wise there are different ways that you can contain the materials and in this case we have not received a particular design. I don't know what they choose to to contain the particular material or what methods they're using yet. And that's why we're bringing the code um into you because we don't want to make a code amendment just for one single case. We wanted to evaluate this for the community. I want to make sure everybody's getting that component over there. Um, so I could not answer you what particular content u containing method they're going to use at this point but I will leave that to CNC produce but overall technically there are methods that they can use in order required to use for a particularly amount of the capacity. Hey, I guess my concerns are that whatever the size and double wall or not that they does meet all kinds of OSHA and other standards.

Oh yeah, they have to meet all the federal and state requirements over there and they tip there there usually is a state registration program. It's run by the for Missouri it's the department of agriculture and for certain requirements depends on the fuel type or propen or whatever it is they have to register with the state as well I imagine the manufacturers of any of those tanks are also inspected so that there's going to be some sort of lensure to that the manufacturer usually required to be registered with the state as well sure uh council member Kaine

uh yeah I had just a couple of quick questions um and thank you Shu by the way for uh responding to uh some of my earlier questions about this. But um I think just as long as we're sort of talking about the 1,00gallon cap, I just kind of had some questions about, you know, trying to understand the scale of risk and consideration. I think just with it being a public safety matter, an environmental matter, I think that's kind of the source of my question. So if I if I have a business and say I have a 999galon you know above ground fuel storage tank right as it stands today right I would be compliant with city code because it's below 1,000 um if it were say above uh 1320 so that um SPCC rule trigger for spill prevention uh and and those kinds of things um I would then be required ired right to have like a a formal plan document that. Is that correct?

That is correct. That's a EPA requirement. Yeah. So, just as the business, I would have to have that on site, have a documented plan for um spill prevention and that kind of thing. Great. Okay. Um if it were say above like 10,000 gallon, right, then the PE has to sign off on that plan. Yes. Okay. Cool. So I guess that's kind of what I'm trying to parse out a little bit too is just okay as we slide above that scale or if we're considering removing that cap just like what is the commensurate environmental risk um and you know what are the kinds of considerations that have to be made there um I know your department is is on top of this and and going to take a look but that's just the

I can probably make a comment on environmental concerns over there and I actually had this conversation with our public works director since we just freshly finished our Swiss water protection plan. Keep in mind the requirement right here right now is no more than 1,000 gallon above ground which means if you're going over a th00and gallon you can put it underground. So from our perspective there are definitely pros cons both way. Generally understanding you're under the ground if you're more contained it is safer from fire catching fire or being explode just generally understanding it versus where monitoring system for spill over fill and all of this is also a component of it. So there is actually an engineers's uh opinion that's being issued along with the um request that was submitted by CNC produce that the engineer has laid out uh of course particular for that unique situation about concerns or u the downside for underground tanks which we we think um that is something should be puted into consideration. Um, so for I would say for environmental wise I can't say which one is definitely better because for above ground you can still spill and you can still get to the ground soil overall but we tend to generally agree with that engineer opinion. Uh, Council Member Alvarez,

just um kind of a quick question. If sorry, the code has I think you said it's been that way for couple decades. Why is why is this uh tank not being put underground? I mean, is there a reason that it's not automatically because the code says you can't have it? So, excuse me. If it's a 12,000gallon tank, why is it not being put underground automatically? I guess.

Yeah. So, this is one of the reason that we actually denied their means of uh uh request for alternative compliance because we don't believe they have sufficient reason for why they cannot push it underground to start. However, um the reason I was saying why not is because we don't really receive these requests every day. These are very uh unique situations itself to start with. I can probably tell you from our current operations uh for the business there's not that many over there in general that needed more than a thousand gallon for transportation wise for supporting their business operation. So, so there's there's really not a reason why it could not excuse me be put underground. I mean, is there something preventing that particular location from it being put underground?

So, there is an engineers's opinion again that was attached with their request. They have listed quite a few reasons. One of them is that for their backfield materials that for this particular site um that they used at that time when they demolished the former silos and there was backfield materials that's not suitable. They also talked about there was um former tunnels being left on the site. It is unknown. there a lot unknown for the site and they also talked about there is potential high water table and there could it be because of a vibration coming from the railroad that was the engineer's opinion and however there is no significant data supporting that from staff's perspective so I would just put it this way if anybody say engineer can do everything I'll totally trust it it's a matter of engineers design. Um we don't believe there was a design for us to review at this point to say yes or no you can cannot put it underground and that was really the base when we denied the uh alternative means methods request.

So um did you have any followup on that one? Okay. Um so my understanding and I will get to you I promise. Uh my understanding is that so on that topic um the engineer uh that they hired brought in a report that said it's really not feasible in the engineer's view to put it underground due to the issues you just mentioned soil type uh seismic activity from proximity to the railroad tracks. Are we still asking them for an AMMR the alternative means request to submit plans for an underground tank despite the engineer saying it's not something that would be feasible? We did not ask them to submit details because um we generally denied the AMMR the alternative means method request because we don't believe that is a alternative means method that is a engineer's opinion. So, so I'm trying to parse out where the denial lands because if an engineer says it's not feasible to put it underground and we're denying it because they didn't propose an underground tank solution, but they propose an above ground, is that not an alternative proposition for an AMR? Like, how does that not fit the definition of I I'm just trying to understand what's in the memo here?

Yeah. So um if you see there is an attachment from the building officials memo talking about the denial of the MMR over there that's dated March 10th over there. Um first I want to clarify the engineer did not say it is absolutely not feasible. He issued an opinion report saying there are a lot of things to consider. There are a lot of uncertainties over there. there are a lot of cons um items over there for putting the underground but he didn't say absolutely not feasible and second I want to say over here the statement from the building official to the MMR um simply stated that this is not a alternative means methods that shows the design how they choose to comply it alternatively because even if you say above ground is an alternative there's got to come with a design over along with it. Uh and his opinion over here if I understand Mr. Harris correctly which after discussing with him I'm pretty confident is that he's generally denying it because there is no such design as show an alternative and this request is simply a request for above ground that does that is prohibited by by the code that is the base for him to deny this particular uh request. So if they had submitted specific plans for an above ground tank at 12,000,000 gallons, it could have come to us as an AMMR or no.

