Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We call this meeting to order. Roll call, please. Council member Click is absent. Council member Saber here. Council member Bailey is out. Council member Mcgone here. Council member Kaine here. Council member Alvarez here. Council member Selenas here. All right. I now have the pledge of allegiance led by council member Saber. I pledge algiance to the flag of the standsy.

All right, moving on to the approval of the agenda. We're going to go ahead and remove item 18 from tonight's agenda. Then I'll take a motion or any further comments on the agenda. Take a motion. Move to approve. Second. And that was on the amended agenda. Yes. Got a motion and a who had the second. Okay. Motion a second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed?

Motion passes. All right. Comments from the public. If you are a member of the public wishing to speak, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and please limit your comment to five minutes. Good evening. Hello. Uh, good evening. My name is Michael Wells and I'm speaking tonight as a river forest resident. I'd like to take a few moments to bring a concern I have with the safety action plan. Um, but first I want to say how much I appreciate the work that's gone into it. Uh, road safety is an issue that I care deeply about. Um, I followed this plan since it was announced. I've attended open houses. I've contributed to the information gathering and um, I reviewed p uh, presentations by the consulting team and I know people on the consulting team and I think everybody uh, who is contributing to this are good people acting in good faith. So I appreciate all of that. Um, I especially appreciate that the plan prioritizes, you know, safety for all. I mean, that's kind of the driving force behind it. And it's not just one group. It's pedestrians, it's transit users, it's cyclists, and it's even motorists. So, um, also really appreciate that. And I thank everyone who's put work into the plan. And I also want to express gratitude that the Armor Road 210 corridor from Ozark Ozark to Shoto was given tier one safety priority. Um, I don't think any resident, regardless of where you live in North Kansas City, would uh dispute that conclusion. However, I also want to echo a point raised by my friend and neighbor Lindseay Harmon during the last council meeting that the plan's reliance on crash data and documented encounters with vulnerable road users like pedestrians, cyclists, and people who use mobility aids can lead to incomplete conclusions. I was disappointed to see Vernon Street, a state highway that literally divides

the River Forest neighborhood, designated as a tier three safety priority. Uh safety for vulnerable road users can be impacted by many factors over time. Uh use changes, signage becomes outdated, uh infrastructure needs fall behind. But in Riverforest, I think the issue is more fundamental. Most of our streets were laid out in the mid 1950s at the beginning of a long period when pedestrian safety and multimmodal transportation concerns weren't given um uh uh proper proper uh consideration. At the time, quick access to state highways uh was seen as an amenity. You know, uh promising quick commutes from your garage to downtown in just minutes. But I think over time we've learned a lot about how a highways can impact the neighborhoods that surround them. And so um I want to ask you to imagine that the only road leading out of your neighborhood is a highway that feeds into another highway that immediately feeds into an interstate highway. So that's the reality that River Forest residents deal with. And we have no alternative routes to get out of River Forest before Diamond Parkway. So, we have to deal with Vernon on a day-to-day basis. And as we prepare to open River Forest Park, what I believe is going to be a very special place that will be attractive to all North Kansas Cians, we'll probably see more pe people needing to deal with Vernon on a more consistent basis. And I think we'll see more residents that live west of the interstate that want to come over and maybe access the park without having to drive. And we also count NKC Health as a neighbor and making Vernon Street as safe as possible for anyone trying to access the hospital, I think, is a worthwhile goal. And so this is why I believe safety on Vernon is of critical

importance to all North Kansas cians. It may be true that there's limited crash data to back this up. Uh but I would suggest that that's not because it's a necessarily a safe place to be. It's because it was never designed to be used that way. And I think as a result, vulnerable road users try to avoid it if they can. But I also think there are near near-term improvements and easier asks to mod who of course controls the rideway in the in these kinds of situations. But I think things like strategically placed protected crossings, sidewalks at bus stops, and clearer lane striping uh could meaningfully improve safety while longer term solutions that would improve connectivity for all North Kansas cities are explored. So I don't think we can think of east west connectivity as just a river forest problem. It's something that affects all of us. We're too small of a town to think that way. I recently walked home from the library and I was surprised that it only took me about 15 minutes. So, not a big deal at all. Um, about the same amount of time it would take you if you walked from Park Lofts to the dog park or from Northgate to McLean's. And these are trips that seem very reasonable and very safe. Uh, but walking from to or from River Forest is not because of the safety obstacles that you encounter along the way. And so, I mentioned that I'm speaking as a River Forest resident and that is true. I do live in River Forest. Uh but you know, long time ago that neighborhood was called Hillside. Oh, and we're all North Kansas City, so that's where I was getting to. So,

thank you so much. No, very very well spoken. Um and and thank you for bringing that point to us. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to get your uh street elevated in the tier of priority is to come and talk to us about it. Um, and I know that there was also a walk audit done that you were part of, Council Member Kane was part of that highlighted some of those issues as well. That's also in our uh, understanding as we look at how to prioritize these things. So, thank you very much for bringing that forward. Further public comments. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Is item 18 about 18th Street or not?

Okay. Well, I want to talk a little bit about 18th Street. All right. I sent the mayor and my council people a letter regarding the proposed curb cuts and sidewalks on 18th Street between Hal and Erie. Uh I looked at it. I'm more concerned after I've had a conversation with Mr. Sams before the meeting that we're talking about putting a sidewalk on the north side of 18th Street and which will take out all the trees on that side of the street for the three four times a year. Is that what Huh?

South side. North side. Yeah, I'm looking at the map here. It's on the south. The point stands. There's there's trees there. you're going to take out those trees for probably maybe two, three times a year, you might use it. I want to see that tree cover kept uh besides all my other points that I brought up in the conversation. Thank you. Appreciate you. Further public comments going once. Right. Seeing none, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. We have a motion on the consent agenda. Move to approve. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes.

Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Regular agenda item 12. Update on Missouri River North Trail.

All right. And just to be clear on this one, this is informative. Uh so we're going to be listening and asking questions. There is no decision need to be made tonight. So with that, I'll kick it over to I guess Shu or Josh. Good evening, mayor and city council members. In front of you is um Josh Bam. He's actually the leading um team for both Kansas City, Missouri and North Kansas City, Riverside all together that conducted this tri city by county. Um there was a very long name before we landed on this name before. Um so he's here tonight uh to do the presentation. Any questions? Welcome.

Yeah, thank you everyone for having me. Um, this is the Missouri River Trail North plan. Uh, this is a feasibility study that we conducted beginning in late 2023 and concluding uh in spring of 2025 around April of of last year. Um, but uh it was a great effort funded by the Mid America Regional Council through their planning sustain sustainable places program. um Drew Wood alongside um folks from Riverside um Kansas City, Missouri and the Mid America Regional Council were all involved in the project management team and helping us make these decisions. So uh really quickly, this is just a a a study that looks at linking all of the great trails that exist within uh the Northland region. So, Northland has a ton of trails that were all built opportunistically, built in stream corridors and floodplane buyout areas and areas where uh the public sector had access to land. Um uh and all of the lowhanging fruit, the easy trails to build in the Northland have more or less been built. Um so we're left with these tough connecting pieces and this is what that study was really trying to help thread a needle through. You can see a a map of our project area here. We split it into four different zones because that was the only way we could really wrap our our head around this challenge. Um, and what I like to point out here is North Kansas City is really focused in zone B, C, and D. Um, so you're a big chunk of this study area. Um, you can see some of the existing trails in green on the map. There's a lot of trails that head north south following those streams headed toward the Missouri River. They come into the flat flood plane of North Kansas City. Um, and then there's really nothing connecting them. So that's again what the study is all about. Uh, biking and walking are a big part of all three cities comprehensive plans and major strategic plans. I don't I know you're going through a comprehensive plan update now, but um those things may uh change or they may may stay the same or be enhanced in in this update, but that was certainly what we were looking at in this plan. Um uh within the Northland, there are

around 106 miles of trails and protected bike facilities. There's 33 miles of trails and protect bike facilities within our immediate study area around 570 acres of parks within our immediate study area. And really part of this is about connecting to those trails and parks for recreational purposes, but it's also about using biking and walking as as connections to jobs and transportations. We know there are bike commuters that are out there. Commute trips are some of the hardest to replace uh to shift from cars to biking and walking, but um we know there are people out there. There are about 10,000 downtown Kansas City workers who live within a half a mile of trails in the Northlands. It's pretty impressive number actually if you think about it. Um so this connection matters. Additionally, only about one in three trips uh within our study area are five miles or shorter. So you might think that's a relatively short distance if you're on a an ebike for example. Um, and our our goal here was really not to design for the AVID cyclist, the person who's really comfortable biking in traffic, but um, we're really interested in designing for the people who are interested but maybe concerned about their safety. And so, uh, if we were selling ice cream, uh, and 51% of people said they liked chocolate ice cream, we'd design our ice cream to match chocolate ice cream. That would be the spec that we designed for. And that's what we're doing here. We're selling bike facilities and 51% of people say they're not comfortable biking in the street on pavement. We're trying to design facilities that are really for all ages and abilities. So, think, can my eight-year-old uh, you know, nephew bike on this facility? Can my 88-year-old grandmother bike on this facility? Um, that's that's really uh the target audience for these facility types. We did a lot of public engagement. We had three public meetings, one in each city, um, that were kind of facilitated during different stages of the study. Those were accompanied by three rounds of online surveys which got frankly a lot more traction and feedback. Um and then we had some targeted stakeholder meetings with MDOT the levy district and BNSF who are very important because they um sort of maintain these barriers. We

see them as barriers but they're actually very important infrastructure for uh as far as those entities are concerned. Then of course we had the core team meeting involved as well. Um and we developed together several trail alternatives. We've sketched on maps and worked together. Everybody has their own trail alignment. uh you find out when you work on these studies. Um and there are several that that we just really didn't evaluate or consider just because of pure engineering feasibility, but uh we had at least three options in each zone that we looked at. We're going to be focusing in on how we arrived at some decisions here. What I'll say about this is um there's nothing stopping you from building any of these. This is a plan that was really meant to be a resource and a helper for people trying to build these trail facilities, coordinating with other folks. But um you know we did some analysis and kind of helped to prioritize the ones that were most important. So we looked at sort of the feasibility and impacts of the on the negative side what what it would take to actually um to build some of these trails. You know cost being really the major concern with all of this. Um waters and wetlands are also uh you know um a major barrier in this particular area. Railroad and DOT rideway also important. But on the other side of the ledger, we cared about building a trail facility that is direct and convenient and safe for people. And so um and accesses important destinations. So that's what went into our screening analysis. You can see here kind of the sorts of things that we were looking at when we were talking about our feasibility. So things like topography, you can see how hilly the area just to the north of North Kansas City in the hillside levy is. You also see the flood flood plane constraints and the levy constraints sort of photographed here. And that all went into our scoring. Um, and this little subway map really shows you sort of the overview of that scoring. Scoring wasn't the only decision-making criteria. In fact, um, D2, uh, was our lowest scoring segment, and it's in our recommended segment, uh, path to move forward simply because of some other, um, kind of prevailing conditions with the alternative segment

in that area. And so, it's not just the score, it's also some logical decisions that we made with the project management team. Um, and I'll just talk really briefly here. zone um C and zone D. Um but but I think of importance here too is um a trail in zone B along 32nd Avenue, East 32nd Avenue. Um we're proposing a shared use path on the south side of that that would connect into um some other trail facility uh to the to the west of the study area. Um C1 is um the Howell Sheruce path. So that was really seen as our most direct connection into Armor and the other facilities. Um the idea there is a shared use path that is offset from Mack and Park or within Mack and Park depending on what what stakeholders want there. Uh but the goal there is to create a shared use path that goes north south. That was our highest scoring segment out of anything in the study just because it connects so many great things. Um high school among others. Um and so that that shows up in the study. And then within zone D, as we get further to the um east part of the study area here, um again, all of these trail uh segments are valid. D4 we really um that is privately owned by Oracle Cerner. And so we kind of lowered that as a priority. If in the future that changes or there's a redevelopment agreement and there's an opportunity to negotiate with Oracle, the owner of that site, um then that might be a good opportunity to rethink that connection. um in which case we might also you know think of its pair segment D3 rather than um you know segment D1 and D2. Segments D1 and D2 parallel a railroad corridor. There's some ambigu ambiguous right ofway there with BNSF um and a maintenance road that um I think the city asserts as its own um or as other public rightway. The railroad probably asserts it owns it. Um but um that is something that would be worked out in further negotiation with the railroad