In this case, the answer is probably no because you have to prove the difficulty and what difficulty question mark we don't know yet. When you design for underground that you're going to get again that gets detailed to the technical design component which we haven't received anything. So, we don't believe this is the correct route for them. Council member Mcgrron,

thank you. I have a couple of questions. So, um, if we change the code, amend the code to allow for tanks larger than a thousand gallons to be above ground, do you anticipate more businesses wanting to purchase above ground tanks for fuel storage? So in this case, I would just say yes because when we amended the code, we allow other businesses that meet all the conditions to u purchase above ground tanks that's over 1,000 gallons. But as of right now, we already allow above ground 1,000 gallons. So, if we had more businesses asking for these types of tanks, potentially many more up to 10 to 12,000 gallons, is there any kind of risk to our water supply if we allow that kind of above ground? And I understand underground is also a potential risk. However, it's a lot more expensive and a lot more I I I would imagine it is much harder to install a tank underground than it is to purchase one and install it on a lot. So, it would be easier for businesses to purchase these large tanks so that they didn't have to take their vehicles elsewhere to fuel them up, which means we would have more of these large tanks around our town that could potentially be an environmental or um or just it potentially be an issue. I think help me um help me assuage me of that concern.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other, by the way. I'm just trying to give the facts over here. And this is why I stated earlier, we're trying to get a direction from the council in general after you all weigh in. So feel free to ask questions. Um, from my perspective, it's really hard to tell for above ground tank and a ground tank. Underground tank, you have to consider both of them together, right? Because if our goal is to protect the water source, protect understanding how many fuel tanks is going to be allowed in the community, we should consider both above ground and underground. And simply we cannot just leave the underground tanks out of our world just because we don't see them. So in this case, I would say for above ground tanks u you need to consider that there is a setback requirement. There is a minimum setback requirement depends on depend on the tank size the capacity of it and if they're outdoor or indoor of course they could have even indoor ones for outdoor ones to be able to have a large tank fuel tank that is above 1,00 gallon with the minimum setback requirements for the site that's doable it is not that many businesses I would say there is a threshold over there um ultimately ly it is a business decision but from a operational perspective they need to consider how much fuel they wanted to store in order to make the profit margin over there and underground tanks sometime could it be a better solution because of the separation requirement generally it is more expensive to construct um the underground condition and bury the tank underneath it but sometime above ground tank could be coming um with a higher price tag as well and again this can get to the detail of the design of the tanks and uh the particular materials and required for them.

I just have two more questions. Sorry. Can I let me chime in real quick on that first question. Um source water protection. So I sat in that uh group tanks like this within the boundary of the source water protection. I think it was like area zero or whatever we called it where we were it was basically a blanket denial on fueling stations and things of that nature. Would fuel tanks be in like immediately denied regardless of quantity within that area? I think so. I I don't know. I don't want to speculate, but I'm pretty sure no that they would not be allowed. Right. Yeah. So in the wa like over top of the aquafer I see emphatic nods from Shu. That's at least how I remembered it.

Well, right. And and again, just where that's kind of standing in its timeline, it's being reviewed by MDNR, right? Once it comes back to us, it will have to be codified. So, it's not even it's not there yet, but it would be over top of our aquifer in the area we've designated source water protection specifically, this won't be an issue because they couldn't put the tank anyway. If my understanding is right, following the source water protection plan guidance, uh it addresses fuel tanks for both above and underground. Correct. Because even for above ground tanks, you still have the Yep. Yeah. Within the source water boundary. Yes. Correct. So, we could increase the above ground size without risking our source water simply because we have this plan that overlays.

I don't know if we want to speculate that just because it's outside the source boundary, it wouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, it's just less of a It's not within the identified area. So, yeah. because I think this sites outside of what would be if adopted correct the boundary. Okay, go ahead. Great. I I am glad you asked that because I was concerned about that too and I think that as long as if we do if we do go ahead and and ask that you amend the code and bring us something I would want that to be as be part of the code that it couldn't like especially since you said since you said that our source water um that protection plan isn't codified right now. I don't want something to be able to slip in because we haven't codified that.

Absolutely. Um my last question is um did did I hear right that there are currently nonconforming above ground tanks in North Kansas City that are over a thousand gallons? Yes. Why? They were there pre-code. Okay. Yeah. Great. Okay. Excellent. Thanks. Good. Council member Safer. Uh one thing that that does sort of bother me is leakage. And underground leakage seems to be harder to detect than above ground and that seems to be a safety factor. Can you address that in some way?

So for underground tanks? Yeah. Yes. And um we have seen plenty examples like this before. Um if for underground tanks there is always a concern. Uh there are however as technology involved there are mechanisms you can put a monitoring system but again anything in front of your eyes or not in front of your eyes it's a different story. So definitely this is a a good topic.

But in terms of balancing these things out, it seems like above ground would be one easier detection and maybe greater protection for a source water. Is that is that true or not? That I cannot jump into the judgment call. I feel like you just dug a hole for me to I have to consider for water protection. It does evolve. um some of that is the capacity and regarding to the distance between the buffering from the aquifer and where they're generally located. So there are more factors. Okay,

I could not give you a simple yes or no answer. It might look very easy this way. Um but I would just generally say for above ground tanks it is easier for you to identify the leakage and spillovers and especially if we were to condition um that an annual operational permit is required by the um fire department and the department for above ground for inspection. I feel like this is probably a better start. Council member Bailey.

And I'm gonna jump in on that comment just a little bit. Just uh I had the opportunity to talk to calling back to Rich Gro's presentation. We have OCE is um world headquarters is here and they have a large component of their business focuses on tanks. Um me and Anthony got to go visit them here recently. So it was an easy call back to go, hey, what do you guys think about some of this? um in talking to their director of environmental I he like you every there's always considering factors but his general statement was yes it's easier to kind of observe failure in above ground so that that to me is a reason why I'm not hung up on the thousand or the thousand-galon limitation so I would be in favor of looking at that I do appreciate the wanting to draw lines surround our um water source I think That's really important. I appreciate the additional, you know, one requiring some level of um stop it, you know, either using doublewalled technology or some other sort of embankment to prevent spilling. And I also really appreciate your comment in the notes about wanting if a fuel tank becomes idle and is no longer used that it needs to be removed by the person with it. So, I think those are all good protections that you've kind of laid around it, but I would be okay with opening the size All right. Uh, Council Member Alvarez.

Yeah, I just have another couple questions. Um, an above tank. Um, I think it's more exposed to the elements of the weather, like the heat exposure. Um, sitting above ground. Also, uh, I had looked up some information on it. uh like traffic um say wherever it's located if it's near where there's a high rate of traffic if something would to hit that you know tank above ground then you could have it would be a big disaster um from what I understand this location it would be near railroad tracks is that a concern of you know the railroad tracks or that traffic flow near a tank

I say railroad tracks. They have a couple of huge above ground tanks just south of here themselves. Yeah.

Um however, it is definitely a legit point. So likely there will be you didn't see that embedded in the memo yet. That's because we want to get a direction first. But if you want a staff to pursue it, likely you will see a condition over there that will set up where generally these tanks shall be located. I would say typically it has to be at the rear. So aesthetically from a zoning perspective, it's not exposed to generally the public view over there. It is really to support the functionality of the business itself. And then how far that needs to separate be separated from the major highways like Burlington itself. So we're getting away from the consideration of a truck hitting it and likely there will be requirement about ballards and to what certain degree of ballards they shall do for these above ground tanks over there. So, we're trying to prevent the, you know, anybody run into these and explode. And then for the tank itself, um, for weather resistant component, um, I can leave that heating component maybe to our fire chief and maybe they have more experience about what is the what does the weather impact look like for above ground versus underground in this particular case. But I just want to say one thing for underground sometime the weather is not just it does its own harshness on for the above ground. There could be a component for underground as well particularly for corrosions like when you have fluctuated temperature and uh humidity of and also depends on the soil type itself. It could actually have a harsh component for underground as well. So for that above ground weather issue, I will leave that to Dan. Maybe he can chime in.