and further design development later down the road. Um and then just to walk you through kind of the greater overall scheme of things here. This is starting at the Lang Creek Trail furthest to the east. Those green lines, those represent existing trails. Um and and you see three different options here. Um one connecting from on Riverway Boulevard and under Missouri Route 9 along Tison Road. This segment is actually being built. It's funded by the Mid America Regional Council through an application from um uh the city of Riverside. Um there was actually a fatality unfortunately uh involving a bicyclist on Tulles Road. Um they were overtaken by a motorist um uh early in the morning, likely a commuter. Um so young person uh was biking and and lost their life unfortunately in this area. So um just kind of underscores the importance of these off- streetet facilities to provide a safe alternative for folks. Um, here's a rendering showing uh the Line Creek Bridge crossing from the the casino. Um, I think it's Argusy Argus and Riverside. I almost said Harris. Sorry. We do connect casinos in the east and the west in in in this trail plan. So, this is uh the Lion Creek Bridge rendering. Um, this is our most complicated segment. Fortunately, it's all in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. Uh, and so they're the ones who would really have to address this alongside MODAT. is largely within MODOT right ofway. You'd be negotiating the ride ofway under US 169 uh connecting through Waterwell Park underneath a railroad underpass and then following Missouri Route 9 um to around 32nd Street where you'd make that crossing at a signalized intersection. You kind of see the intent of the design underneath the railroad spur as well as under US 169 sort of a photo sim. Um this actually I think has been done uh further north in uh I want to say it's the 152 trail did this um where they took sort of this existing uh rideway.

They didn't have to alter the structure. They just uh changed the underlying retaining wall and expanded that out. It's got crash protection from the guardrail and so it's a nice safe trail facility. Um so something like this would happen under um 169 uh at Route 9. Within zone C, like I mentioned, 32nd Avenue and Howell are two trail or two paths here. Um you can see a rendering of the intent of of the design there. So the idea is to separate biking and walking traffic there um at this particular location because we know there's a lot of both traffic. Um and that could be the the choice that's ultimately made here. That is again a decision that's completely up to the city of North Kansas City and uh the people who are designing it. And then zone D, you can kind of see the preferred route as well. Um connecting alongside that uh service road um uh following Riverboat Drive and then connecting up to show traffic. So that's our plan in a nutshell. Um I was trying to keep that to 10 minutes. Don't know how I did, but um if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. and all right your discussion.

Thank thank you very much. You nailed the 10 minutes like right on the nose. So very good. Um and thank you for the the study and for everything that's gone into this. Um just a couple of questions. Uh in the thing I was surprised to see that in section B, so the route that runs under the railroad bridge along nine versus the route that runs up on kind of the hillside around waterworks were the same rough price estimate. Yeah. Um seemingly like the getting under the railroad bridge seems like that just the giant undertaking but the preferred route because it's more flat. Yeah.

Um and that's all in KC Mo I believe. Have they participated? Have they expressed any interest in helping with the funding of such a a trail?

Yeah. So I think the so the city of Kansas City is uh undergoing its trails master plan update right now. So they're working on a a big trail update. At the time uh the director of water services was West Minder. this was sort of his pet project. He left during this project and so uh the city lost a champion there, but um the project really went from being a water services priority to being a public works priority and now it's in um in public works's hands and they're they're evaluating it. It's expensive, so it would probably have to be grant funded in part. Um but uh I think there there's certainly an interest in this. They know what a critical um location this is for the Northland. Ideally, a council champion takes it on and is able to find the local match for that funding and push it. Um,

is there somebody that we could reach out to, like if I made a phone call to like get some alignment between Northtown, obviously it connects Riverside, uh, if we could get a team together to say like, hey, this is important. Is there somebody we'd reach out to specifically? I can get that contact for you from a staff level. It would probably be Reagan Tokos in the multimotal division. Um and then um Luke Ranker and the planning department u would be the two staffers. This is Councilman Bunches and Councilman Reyes council district. So um both have an interest in this and I think at the political level, you know, they'd be who I might approach.

Okay, awesome. Thank you for that. Um second piece, uh county funding. I I I looked through the funding piece. It's like $9.7 million for that that section B connector. That's to me one of the more critical pieces. Like I ride the Northland a lot. I ride from northtown all the way up to Clay Plat Monasuri area and there's a great trail network. This is the gap. Um to get from Lion Creek down into North Kansas City along Linear and to see this built would be huge. Um has the county expressed any interest uh yet? I I don't know if is this or play until you get to close to the line? Yeah.

Okay. I can take that up with some of the commissioners and see what their level of interest is. Um, and then how it ties in to so if we if we bring it down along nine and then try to get to 32nd Avenue. You mentioned this is kind of just an informative. You picked out routes that are that make sense. Other than the renderings, is there any design specifics on how to get over to 32nd Avenue and then u for us as we've been considering the the transition from 32nd to Howell um that's become very tricky um just because of specifics of certain intersections the intersections of Holmes uh Howell and 32nd right there at the northwest corner of Macken.

Um have have did it get that deep in the study or is it kind of left to the entities? we just got to the alignment level there. So we didn't do specific intersection control design which you'd get to normally around 30% conceptual design and then kind of continue to advance that. Um so that wasn't a part of this study. Um what I would say is that there are some really good uh new uh design standards that have been adopted by ASHTO through the uh design for bike facilities that allow for protected intersections and for enhanced crossings especially at uncontrolled or unsalized locations uh that give uh an engineer sort of the official backing that they need to be able to make a decision using their judgment about safer and better control in different areas. And so when you get to the design phase on these projects, understand how all sort of there in that design phase, um the Ashtto guide for bike facilities is really going to be the guiding light there. And it gives a lot of flexibility, but also some really creative designs that are now sort of adopted by the uh state DOT official um you know, sort of guidance. Now, not every state has adopted that book yet, but it is the authoritative engineering guidance on it.

Sure. Um the last piece I'd ask is um this study was you said it was concluded in like April or spring of 25. Uh is that right? 25. Yes. 25. Given so given that timeline I don't know that the the giant apartment complex up the hill was in play at I mean it's probably in conceptual stage. Um they have also added a trail piece. Um would that tie into anything that was on here?

So I think it gets over contemplated. We had like um an initial plat from the city of Kansas City, Missouri that they uh provided us with and the goal was to um yeah actually encourage a connection I think at um uh would it be Holmes there? It goes from Holmes across to North Oak. Yeah. And yeah, then it kind of connects that North Oak trail which is a bit of an orphan.

There is an existing shared use path along North Oak that it could use and connect. So that segment B3 was sort of the alternate if we couldn't find a way to make B1 work. Um that has a ton of switchbacks. We actually talked about tying into the Brier Cliff um sort of trail system there. That trail system is not quite like the 10 foot wide bike path. It's more of a tight nature trail type thing. And that that takes Waterworks Park it looks like which is extremely steep. Extremely steep. It's not the it's it would be a very uh it' be a great workout but not necessarily the best commute. Okay. Thank you. Uh, council member Saber, uh, quick addition comes up to about 14 million for the whole project. And what dollars are those in? What year?

Those were in year of estimate dollars. So, we didn't inflate them up um, simply because um, uh, costs, construction costs especially have been increasing and kind of hard to predict. So, we So, the total project would well be north of 14. It would be, what I would say is we also included about a 30% design contingency. um just uh given where we were at in the project. So there's some um you know those numbers were sort of inflated and um meant to be you know kind of the best that we could get. Um but also they might there's some uncertainty in them so they might come down. They might also go up but we like to air on the side of being over

coming down is a fantasy it seems in in today's world. Yeah. And I think it also depends on who who bids it and how you ultimately scope the thing. Um, North Kansas City gets different prices than Kansas City for the same work. Further questions or comments? Go ahead.

Uh, yes. So, I just wanted to confirm as well. So, the five segments that are in North Kansas City, right? B1, C1 being Howl. C3 going underneath the highway, D1 jogging up toward Armor, right? And then D2, which would basically follow Birmingham Road, correct? And cross over all the way to Shoto. Um, so obviously the west side and the east side it seems like have the most like players involved really. Casey Mo on the on the west side, east side have a little bit more of that railroad kind of ambiguity as to what you know Birmingham really is. Um so it sounded like MDOT's uh consideration again just from the report was like about shoulder widths and things like that. Do you have any more you know uh from the MDOT side kind of you know what their concerns might be at this point?

Yes. So I think that we were engaged in MODOT with MDOT staff. they were very much you know focused on they're they usually review at kind of preliminary and conceptual plans not at um not at sort of this higher level planning level. So they were giving us guidance on what they would expect. They have what's called the engineering policy guide and it it tells us what we need to know about offset from you know a major highway like this it's high speed and what they would expect in s in terms of separation. So um I think um yeah their their biggest concern is um one anything on their ride ofway would have to be permitted and go through a process and be approved by them. Um if it's fedally funded, um it goes through a separate process. They help administer those federal funds and they've got a basically a project manager that helps you administer those funds. Um so they would be involved in one of two ways on any any facility there and they would get design approval um for anything that's there. Um then there would be a maintenance agreement. The city would likely be responsible for maintaining the trail portion of that. Um but um you know they've approved shared use path type facilities um in these locations. The biggest thing is going to be signal design and making sure that works with both operationally and from a safety perspective um that the crossing is safe. Uh and then being offset from uh any higher speed facilities. So uh the distance from uh you know route nine for example where speeds are quite high. There's currently a shared share the road sign right underneath that uh that bridge on route nine. Um but um yes, they would want a trail facility to be offset um a certain distance then and kind of um basically outside of the clear zone of of where a car would be expected to go.

And I'm sure that consideration is like especially present on like C3 underneath the interstate, right? So um or the east west connection plan, right? Was that about like a 16 foot uh shared use path or

Yes. and MODOT would stress that they they still had some unresolved comments about that plan. Um I think there's not there was not a a real push for that section of C3. Through this recent SS for a plan, we also contemplated a couple of intersection interchange redesigns that could potentially facilitate both. Sometimes it's easier to have a big project uh in that way and and make sure that path and pedestrian accommodations are are accommodated than it is to to sort of just build one mode at a time. So that might be a harder more challenging segment to build um from a feasibility perspective just because it is a very active and busy interchange with some truck movements that are a lot to accommodate. Um but there was a conceptual design and a study completed that that design took it to I think a much further level than what we were able to do with this larger section. Um and so um but MODOT I think would still have to get on board with sort of the final concept there.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um does any of this touch the levies?

It does. Um there and in fact there was a discussion about well could we just use the levies as the trail path? Um, ultimately those were not the most direct route to connection opportunities and there were some instances where the levey is shielded with rocks and when it's shielded with rocks, you don't want people falling on those rocks and hurting themselves. Uh, and so um, but the levy district wasn't closed off to it. Um, there are a couple of locations though in our preferred alignment that um, do use the leveies D3 and I think those C2 and C3 routes are all sort of touching the levy as well as B1. um they would not alter the levy, but they would be on levy property. So, they'd have to go through an Army Corps permitting process. Um so, there's a timeline for them to review that and that would be just a part of your environmental permitting and review stage. You could start that probably at 30% design, continue coordinating with them through a final design.