Um the only thing I can comment on is that in 33 years, I've never been on a call that had a a leak in one of these above ground tanks. So knock on wood. But I mean, that's all I can say as far as uh my experience with it. Uh do they they're built doublewalled. They're very tough. Uh, you know, and as the councilman said, uh, leak detection is above ground is easier. Uh, access is easier. Typically, you know, as long as they're contained, they have their containers, which all of them do now. You know, back when 33 years ago when I started, we didn't have containment and everything. So, it was an issue. uh today we make them build the containment to withhold any kind of leaks any kind of stuff like that. So, you know, my two cents, the environment part of it, it's contained. Um, and, uh, you know, as far as we're concerned, above ground, below ground, as far as the fire department, we they just put that number on there, 1,00 back, I don't know, I think it was about 15 years ago,

and I don't I couldn't tell you why. Okay. So, all right. It sounds like we're kind of trending in the direction of a code amendment um to increase the size of um above ground tanks. Do we have a number uh in mind? Are we talking 10, 15, 20? Uh we got a 12,000 request sitting here. Is that too big for a reason or or another? How big are the railroad tanks that we currently have that have never had an issue? They're massive. Massive. Define massive. 30 40 30,000. So could we put a bound of 20,000 on above ground tanks knowing that we're going to put a lot of other conditions around this?

I would not recommend anything above 12,000 because there is a manufacturer component and there is a reason for 12,000 gall. Okay, I mentioned it earlier. Um, it's not saying that you cannot do above 12,000, but I think 12,000 is from my knowledge that's probably something I would recommend. Manufacturer specs. I would believe my fire marshall also expressed to me that 12,000 was what he was he he liked that number too.

Anthony, I'm just going to preface this. I have no idea, you know, what what's better, what, you know, I'm not and I'm not an above ground nor below ground tech expert. I do want to say that I do think I have knowledge of in the early 90s, maybe around the flood that there had been a 93 that there had been a above ground tank spill in the PO industrial district that caused issues, but I do not know the details. But yeah, in 93 that could have easily happened when the water table came up. We had water coming out of the ground down in down in the P. So, you know, below ground tanks were at risk there as well. Below ground tanks were also at risk at the same time.

Just want to add that in for one thing I have come across before. I love the disclaimer though. I'm going to start most of the statements going forward. I'm going to say I have no idea. Not a tank. Not a take expert. I don't that the way it I just wanted to add that in. So, uh, if we wanted to pursue a a code amendment to allow up to 12,000 gallons above the, uh, above ground tanks, seems fire department would, uh, not be opposed. At least I'm No, we wouldn't be opposed. Uh, what would we need to to do, council? Is that what I'm hearing? I'm seeing nods. I'm seeing one wsece, couple shoulder shrugs. Do we need to take a a poll or a vote of any kind? general direction to bring back a a code amendment.

Does that need to run through planning commission? No, this is a fire code. It doesn't need to go to planning commission. Excellent. Okay. Uh can we how quickly can we get that turned around? Go ahead. Yep. Since I'll be the one that will end up drafting whatever you figure out. Perfect. Yeah. Uh the way I envision this and this is what I told their lawyer who's out of town and was unable to be here this evening.

Um I envision this that we have the same code that we do except we now allow for an exception. Okay. And it can be to a given amount and it will be based upon conditions that we as staff find out in the industry are the accepted standards for allowing above ground storage. tanks. In other words, there would be exceptions. And that way, it gives someone an opportunity to do something above ground, but they're not going to be all over the city. They're not going to be in certain areas. There'll be zoning restrictions. I'm sure there'll be a number of restrictions. And if you meet those requirements, which I have not yet thought through, and um just like the mayor said, I have no idea either what it's ultimately going to look like other than you have an ordinance. It's going to allow now where it doesn't allow for any exception. It will allow for an exception under certain given conditions that will have to be I think determined you know through professional guidance if you will by how do other places do this.

Okay. So not as simple as striking 1,000 and making it 12,000 or filling in the blank in a different way.

It's not that simple because I don't know that you necessarily want to do that. Okay. I think what you want to do is provide for an exception. Okay? And um and and that at least gives somebody the opportunity. I can meet these conditions and therefore and don't worry, we've already gotten directions on one thing. It won't be above 12,000 gallons. Okay? But other than that, I think you ought to let staff determine through their research, etc. existing codes that may be available to help guide us. So, it is going to be safe. It is going to meet the requirements of of of uh the city that it would want, but at the same time, it will let businesses do things.

It seems to, if I recall, how we put the source water protection uh together at a certain level, as council member Kaine mentioned, there's 1320 and then there's a 12,000. What was the other number? 10,000. Different levels. There's other regulatory bodies that get their hands in the cookie jar and start saying you got to do all these other things as well. Source water, we just said well do what they said and then you should be okay. If I remember that's kind of simplistic. This one will not be like that.

Okay. And generally because there are different document referring different gallons over there for EPA there are different criterias from their perspective and from the national fire protection agency that's the in the um NPFA 30 and 3A that's particular for um motor vehicle fuel stations they have their own standard as well. So there are different and this is from our very initial research and again we would not bring this in front of you if we haven't done any research. Um so there are different numbers out there for different reasons over there and that will probably lead to the uh question to the answer for answering the question earlier one could we bring this back if we get the direction from you all to looking at a code amendment and I want to say I definitely echo what uh Mr. Barzee mentioned this is probably what we anticipate to be more of an exception when only when they meet a list of requirements over there. So it's not a generally striking the code or allowing or arbitrarily changing the number from 1,000 to 12,000 just because of a single request over there. So, um, for that from that perspective, the staff does need some time to make sure we bring up a thoughtful, uh, recommendation after we've done some research. I would like to bring it back to the next city council meeting, but please don't hold me accountable on that one.

Okay, that'll be the generally accepted goal is next council meeting. Um, and you know, I understand the exception nature of what you're proposing. I would love to see the language that comes forth. Um, I just don't want that list to be too ownorous. Uh, safety being primary, uh, and hearing from fire that it's not necessarily safety risk at this point. Just making I generally I want to make it easy to work within our code. And I think that's uh that would be my directive on it. So shooting for a 12,000 max and a list of requirements along the way. Council Rare,

I was just going to comment that I would be a lot more comfortable with um having an exception u rather than just changing the code because I do think that that would open it up for more businesses to start putting other tanks or bigger tanks above ground. So if it's limited to u an exception and then following up with staff and their recommendations, I would be a lot more comfortable with that rather than just completely open it up if that makes sense.

I mean, we've through the discussion, it's it's been kind of brought out that it's not any more or less safe or more or less risk to the environment. So I'm I'm really not seeing the need for all the extra overlay and the exception process. Um, but I'm interested to see what staff is going to come up with and then work through that. Go ahead.

I agree with Councilman Alvarez. I I I know I know what you're telling me. I know you're telling me these things are safe. These things are not an issue, but you know, we're going to have trucks pulling up next to them and it's above ground and you know, there's truck and tank and boom. And I I don't I there are people who could be watching this or out in the community that might hear these questions and hear, you know, have questions about it. And just because it's a true statement doesn't mean it's a comfortable one. Doesn't mean people are okay with it. So, um I not that I'm saying we can't do it in this case, but I do like the idea of an exception rather than a blanket rule. like if our if our rule is a thousand, unless you can come make a compelling case that meets these requirements, um I I think that is a lot more comfortable for me as a as a council person and as a resident to accept. Um but again, if you want to if if everyone else wants you to bring a code amendment, I'm happy to hear it, but I don't know that I would approve it. This this would be a code amendment just so you I mean to make sure that that you follow the exception

if they want to bring the rule is the limit is 12,000 as opposed to the rule is the limit is a th00and but if you have a compelling reason we will give you an exception. I I'm more comfortable with that. That's what it is now. If if conditions are met then they could go above the a thousand but they have to meet all those conditions. As far as I don't think we need to change anything. So listing like we would have a specific list of exceptions. We don't have that now. Right now it's kind of you can do a thousand or you can try an AMR but that's a pretty murky process. This would line out the process for the exception.

In certain cases it an allowance um would exist to to go above a thousand if all these conditions were met. All the boxes were checked and right safety everything. Okay. Um, yeah, I see some head nods. All right, there you go. Work cut out. Is that clear? Any additional direction? Nope. Thank you for the work. And okay, hopefully I'll bring back the first meeting in April.

I uh I have one other like random question on this one. So, I I I was reading item one on the denial, the storage of flammable combustible liquids in above ground tanks outside of buildings with a capacity of more than 1,000 gallons. Outside of buildings, you put a 12,000gallon tank and just pl a building on top of it. I mean, is that a thing you could do to meet the code? No. Generally, people would not do build a building for Yeah. Just to have a tank of just out of curiosity, like is that a thing like you build a metal building around it and have a spigot on the outside? There's requirement about building for indoor tanks.

I gotcha. So, that's a separate piece of the code. Very good. Um, okay. Does anybody have any further comments or questions? We'll take a look at that code amendment as it comes back. Do we need a motion on this or anything? Or is it just just just discussion? Okay. Does anybody have questions for the reps from CNC? They're here as well. Council member Bailey. Diesel or gasoline? Just sir. Diesel is the answer from the back. All right. Uh, okay. Moving on to item number 14. Discussion of rental pricing for Max 169 outdoor TD.

All right, I will take this one. Um, we have been approached by some businesses who are interested in potentially using andor renting the Max 169 screen. If people are not aware of what that is, this is a screen that uh the city and the parks department partnered up to purchase. Uh, a little over $100,000. We purchased it. Uh the initial reason was for World Cup but we're also going to be using it for parks programs program movies in the park. Um and we have rented it to a few entities I think how many now? Five. Five entities at $5,000 each during the World Cup which leaves a number of games unspoken for during the time frame. My general feel is I would like to see this TV screen used as often as is possible. Um there's there's a rare opportunity to capture large groups of people uh get some revenue, some tax revenue, benefit our businesses, but then comes the question of fairness and how do we price it? So, we've got people renting it currently, other cities and other entities that are public entities uh for $5,000 a pop. Are we interested as a council in exploring a different pricing model for local businesses for games that have not been claimed? Council member Saver.

Uh, I'd be interested in how we came to that 5,000 number picked out of the sky. I believe it was recommended by the screen operators. We never really did. It was it was during the budget process. um I think is when it was brought up and then um it was kind of thought that okay um when when council was still considering whether or not to to um approve the purchase of the screen or even through the budgeting process the amount was brought up 3500 to five but five was kind of thrown out as okay yes if we can get our money back and

yeah that and I remember that discussion I don't know which meeting it was there was probably five or six different times we talked about the screen so that one was one of the Yeah. Okay. That was one of the times we talked about it. U we talked about it through budget and a number of other reason. I remember bringing that up as a potential payback method. Um but yeah, 5,000 is the number that has been put out and grabbed on to by public entities. Um do you have another Well, in terms of, you know, fairness to the city and to the renting agencies, where did that 5,000 come from? It was recommended by the people who produce the screen as what they rent other models out for. All right.

The the company that manufactures it says that their market rate is anywhere between 3500 and 5,000. Council member Mcgone.

So I I like 5,000. I like that uh more than 3500. I I and not not from a from any kind of like wanting to collect money perspective, but because Parks has to send an employee out with them. They have to be trained. They are responsible for making sure that the screen is safe. The screen and uh the events require insurance. Um and every time we use the screen, the useful life of it deteriorates. And so it's not like we don't want to send it out there and try to get as much as we can for it, but I think we want to be mindful of how often we are sending it out there so that we had so that we as a city can use it as long as we want to use it as well. So, I think that a $5,000 limit is a pretty good amount of money to cover all of the expenses that are related to that screen.

Do we have um what it costs us to operate? Do we have that number staff time plus gasoline for the generator? And do we do we have any arms around what it might cost? So, that's actually something that Victoria and I have chatted about quite a bit. We take delivery in April.

Yep. We have been told that it will take anywhere between 5 and 8 hours to charge the battery and it really depends on which charger you're using. It can go up to 12 hours to charge. Again, it depends on very much like an electric vehicle. There are different types of plugs, different types. So, one of the things that we don't have an arm around is exactly how long it will take, how long it would take a staff member to set it up because again, we don't physically have it just yet. So, I I recognize that we're we're putting you guys at an awkward position of how much do we charge? And the natural question is, well, how long does it take staff to do all the things? And we're like, that's a great question because we don't have it quite yet. Um, what like I said, what we do know is we are being told by the vendor 5 to 12 hours to charge. Meaning that if it was out in location and it's brought all the way down to zero, it would take upwards of 12 hours to charge it back up before it could be redeployed. Um, depending on the location, we're unsure how long it would take staff because it would it's also a 6,000 lb piece of machinery, right? So, not any vehicle can can pull this. You would need a a truck that's big enough to be able to pull a 6,000lb piece of machinery. Um, we don't know how long it would take to set up because we haven't had the opportunity yet um to to set it up.

So, a lot of unknowns. Do I my thought is I I want to see the screen activated during World Cup. I would love to see it out and about around town during this time, but anytime it leaves the building, it at very base minimum needs to cover the operating cost. It's an excellent point that it does as it's used. Now, I don't know the tech behind the screen, how much degradation happens each time it's deployed. Um, but I think this is again, it's a rare opportunity. it could benefit our local businesses at the cost like again base minimum covering the cost but we don't know what the market rental rate is for something like this because there's not really a market for it. Um so I I I I like I like I say I want to see it deployed. I don't want it to sit in storage during this opportunity. Go ahead.

Well there is a market for it because it's these kinds of things are being used not only around here but around the country. So there is some basis for it, but we don't really have a local basis. Correct. What bothers me and as you said, it's a it's a known unknown at this point. Right. How we can come to grips with that, I'm not sure except after we get possession of it, we can do some testing to come to that. So we may need to revise that figure at some point.

Yeah. My so my hope is that we could and this is something that is a very much a I'll disclaim it I have no idea um where if we can get our arms around what that cost is that base cost if there would be some way since we don't know what the local market is um if we could do some sort of an auction process for the games that would be available like we can mark down parks are going to be using it for this these cities have rented it for that this is our watch party and these are the five six games that are left could we put forth some way to allow local businesses to bid starting at our at our cost to deploy. Go ahead.