Okay. Yeah. I read in there in the levy district concerns wasn't surprising about the riprap piece that it's always the resounding concern. Yeah. which I believe is partially genuine, but Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's shielded on most of Macken Park. I think there's some some segments of it that have some rip. The hillside levy is largely just a grass hill. Yeah. Uh there's some rip wrap along the riverfront for sure, but there's less on the backside tieback levey, which could be a good route, but you're right, it misses a lot of the points of interest. And crossing 35 was kind of challenging, too. That there is a channel and and a covert that goes under there, but I I personally wouldn't want to bike there. I don't think many people would. Council member Saber,

uh, in going under 2935, you envision using tunnels to get under there? Not not uh, in this plan? No. That was that was brought up as a as a potential to cross. I think most bike riders would not or pedestrians would not be happy with that. I'm not sure what other solutions you can come up with here. I Yeah, I think we would. The intent was to use Armor 210 as the main crossing at that location. If you were to use the levy, crossing at I35 and I29 would be, you know, a problem. You'd have basically have to come down to the interchange. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for the presentation. Appreciate all your work.

Of course. Right. Moving on to item 13, discussion of sidewalk and pedestrian improvements to 18th Avenue for KC26 Regional Park and Ride. Who's got this one? Anthony,

I'll take this one. Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council. So, this was um the origin story of this is kind of our way of trying to be proactive for uh the World Cup uh parking ride that's going to be at this location. Um, historically, this site has not had uh when I say site, I mean like 18th Avenue, Eerie intersection, Fyet intersection. Um, there has not been a lot of um upgrades to pedestrian infrastructure in this area. Lots of sidewalk gaps. Uh there's curbs that are still barrier curbs. No ADA ramps have been put in place. Uh there's a lot of historic uh infrastructure that was left from uh when the bowling alley was there when it was removed. Um so, you know, it doesn't really lend itself to the highest priority when you consider areas in the avenues around the high school, around downtown, uh that kind of get more of the um attention that have over the last five years. Um but now with this interest in the parking ride and thousands of people kind of walking through this area, uh we really started to look at this and say, "Okay, where where are some liabilities that we need to maybe look at and think about and what improvements should be made?" Um so this was kind of an idea to kind of match up with what uh the FIFA group is thinking um and but also give us infrastructure that will last past this. again, you know, a investment in putting sidewalk on 18th Avenue is still an investment in pedestrian infrastructure that'll be there in the future, first thing Saturday and just everyday use. So, um open to discussion, but um we had we've been trying to get from a reactionary to a proactive plan for our uh improvements every year. So, we kind of had different things already lined out, ADA ramps planned for the avenues, uh different streets downtown that we were going to focus on. Um, so it was kind of a question of should we shift that goal to this? You know, we already kind of had that in an outlay for this year. Um, but then FIFA came up and we wanted to recognize that. So this ask us

to maybe use instead of our concrete fund um the funds from the um not here convention and tourism fund um to be able to make these improvements. Uh the prices in the memo are reflective of our on call in uh contractor Musman Hall. Um, and so then we kind of just kind of threw this together with an idea of being able to move fast and make some improvements that could be used for this event and future use.

All right. Um, so I'm looking at the the map here. I don't know if we have it up on the screens if we can put that so we can discuss and people can follow along. Um, so in the memo, we've got a map of the area. And I appreciate the proactivity. Um, it's it's refreshing to be getting ahead of things. um where I what you said there is we can get ahead of it. We can put it in stuff we would likely have done anyway just move it up in the timeline and then it would persist into the future. The trouble I have is is we just don't know what this area will be post World Cup. Um we've been kind of it's been held in purgatory while the Royals discussions have been ongoing but now we don't know what's next and a lot of this could end up being ripped out in whatever development comes next. And so I I get a little itchy about spending money to put in sidewalks and ADA ramps that will almost likely not persist because of the uncertainty of what's next. Now, the stuff on Erie uh Erie and the further uh west on 18th, those like the the four the three cornered ADA ramps uh the drive construction, all of that makes sense if we want to move those up on the timeline. But this sidewalk piece and the crosswalk, all of those I I just it feels like we would be doing it for FIFA and for the World Cup. And this area, while very much needing some improvements, uh it functions during Snake Saturday, it's not a huge concern that people have expressed. I just don't I don't see spending $175,000 to get for I think it's 45 days we've got people parking there. But I'm open to others. Go ahead. So, um I I tend to agree with you. However, um we don't have any plan on what this is going to be in the future or what the timeline is for that. So, it

could be I mean, we could find out in 6 months. We could find out in 5 years. And in the meantime, we've got a stretch of road that is virtually unwalkable. And we've got people who live in the loft apartments and the garden the the u the gallery lofts. Um and just people who want to get over to like Iron District from um Chicken and Pickle and Cinder block. And you know there could be some real synergy between Iron District and the 18th Street and um and Clay and Buchanan area, but there's no way for people to walk from one end to the other. And so I don't I don't know if um if there if if somebody has any idea of what the timeline is for actually developing this, but I would guess even if we got plans, it would still be a couple of years before anything actually happened. So I don't I I think I'm okay with spending $175,000 to increase our infrastructure in an area, even if it's temporary, because I think it's going to be for, you know, at least two or three years. And even then, it may be possible for us to incorporate some of the modifications that we've made into their ultimate design.

Further comments? Council member McCain.

Uh yeah. Yeah. I just um want to also echo echo that. So, thank you, Council Member Mcgrron. Um I think it's a to me it feels like it's a classic case of people don't walk it because of how bad it is. And so, um I live at Park Lofts. Um, it's kind of bookended by Arkloff's the Oxbow on the other end on Swift. Um, I I I tell this story sometimes because I think it's, you know, illustrative, but once I moved in into North Kent City, I uh went with some friends to to go walk to El Canelo down at Swift uh and didn't realize how bad it was until we're just walking through parking lots, you know, just trying to make our way through uh because it's it's so poor there. Um, so that's just something I kind of wanted to highlight. Um, if you have around say 150 units at Park Lofts, around 200 or so at the Oxbow, you know, you're getting a real idea of how many new residents are moving in south of Armor. Uh, you mentioned Gallery Lofts, that's another example. It is on the other end, but, you know, it is 18th Street could be a real connector. Um, 18th and 16th Street, I think, are real like targets, at least in my mind, as far as like an elevated priority. uh where development patterns are going to continue to grow. So, um yeah, I view this as a as a piece a a step in the right direction, even if it may not be permanent, if it's not final. Um but I think that's a that's a good incremental step.