I think there's a constitutional amendment that deals with this and that is we can't give anything of value. So if you establish the fair market rental value as $5,000 or $3,500, that's what it goes for. You can't give it to the business as a private entity for less than what you've established or you're giving them an advantage that you cannot legally do with public funds. So when you say we've established because we've gotten at least one person to rent it for $5,000 that that Right. We have five, but

you can establish it to what you want the the the fair market rental value to be. If you want to establish it at 3500 or determine what your costs are and then you know add mark up 10% or something you know however you do it and then that's what it is that's what it would be for the other local governments that's what it would be for a business if you decide to allow businesses or whatever to use it. The question then becomes how do you fairly allocate? So, say we set our operating cost a,000. We decide to charge 2500 for it and and five businesses want it for the same game. How do we choose there? First come, first serve. Yes.

Okay. So, uh we get it in April. We can do the training and figure out the charging situation, get a number on what it costs. Um and then I guess what do we know when in April we're getting it yet? No. Okay. Let's uh let's go ahead and put a pin in an item on the second meeting in April to discuss this further. Um which won't give us a whole lot of time, but it'll give some time for the businesses to respond to what the rental rate could be. Thoughts?

Again, I think the the b the company has already told us that their rental costs are $3500 to $5,000. We don't know if that includes them having to get insurance, them having to send out staff time, them the staff having to potentially be paid overtime, the training costs for our staff. I And again, and I and I can do some research on this, but the degradation of those systems happens faster than you think. I don't want us to get into a situation where we've only we only get to use it for six to seven years because we've been loaning it out so much. And it it shouldn't be a revenue. I mean, if the idea is for it to be a revenue generator, then that's a different conversation. Do you guys want to just make as much money as we possibly can renting out a screen that's going to wear out before we as a city get to use it as much as we want? That's fine. We can have that discussion. But if we want to get the best value out of it for our residents and for our parks department and the people who have paid for this screen, then we need to consider the overall life of the screen and what every use does to that screen. So part of the calculus, at least in my head, is not necessarily like maximizing revenue, but it's also a benefit to people who live here if they can go watch the game on a giant screen at name your local business who has selected to rent it and they put it up in their parking lot on their patio and they can and the people who live here can go. It benefits it also generates tax room. It's it's a lot of different benefits to it, but point point well taken. Go ahead.

Yeah. Well, we're talking far beyond this summer for the usage. Sure. And we can't focus on that. That's why that was the impetus for getting it, but it's going to be around and we have to f and we have to realize that and we're talking not just the next six months, but maybe the next six years and depending on its life and repairability, it could be 10 years. Sure. So that's the kind of perspective we need to take.

Council member Clay. Uh, I think just another thing to focus on and something else that's important is just how quickly can we pay it off as another goal. And hopefully we can pay it off and then use it for another 10 years. But if we're able to pay it off really quickly because it's getting used so often and it's beneficial to the businesses and community, then we buy another one because we now have proof that we can um, and that people want it and people will use it. So I think focusing on paying it back too is important. Council Alvarez.

I would agree that if the recommendation from the vendor was 5,000 to stick with that um I think after the first year if if the usage or the demand for it wasn't as much then maybe consider dropping the price a little bit. But while it's still new it is our purchase. It does belong to us. So, I would hate to see it that way. We could also see how much of a deterioration we got from renting it out so much or moving it around a lot. We could see how that would affect it. So to to put a point on that one, if if we're saying the rate is 5,000, um are we okay with it generating nothing and sitting in a garage during what might be one of the best opportunities that we have to get people renting it?

So question. So it do you have a number in mind? I don't. No, that's why I said let let's find out what our base number is once we have the screen and can train and see how long it takes to tow setup, staff time, training, all of that and then add something on top of it. Yeah, that I'd be okay with no idea because it's I mean obviously it's worth $5,000 because we have people who are willing to pay that. Um but if we don't know the actual cost of it, then we need to to figure that out.

Yeah. And it's tricky because rental rates fluctuate based on timing and and how much the event might generate and how many people are coming, excitement around it. Um, and who's pay I mean it's like wedding flowers cost one thing and flowers cost another. Um, so there's there's always flexibility in that. Um, okay. Any further thoughts on this one before we kind of hang it until the second meeting in April? All right. Very good. Item 15, consideration of an ordinance approving zoning text amendments regarding community and public service uses. Bill number 7972, ordinance number 9769. Shoot.

Yep. This request in front of you was forwarded by the planning commission as approval for a zoning code text amendment regarding community and public service uses particularly in section 17.12.020 020 and section 17.36.0110. Uh long story short, what this does is we're adding a category for uses that's in the use table. Basically distinguish the um public and civic uses based on the size and scale of it. We're creating a particular process for community and the public services that that is larger than two acres. what there that does is to make sure those type of particular projects will go through a conditional use permit process. Um in other words, they will go to public hearing by the planning commission and then come to city council for final approval. What this does is for these partic particular type of uses, could it be including like a park, public park, city hall, uh local regional um area detention centers? All these items will go through a land use perspective review and come to city council for a final decision. So this way we believe the um public welfare is being served and eyes being dotted on these particular projects. So with that I'm going to leave it to questions if you have any.

What questions do we have? This was recommended for approval by the planning commission. Go ahead. Um I had one question and I know this this was discussed at the at the planning commission meeting um but just to jog my memory uh the twoacre threshold how was that uh threshold reached?

It is already a threshold in our current zoning code. Yeah. So we again all these numbers are arbitrary but based on our experience and um professional background over there we believe two acres there are certain threshold that you could could not do for a certain scale and we believe for anything that has a regional impact likely they will be over two acres. Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion? Move to approve. Second is a first reading. Oh, sorry. First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed?

Motion passes. An ordinance amending section 17.02 I mean 12.02 and section 17.36.010 of the code of the city of North Kansas City, Missouri regarding community and public service uses. I move that bill number 7972 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9769. Second. Call the roll. Council member Selenus. Yes. Council member Click. Yes. Council member Saber. Yes. Council member Bailey. Yes. Council member Mcgro. Yes. Council member Kaine. Yes. Council member Alvarez.

Yes. an ordinance amending section 17.12.02 and section 17.36.010 of the code of the city of North Kansas City, Missouri regarding community and public service uses. Item 16, consideration of an ordinance approving a contract with Douglas S. Ham do for medical advisory services, bill number 7971, ordinance number 9768. Chief Williams, uh, Mayor and Council, before you tonight is the, uh, renewal of Dr. Ham from North Kansas City Hospital, his medical director contract. Uh, you guys have it in front of you. You have any questions?

We have a motion for first reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes. An ordinance adopting and approving a contract services agreement by and between the city of North Kansas City, Missouri, and Douglas SAM do for professional medical advisory services and related professional services for the city's emergency medical and ambulance services program. I move that bill number 7971 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9768. Second. Call the roll. Council member Selenas, yes. Council member Click, yes. Council member Saber,

yes. Council member Bailey, yes. Council member Mcgrron, Council Member Kaine, yes. Council member Alvarez, yes. An ordinance adopting and approving a contract services agreement by and between the city of North Kansas City, Missouri, and Douglas S. Ham do for professional medical advisory services and related professional services for the city's emergency medical and ambulance services program. All right. Item 17. Let's pay the bills. Consideration of an ordinance approving accounts due and payable by the city through March 13, 2026. Bill number 7974. Ordinance number 9771. Do we have a motion for a first reading?