Um on that end, if we did what's on the map here, we still have a segment of 18th that doesn't connect over to is it iron a towel?

Doesn't quite because there's a crosswalk. This is clearly this crosswalk and sidewalk piece is designed to accommodate World Cup parking. Um, so it doesn't really cure the issue per se. You would still have to walk across this parking ride lot on the north down to this crosswalk and then over. Um, so but I I take the point that it is bad over there as far as pedestrian infrastructure. When I walk it, I just walk across the parking lots. Uh, fairly comfortable to do. So I I'm I'm willing to be persuaded. Any other thoughts on this? Council member Alvarez,

sorry. I would agree with the comments that have been made by both council members so far that um the area has been kind of let go for a while and if people are starting we're starting to get more people in the area. Um I would hate to see it be kind of a hazard. I could see somebody getting hurt trying to walk maybe on the sidewalks not not necessarily being used to the area. Um, and also when you upgrade it, it might bring in some potential for someone to see something else being developed there because right now it just it looks kind of blighted. It doesn't look like there's anything around there. And I think by fixing it up, it might u be a little bit more attractive to incoming projects, things like that. So that's

uh Thank you. Uh, Anthony, are we looking at closing all the driveways into that lot? I count three there. Is there another way in? Well, it wouldn't be a closure. It would just continue ADA access across those driveways. I got you. So, it's raising it up. Reconstructed. Got it. Yeah. Reconstruct your driveways, ADA ramps at those driveways. You have to make sure 2% cross loop across those areas. So, you basically have to end up replacing a lot of things that are already there like that. There's there's storm drains right there. Hopefully, those have don't have to be moved. We don't think they will, but a lot of that is, you know, when you have a path, you need to have an ADA access path to that area, and that's one of the goals here. Makes sense. Uh I it just looks like they might be closed off.

Oh, no. Sorry. Yeah. Not a very detailed map. Sorry. And then to uh the point George raised about the trees. It looks like there are trees on the left side of the lot that are planted off the sidewalk. Are the ones in the purple section here planted in direct conflict with where the sidewalk would need to go? they are given the rightway constraint. So, we would be looking at taking out those three trees there at the NFAT and then there's one tree um east of that last driveway that would have to be removed as well. Um again, you know, the the tree master plan, a lot of the goal is to maintain the canopy. These are definitely places we can look at to see if we can replace there, but you know, we would be replacing trees throughout the year with the regular uh tree planting schedule.

Okay. So, I we could stipulate that if we take these trees out, we put back the the larger caliber ones that come back in. Okay. Uh right. Do we need what do we need here? Just kind of a go ahead and plant it. Yeah, this is uh I mean the uh task order uh to go ahead and start I think is within my limit, but we can come back um with the muscleman and hall portion. Does the 175 include the design or is that just for the It does include design. We're going to try that. This is almost kind like a not to exceed. We want to try to do what we can in house.

Save cost here and there. Uh both working with Muscleman Hall and um Olson. Okay. So, not to exceed 175. More likely 125. That could be. Could be cool. Could be. Perfect. That's what I'm hearing. 125. If we have a go-ahad, we can I mean it's gonna How long did did Olsen say it was going to take? Uh they were going to go out to the end of May. So that's or Okay, we have plenty of time to come back then. Okay. How far is it from the end of that sidewalk to Howell? Is it like 25 feet or so? Oh, I think it's definitely more than that. It's the end of the old mini golf course. Fet. It's about another block. Another I mean because cuz Fet to How is two blocks and where the crosswalk is is roughly about where Gentry is.

Okay. So it's Yeah. So you got another block to go. Can we just do the thing? I mean, we may as well finish out the sidewalk on that side. Technically, yes. Uh, it's more money. Um, we had talked about programming it in next year's budget. It's the whole activating a second time. If we're already digging up and pouring concrete and the crews are out there, do we just go ahead and make it all the way to Howell? We can definitely look at that. Yes. Yes. Council council wishes all all the points that are well taken include being able to walk across down 18th and that would accomplish what is being said. U might involve an additional tree or so. We'll have to look, but we'll just make sure we replant.

You've got it up. Yeah, there's some I mean we are we declared it arbor date at this meeting and then we're going to take out a bunch of trees. So if we can avoid the larger trees, we will. It's just the rightway is very constrained in that area there. Okay. All right. So, sorry, Council Member Alvarez. I just had one more question. Do we have enough to cover most of that in the tourism fund? Yes. Do we? Okay. Um and and then some. It's a very healthy fund. Okay. And so is that what we're saying directive is to go ahead but expand it all the way to how? Yep. Um, we can do that with the uh task order

and then you know we'll come back with with the task order for muscleman and hall. Very good. Hopefully hopefully the next meeting but we'll we'll see. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on to item 14, downtown streetscape planners discussion.

Okay. Uh, I will I'll start this one. This is one that has come up. I've had a number of businesses reach out to me toward the summertime into fall where the downtown planters because we've used native plants and very well intended. I understand all the reasoning behind that. Um they get a little overgrown. They start looking like weeds and I've had a number of businesses reach out and say we got to do something to make this not look bad. Um I again I appreciate native plants. I I understand the low maintenance, the less water need. Um, but I I'm interested in other options. And I know when we built them, we built them for native plants and that that comes with a whole host of do we handwater, do we run new irrigation, um, or is there other options? So, I'd let you opine on all of that.

Did you want me to jump in?