First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes. An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due and payable by the city through March 13, 2026. I move that bill number 7974 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9771. Second. Call the role. Council member Selenas. Yes. Council member Click. Yes. Council member Saper. Yes. Council member Bailey. Yes. Council member Mcgrron. Yes. Council member Kaine. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Yes.

An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due payable by the city through March 13, 2026. Staff comments. All right. It is a department report uh that part of the month. Um Kim will have some comments. We'll let the departments go. I did want to point out that there's a new uh report in there. Capital projects uh budget report. Nick talked t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk about that a little bit during his time but that's something new we're trying to um go it'll get tweaked probably a little bit as we move forward but um wanted to point that out um so we'll go ahead and start with Shu on department reports

all right I have no comment on my report but I'll give a shout out to public works director's report it has been proved just so much all All right.

So, finally, I saw some colors. Um, anyway, I do want to have one add one item, not really for my report though, that for the safe streets for all staff actually had conducted a walk audit along with Blackwalk KC the past week and we have been notified um issues of 23rd and Gentry. So, I just want to make sure everybody is aware that part has not been included in the final report because it hasn't been completed yet, but you will see some items coming from that one as well. My turn. Yep. I haven't seen Anony's report, so I don't know how good it really is.

Um, I'll let you guys look at the report. Do you guys have any questions on it? Anything? Okay. I do want to mention I've got something to mention here. Uh, I want to thank everybody for their support uh over the last week. Uh, it's been a very trying time in the in the fire department. Uh, I learned before I got here, right before I got here tonight, we do have a date set for next Friday, March 27th. 11 to 1 will be the visitation. 1 to two will be the ceremony. Uh, it will be at Vineyard Church uh, up off of 435 and 169. Say the name of the vineyard church. Vineyard.

Okay. All right, that's it.

Nick, uh, good evening again. I just wanted to point your attention to, um, couple reports. One, uh, the capital improvement project report that we have. We anticipate updating that monthly and being a tremendous help when we get to the budget process um and are looking at um projects to consider and really looking at like capacity um on an annual basis. Um and then the second you'll probably see at the next meeting when we have our credit card report. Um we've been making tweaks to that so that you can see a little bit more background information on what those purchases are for versus just showing the uh vendor. So, um, with any of those things, if you have suggestions or anything that you want to see and haven't, uh, we're happy to look at those and amend as needed.

All right, Captain Colorful over here now. I didn't realize. Actually, I want to give a shout out to Sarah Shekels in our department, our administrative assistant, who made this report look this way, spent a lot of time on it. Um, the the the text of it is still um this updates on various projects. We have quite a few going on. I don't want to linger too long on any one of them particular this month, but if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.

I also am in awe of Anony's report and have absolutely nothing of value to add at this point, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I will say just it's not it wasn't planned but if you just took take a look at the did you know we talk about fraud and some of the the things that we see and deal with on a daily basis and up to and including cryptocurrency. I believe council member Kane's going to bring bring something up in his comments tonight uh to uh coincide with that. Not planned but it is something that we need to make sure we're paying attention to.

All right. Again, I don't know if I can be as exciting as Anthony tonight. However, we have we are working together on the um KC 2026 park and ride um just to bring the council up to speed on that. We did meet with KC 2026. They are actually meeting with FIFA officials this week and we do hope to have an on-site with uh KC 2026 next week to try to get an understanding of some of the pedestrian improvements that might need to be addressed within that area of the park and ride. We still don't have hours of operation. It has not been um announced yet of when that park and ride will actually be in operation and actually operate as a reverse park and ride. So, kind of one of the fun things that we are getting an understanding of is that that park and ride will actually bring people to North Kansas City for them to kind of have a day trip here and actually explore some of the food and bev average u food and bev businesses we have in our area. And then one more quick FIFA thing is we have our broadcast license. We have been gi u notified that we have our license for our July 11th date. So that is for us very exciting because up until did you have

did did we have to pay anything for that thousand dollars. Okay. Yes. Thanks.

Um I do believe we were one of the first in the metro to receive the license. So one of the questions that we did have was how much is the honor of being able to broadcast the game. Um so it was $1,000 which is honestly less than we had anticipated. So we were very excited about that. um River Forest Park. Just a quick um update on that. We have actually received all of our grant funding into the city's um coffer. So, all $1.25 million of that grant is actually been transmitted over to the city. We still have some grant reporting to be done with that as part of our um agreement with the state of Missouri, but I am excited to report that that is um been transacted and we have kind of a an understanding that it will be open to the public river forest park uh in early June. It will not be completed just yet. It'll be substantially complete with plantings coming in in the fall. Um, civic canvas is something that the Tim Cromit Foundation committee is working on. It is a public art wraps along Armor Road and down 18th Avenue. Applications are due this Friday. And we have scheduled the art dedication and walk for Saturday, May 16th at 10:00 a.m. More information on that is coming. Um, and then just a quick reminder that the candidate forum will be Tuesday in this very room at 6 PM and we hope to see all the candidates who are on the April ballot here. Um, North Kansas City High School students will be the ones asking the questions and if you would like to submit questions, uh, we are happy to have those at citync.org and those questions will be given to the students and hopefully they'll be able to work all of them in. Further staff comments. Tom, you got anything for us? No.

All right. Uh, I do have one question before we move on from staff uh section. February YMCA summary report. Uh, we're up over $12,000 a month now. Um, have we pulled usage data yet? Um, no. Okay. I mean, other than the last time we did it, so I'll I'll get with them and I'd be interested to see where we're at on that. Okay. All right. Council member comments starting with council member Selenus.

Uh just want to say thank you to Rich and Rita that came out and of course Lindsay for her addressing her concerns. Um you know we got the right guy on board now look after that. Um Nick and your team rock on. Um, I just want to also say shout out to the staff and volunteers for another successful snake parade and mother nature for a beautiful day. And don't remember to I mean remember to vote on April the 7th. Council member Click, don't remember.

Don't remember to vote. Um, I will second. Thanks everybody for coming out um and making their comments. Again, condolences to the fire department. Um, and just want to give an extra big thanks for um, your participation in the Snake Saturday um, celebration. I uh, I'm sure that was bittersweet. Um, but it truly wouldn't be what it is without the fire department. Um, and police department as well. It would be impossible. And I know my kid especially loves all the fire trucks and the pancakes and everything. So, um, special thank you um, for that. um vote. Second that. Uh oh, and Monday is the community dinner. Um Monday the 24th, 23rd. Um the community dinner. So that'll be very fun at the North K City High School. Are there still tickets available?

Yep. Registration closes on the 20th. Um I don't know how strict we're going to be on that. So if you haven't registered, we're going to order a little extra, so come on out. Okay. Nothing like food to bring people together. Um, I think that's it. Thanks, Council Member Saver.

Uh, double down on the community dinner. Please come out, take part. It's It's something new and different, and it's part of the building community. I want to see that happen. We have a community, but we can always make it better. Second, I'd like to say uh I really like the capital projects report. It's a it's getting needed because we're going to have some big capital projects coming up in the next few years and we need to really get a good handle on that and get a consistent regular reporting schedule. So, thank you for putting that together. Council member Bailey.

Uh first, Yvon, thank you for uh becoming the the new bill caller. We appreciate it. um representing W four. There we go. Um want to make a special announcement here for one of our city staff members. Uh Kim Nagodoto recently was honored as one of 250 national city employees um both city and like multiple forms of government uh for the local gov 250. So many of her peers are in that group. We only had seven in Missouri and we have one right here in the city of North Kansas City. So, congratulations again.

Council member Grown.

Um, so, uh, Gavon reminded me a moment ago when she said to vote that and so I'm going to mention something right now. Our national senators and congress people are discussing something called the Save Act, which would require a proof of citizenship when you vote. Uh that means that uh you need to either present a passport or your picture ID with a birth certificate that matches the name on your picture ID. Your real ID that you got in Missouri is not enough. If this passes, even though you had to prove your citizenship when you went to get the real ID, that will not count to vote. You have to have a birth certificate with a picture ID that matches the name or a passport. For a lot of us women who are married and have different names than what's on our birth certificates, that also means we need to have our marriage certificate from wherever we were married at. Um, which for me is Las Vegas. So, we get we have to send away for that. Um, we don't know if this is going to pass or not, but because it takes a while for some people to get these documents. If you want, if it does pass and you want to vote in November, make sure that you either have a passport or you have a picture ID and a birth certificate that matches the name on that. And if you're a woman who has changed her name, you have your marriage certificate. Do all of this in advance because those things take months sometimes to get and to find. they cost money to get and to find. And again, your real ID that you get in the state of Missouri will not work if this act passes. So, um, with that said, um, I also want to say way to go everybody for a wonderful Snake Saturday parade. It was absolutely gorgeous. Loved every second of it. Um, and I hope to God that we get that same weather year after year after year. So, here we go. All right. Thanks.

Um, I'll add one note to what you said there. Thank you for all that information about the um the SA whatever they heck they call it. Um write your representatives, call them, reach out to them and tell them how you feel about that as well. I'm not going to tell you how to feel, but let them know. Council member Kane.

Uh thank you. Um first I want to thank folks that came out for public comment today. Uh Rita, Rich, Lindsay. Uh thank you to Lindsay too for uh pointing out the concerns on 23rd and Gentry. Uh that's obviously very important to look into. Um, I wanted to call out some, uh, events going on, uh, soon. Uh, so Monday, March 21st, uh, Urban Hikes KC is teaming up with the North Kansas City Historical Society uh, for an urban hike of North Kansas City. Uh, that's going to be at Saturday, right?

Oh, yes. Saturday. Okay. Hey, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Um, for a hike of North Kansas City, uh, combining a look of our past with the sites of today. Um the following Saturday, March 28th, uh the NKCVPAC is hosting a walk audit of North Kansas City's second ward. Um so that will be from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Uh also, uh Saturday, March 28th, uh between 9 and 11:00 a.m. Feel free to swing by the little store on Knox. Uh Linda and I are going to be having coffee, so feel free to come chat with us, even if you don't live in Ward 3, uh and say hello. Um, so I wanted to kind of use part of my time for council comments to dive into a quick topic. Um, I've approached the city administrator, city councelor on this and had a chance to speak with the police department a little bit uh about this topic. Um, so it concerns cryptoat scams. Uh for folks that aren't aware, uh the Klay County Prosecutor's Office has been putting out warnings about the rising levels of crypto ATM scams uh in the county. Uh basically scammers are calling members of the public, impersonating members of the Klay County Sheriff's Department and alleging that they have missed jury duty and that there's a warrant out for their arrest. Um, victims are then directed to virtual currency kiosks or crypto ATMs as they're sometimes called. Um, which look very similar to regular ATMs, but they allow for the buying and selling of cryptocurrency using cash or card. Uh, and for funds to be sent to digital cryptocurrency wallets. Um, so this is a growing trend across the country as well as locally. Um KCUR reporting um has noted that there's about 156 Klay County residents that uh have been victims of these kinds of scams and they've lost about $3 million uh with those funds being virtually impossible to recover once they are lost. Um and those figures were actually from last December. So it

could be higher than that at this point. Um the prosecutor's office is basically putting up signage on or adjacent to these kiosks uh as a preventative measure, but uh municipalities are looking into ways to kind of get ahead of this issue. Um in some cases it's in response to residents who have lost a lot of money as a result of these scams. Uh Gladstone is one of them. Uh last week they passed an ordinance. It was last Monday that basically required signage warning about the signs of these scams. um common things to look out for. Um but also requiring registration of these kiosks in the city. Um it's a way that you know the police department can know where they're located. Um and it's just an additional check. There is a finding mechanism in that ordinance as well. Um some municipalities and even even some states, I believe Indiana is actually now fully banned um these uh virtual currency kiosks. Um, uh, Chief Freeman, I know you sent me, uh, an ordinance, uh, that was for, uh, Washington, was it somewhere in Washington State, Spokane. Um, and then there's some other cities as well. Uh, Still Water, Minnesota is another example. Uh, I believe Minneapolis has floated the idea. Um, so I had some questions about this last week. Looked around. There is one virtual currency kiosk in North Kansas City. Uh, I found it. It was elusive, but I did find it. Um so um you know it is it is here. Um I think other surrounding cities have upwards of like you know nine I believe Gladstone had nine. Uh there are about 60 in the county. Um so it is an existing issue. Uh residents have lost you know hundreds of thousands of dollars to these things. Um but um I went ahead and and you know communicated with the uh the city administrator and uh Mr. Barzy uh a little bit about this issue just to kind of see if there was some uh research we could do on our end. Uh it it turns out Chief Freeman and the

police department have already been doing some of their own research. Um but it sounded like it would be helpful to kind of open this up to council opinion and take the temperature on it. So that's kind of when I wanted to gauge the temperature on.

All right. Thank you for all of the information and the and doing the ground work and the deep dive on that. Um, this is, as you brought it to our attention, uh, starting to become a really large issue. $3 million as of December is is certainly jarring. Um, do we have the authority to ban these? I would be in favor of an outright ban, right? Right away. Like, I don't see why any reason to have them as long as we're as a third class city allowed to do such a thing. Heck, I if you know, if someone gave me a million dollars worth of cryptocurrency or whatever, I'd have no idea what to even do with it. Okay. You are the target of these.

But I'm um all I know is what Warren Buffett said about it. That was good enough for me. Um I think um you know the police have already done some research on it obviously. Um you know I think this is going to be good timing. I just happen to be about three weeks from right now I'll be in at a international municipal lawyers annual meeting and uh I'm sure that this will be a topic and uh I'll get some additional ideas that way on what they think we can do and how far we can go with things. Um, you know, we are restricted. Everybody remember this, how a third class city works, okay? And that is we can do anything the state tells us we're allowed to do or any reasonable extension thereof, okay? Which sometimes narrows it down. Cities that are, you know, that that have a charter form of government, it's kind of the opposite. They can do anything. their charter says they can do except what the state tells them they cannot do. And so sometimes you know what we can do. Now of course Gladstone is is not a charter. They're also a thirdass city. They just have a different type of thirdass city than we do.