Excuse me. Um, yeah. So the original concept back in 2018 2019 I believe um when this was planned out there was a lot of public engagement a lot of presentations Sarah Copelan at the time was kind of leading that charge and um there was a big push for low maintenance uh high durability low watering um that is one consideration with this is that the infrastructure for irrigation that was put in is considering those kind of plants. So anything more ornate might need to have a bigger more substantial irrigation system or hand watering which can be challenging. Um but um one of the things I just kind of threw into this memo was um we had contemplated a native plant um kind of study this year um in the strategic plan and in our budget. And so maybe the thought being that we could morph that into working with one of our design consultants that has a landscape architecture component um and looking at plants that might fit somewhere in the middle of that. Maybe not having to completely rip out the irrigation but find a different species that are a little more um vibrant I guess I could say and but that would still be able to maintain themselves in that um existing landscape structure.

Call them ornamental natives I guess. Um the the struggle is partially that in the maintenance because like the native plants tend to grow wild because that's what they are. Um maybe I I don't know where we cross over with like ornamentals take a lot of time and care on the front end and then they kind of stay in their lane. Uh natives are the opposite. They just get big and bushy. Uh we ran into that with some sight lines along Armor very early on because we said well natives sound great and they always do but then they were growing up so tall that you couldn't see the turn out of an intersection. Um so where do we cross over where it takes so much maintenance to keep them in check versus what it would cost to deal with ornamental. One of the other challenges there too is we added, you know, from what we had, Armor had a lot of more ornamental plants before um before this project, but then we added I think we went from like 40 beds to maybe 96 beds. So, we overly doubled the the landscape that was out there. Um but um another thing is that they're also strategically picked to be resistant to um ice melt in the winter time. That becomes a huge thing. businesses, you know, there's liability associated with that. So, ice milk goes down, gets washed right into those planters and these are plants that can withstand that. So, it is hard to kind of find a crossover. I am not a landscape architect, so I would have to default to kind of someone who would

maybe maybe be able to find a middle ground there. Okay. Council member Saber.

Uh it pains me a bit to uh sort of support a Sarah Copelan project. However, uh I think we be another option is maybe to do some training and education of business owners and to appreciate what native plants are and again bearing with what we actually picked to plant to find that middle ground that you were talking about but also to maybe do some education about the value of native plants. plans and how they actually fit in.

Council member Alvarez. Yeah, I not landscaper. I don't know a lot about flowers other than just the ones I have around my house. That's about it. But um I do remember long long time ago when the downtown area used to have a lot of really vibrant colors. Um people commented on how pretty it was and it does kind of spruce it up. So, if we have any native plants that like bright colors, I I don't know what you pick, but I would be in favor of something like that. I think it really adds a lot to the area. I

I want to be careful to stay in my lane. I do think there's species like that out there. You know, cone flowers, blackeyed susans, sylvia, different things like that that can be added that do fit that um mold. It would just because we're dealing with such a large volume. I'd want to be careful before we went to into that to make sure we knew that that would be safe and also strategically how to plant even inside the planters. Each planter is about 5 by 15 ft. So there's a lot of area there to group them incorrectly if you do. So I just would want to make sure we proceed on correctly before we get too far into something. Yeah.

Council member Mcgrron. So, I uh I I kind of agree with everybody. So, I agree with Council Member Saper in that I think that our businesses should probably be a little bit more educated on what the goals were of the plantings that are out there. Uh I also agree with Council Member Alvarez that what we have out there isn't isn't really that pretty. I mean, it's it's it's functional. It's better than just mulch. Um, I I think sometimes some of the problems with with what looks like landscaping is the property owners own landscaping that has become so overgrown and and uh crazy that it that it becomes a problem. And I'm there's a a building at um I think it's like 25th and 23rd and Swift where sometimes things get a little crazy. And there's another one at like 15th and Swift or 17th and Swift where sometimes things get a little crazy. Um, but for the city stuff, I I'm hesitant to say yes, let's go ahead and dig out all of the things that we have done because that was a very uh expensive project and it will be even more expensive to replace what's there with other things. Uh, especially like irrigation. I'm not an expert, but I assume it's very expensive. Um, if we could come up with some sort of happy medium where some planters might have more of the browneyed susans and something that's a little more vibrant, maybe not replace all 80 or 96 of them with something that's a little more ornamental. Um, and then some of the other ones could continue to be like the the more um I don't know, sub like boring sorts of native plants. Um, if we're talking about doing things like handwatering plants, maybe we could just invol uh kind of uh set up a every so often city staff could potentially go and cut down some of these ones that get a little crazy. I mean, that's got to be easier than handwatering 96 flower beds,

especially when it could be 100 degrees over the summers for weeks at a time. So, I think we want to be very aware of what we have. I'd like to maintain what we have in some way, but maybe it can be like augmented to make it a little bit more vibrant and more pretty. But then the business owners just need to know we're not gardeners and we we don't live in a beautiful resort town where we have hundreds of staff and and and flower fairies who can go out and make all of the things pretty every day. I mean, if we did, that'd be great, but we don't. Further comments?

Yeah, I think it does. It comes down to maintenance. Uh because I I did a lot of walking through that time of year that I was describing and I have pictures of just planter beds overgrown, the the native plants kind of falling over onto the sidewalk. Um and so we might get fewer calls or I might get fewer calls if uh if that's not happening. I I would I do love the colors. I would like to see stuff like that. But if if we're I we were intentional about the native plantings. They do serve a purpose with pollinators and all that good stuff. Um and so you mentioned a study. Is that was that the was it $42,000 mentioned here?

That would have been placed in the budget prior um at the beginning of the fiscal year to kind of do a citywide uh native plant policy look. But we could revise that scope and maybe make it a lot smaller just to kind of revise it down to a what else can we do with city planter beds u specifically and and make it a smaller thing that maybe is under Mike's approval and make it a um more scope thing where we can like even maybe do some test beds I guess with I like that. Um yeah doing a smaller scope studying the downtown. I mean I love the pollinator garden at the park. It makes a ton of sense where it is because it doesn't have to be really ornate. it just grows wild and then does its thing. Um, so yeah, if we could do a smaller scope study. Okay.