So they pass an ordinance that requires signage. I would like to go much further than that. And that's why that's why I was hesitant to answer, you know, just to flat out ban them. I don't know, but I'll certainly get the answer. Okay. Further council thoughts or comments on this. I I'm not in favor of banning them wholesale. They're just like an ATM. Um certainly protections are reasonable, but what's the difference between this and an ATM other than you can hit a crypto wallet? What's the difference between a crypto terminal and ATM? I mean, isn't crypto's completely unregulated? Am I correct in saying

there are some basic tax regulations on crypto, but you can walk up to these terminals and send money to a crypto wallet. You can't do that in an ATM. I can't send you money from an ATM. I would have to pull that money out and hand it to you. But being able to send it untraced and unreoverable, I don't think a sign goes far enough to say like, "Hey, you're being possibly being scammed." Um, I think because of the com pretty much complete lack of regulation, I would probably side with closer to Jesse. Any further thoughts?

So, uh, I'm seeing head nods around. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Who is in favor of simply putting signs? Okay. Uh, and who is in favor of an outright ban if we can do it? Yeah, leaning in that direction and if we cannot at a bare minimum copying what Gladstone has done and because and I like you said Zach Thompson the prosecutor they're they're on this they're working on it already. So correct correct okay very good council member Alvarez.

Yeah, just couple things. I just want to thank Rita Pierce for coming out and giving us an update um on her financial uh amount that she has on the Northland assistance. Um also want to thank uh Richard Groves for I had no idea we had that many businesses that actually their headquarters was located in North Kansas City for such a small city. That's that's a lot of headquarters here. And so um that was kind of interesting. I was not aware of that. I do want to thank uh Lindsay Harmon for coming out. She made a very good presentation on her concerns for the uh intersection and the parking issues at 23rd in Gentry. Um I do encourage people to come out and express their concerns because that's how we know about it. Um I think at the last council meeting somebody came out about the u 32nd Avenue, the street, the speeding and so that brought a lot of attention to that location. So, I want to encourage people to come out when they do have a concern because it does bring attention to it. Um, just want to thank I guess most of it's been covered. Um, thank Shu and her department again for all the information and all the work they did regarding the the tanks that they want to have come in. Um, also remind everybody, um, I think it's already been mentioned several times, but the North Kansas City supper at the high school on the 23rd and then the candidate form on the 24th. And think one last thing, uh, my condolences again to the fire department for losing one of their members. Um, sure that's that's been difficult. So, um, I think that's it.

All right, brings it back around to me. Uh, so I'm going to need council's opinion on something, a little help here because I have made a goof. Um, I have a big milestone birthday coming up and I have put down a deposit and sent out a whole bunch of invites. You've all gotten invites um for April the 8th. It's my actual 40th birthday. And uh when I was planning this, I checked that it was not on a Tuesday night because council is on Tuesday night, forgetting that uh the election is on Tuesday night. And we have passed an ordinance that then defers the council meeting to the the Wednesday following the election. That would land it firmly on a date I have locked down in my calendar. So the question becomes, we passed that ordinance and selected Wednesday because Monday is typically a court night. We don't have court that Monday on the 6th. Is council open to having that meeting on the 6th?

I can't come on Wednesday either. So Monday okay six. I see a grimace. Fair. All right. Maybe. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, majority seems okay. Tom's at guidance enough. So, the the process. Sure. Vote it. What would the motion need to be? Is it to cancel the meeting on the 8th and have a special meeting on the 6th? Okay, take

I move that North K City Council cancel our currently scheduled council meeting for April 8th and reschedule it for Monday, April 6th. Special meeting. Special meeting. Our special council meeting. We cancel our special council meeting on April 8th and move it to April 6th. Yeah, council the Oh, good lord. Yeah, I'll word it right. Thanks, Crystal. Okay. Uh, do we need to call the role? We just doing a yays and nays. Okay. Uh, all in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Who was the second? Second. Okay.

Okay. Uh, any opposed? Motion passes. There you go. Thank you, council, for that. Uh, and my apologies. Okay. Uh, moving on to Snake Saturday. Snake Saturday was phenomenal. uh everything in the leadup and the wrap-up. Uh everything from the hulie to the cookout, the stakes, the the money for charity there. I got to meet some of the folks who were cooking and raising money for some really heartfelt causes. Um some of them had lost children and were then helping for parents who are grieving the loss of children uh by cooking steaks and earning money for their charities. Uh really neat to meet those people. The parade was phenomenal. The weather was beautiful. Um the pancake breakfast was delicious as always. Great to to come to the firehouse. Um a lot of money raised for charity. Life Unlimited raised a lot of money. They've doubled their capacity on their runwalk. Um which Council Member Kaine I think won the runwalk. I'm not sure. Uh could be something something like that. Uh yeah, absolutely. Um just snake Saturday is amazing and and I love the party every year. Also, the safe streets for all open house was packed. Um, usually we're struggling to pull people in for these. So, all right, we're starting to see people show up and and add their voice to the the discussion. We had two sessions and they were both quite busy, which is incredible. Great job to the team getting that word out there. I hope we got a lot of good feedback.

What's Oh, well, I mean, snack snacks never hurt. Uh, okay. Upcoming events. We do have the community supper which a few people have mentioned. Monday the 23rd 5:45 p.m. at the high school. Uh make a plan to walk with your neighbors. The the neighbor the North Kansas City neighbors ad hoc committee is starting to post about this, making plans, making sure you're reaching out to your neighbors and bringing them with you. This is a time to build community. I say leave your phone at home and bring your appetite. Uh candidate form is the very next night. Very important to plug in. It will be broadcast on YouTube, I believe. Is that correct? It's going out on the YouTubes. Uh but come in, bring some questions, send some questions. The high schoolers do a phenomenal job. Get to know your candidates. And then don't forget to vote on 47 uh April 7th. And don't do like me and forget that there's an election that day. All right. And to the fire department, uh heartfelt uh condolences on the loss of Benwa Kusuman. Uh again, I'll reiterate service Friday 3:27 at Vineyard Church, 11 to 1 for visitation, 1 to 2 for service. Um and I'll also mention that if you are somebody who is dealing with mental health issues, talk to somebody, reach out, uh speak to somebody that this has touched uh my life in a number of ways this week. Uh it's been a lot of of things going on. So if you're struggling, reach out. There are people who want to talk to you. You are valuable. That wraps it up for me. We're going to move on to item 21.

Consideration of a request to hold in recess into an executive session as requested by the city administrator to be held on this date pursuant to Missouri revised statute section 610.0212 real estate matter and 610.0213 personnel matters. Real estate matter. Personnel matter. Personnel matter. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. Call the role. Council member Selenus, yes. Council member Click, yes. Council member Saber, yes. Council member Bailey, yes. Council member Mcgrron, yes. Council member Kaine, yes. Council member Alvarez, yes.

All right. At this time, the live stream and channel 2 will cut off. There will be no further votes or businesses this evening. Thank you for tuning in.