I think this is also a good time to remind especially the uh businesses downtown that we have the downtown beautifification uh money that's available for businesses that want to do something ornamental and and lovely outside of their businesses. I don't remember the details of that. Anthony, do you do you have any information? Yeah, you can be awarded up to uh $5,000 um per application. Um and as long as it's in city rightaway. Um we have to be careful it's you know on a city street, not on a mod road. Um and then um we we cap the budget at 16,000. So it's kind of a first come, first serve. Um I think applications are closing end of April, I want to say. Coming right up.

All right, Rich Groves, I know you're watching. Put it in your uh business council email at the end of this meeting. Further comments? Okay. Okay. If you could bring us back a scoped study for downtown. Yeah. Be great. Absolutely. Okay. Uh item 15, YMCA usage report.

Okay. Uh I I'll start this one as well. This is one that I've been kind of hammering on since the grants were uh unleashed. And I've asked Mike a number of times. Hey, can we take a look and we can we pull data? And so I know Mike put together a very deep memo with some flowcharts and some great data. uh it talks about we have roughly I think it was 27 to 29% depending on how you slice it of people who have gone zero to two times memberships over three months correct over the p over a rolling three-month period the last rolling three-month period as of February well actually yes fe that'd be February January and December usage

yep and part of the question in the memo was how do we look at this data um and one thing that you and I discussed is how do we handle memberships that have multiple users Right. U and family membership is particularly tricky because I have a family membership. There are four of us and if you look at it, it looks as if three people go zero times and one person goes like 20 plus, right? Because when we go as a family, we scan one thing and we all walk in. Um, unless we're going to change procedures, I think the best way to look at it is the second way you mocked it up, which is not an average because that would heavily like for us, we would have to have gone much more than if we're dividing the number by four to get our average. I think it's total visits for that membership. So, if it's a couple or a family,

correct? As long as they've gone three times, they're using the facility. Um, but what we've uncovered with this is roughly a third of the memberships that we are subsidizing are not going correct. And that's that's where I struggle. We're spending $12,000 a month, I believe, at this point. This is something over is our last. Yeah.

I want people to have access to the YMCA. I absolutely think this is an amenity that is is very valuable and it's something that the city spent a lot of money on um for that facility. It's something a thrust of something I really ran on was community health. And I want people to do this, but I don't want us putting money out every month for people who aren't going. So I'm curious where council is on this. Go ahead.

Okay, I'll start. Uh I remember when we had this discussion and we talked about potentially cancelling people's memberships. Uh, I was animately against it because I think one of the benefits of offering this type of service to our community is that they have it available when they need it. And some people might get a wild hair and sign up on January 1st and then they go on January 1st and then they don't go again until they really feel like they need to. And maybe that's in May. However, $12,000 a month is a lot of money for things that aren't necessarily being used. So, at this point, I think we kind of have a choice. We could either cut how much we subsidize each membership. So, we aren't paying as much for people to go. And right now, I think we pay 50%. Or we set a limit like we're talking about now where if you haven't gone a certain number of times in a certain period, then your membership is just stopped. I I think that is the the kinder better way to go because you can just go back to the YMCA and sign up again. There's no cost to sign up. If you if you get that that that energy to go and you haven't been a long time and you walk in and you say, "Hey, I'm here for my new members or here to go and they tell you your membership has been cancelled, then we need to make sure that the YMCA staff goes, but you can just sign up again right now and enjoy your visit." you know, so I I am not against cutting off people who haven't gone for a certain period of time. And I think three months is probably a pretty good amount. And if I go on, you know, day one of month four and my membership has been cancelled, I can just get it right back and I'll be all right.

And and the part that I think is missed in this as well is like we're helping the people who are spending money for something they're not doing. Um because they are also paying the 50%. Um, and so 27% which is the number that would 27.7 is of 12 is like roughly $3,300 a month that we're sending out for legitimately no return. Um, and I I think we could do that. I think we could cut the membership off once they've hit that thing. It also catches people who have moved out of town and didn't think to cancel their membership, so they're still paying for that. Um, I know somebody who's done that. So, any what other thoughts we have, Council Member Alvarez?

Yes, I would agree with that. Um, they haven't been in three months. I would think that we could go ahead and just cancel their membership. Um, like you said, people may have moved. Um, I don't know, they may have gotten ill or something or just completely forgot that they had it. Um, I know I've signed up for things and then I end up paying for subscriptions. I'm like, "Oh, I forgot. I still have that six months later." So, you're helping them, too. And $12,000 may not seem like a lot, but it's quite a bit. I'd rather see it spent somewhere else rather than just um actually it's just being thrown away. So, I would agree with that.

And and to be clear, what we're scoping here is zero to two times in a rolling three month. So, it's it's less than once a month, correct? In a rolling three that that was the thrust of this is you've been less than one time per month in the last three months. And then like council member Mcgone said, if you show back up and want to go to Hawaii, you just get membership again. Um, and so it's really not punitive. Council member Saber. Uh yeah, I tend to agree with what council member Mcgrron said as well, but we have to sort of make sure that people understand that when they sign up and get some kind of notification, maybe email, as simple as that, when it's cancelled, so they know that might actually inspire them to sign up again.

But we we need to let them be clued in as to both parts of this. Yeah. The thing about I mean we we obviously hopefully the YMCA has an automated way to tell somebody that they're membership's been cancelled. But short of that coming back that next time you scan you get a beep. Oops. You can't come in until you filled out one more form. Exactly. You're back in. Um the other thing that came up multiple times is what happens if somebody goes to a YMCA in Florida while they're out of town but doesn't track here. I don't see that becoming as large an issue as that was maybe discussed. Um, so again, it's not a punitive thing. You come back in, you get your membership set back up. Council member Kane.

Uh, yeah. Yeah, and I want to piggyback off of Council Member Saper's point because I think the communication piece for cancellation is important, but um I think this might rely on the way we measure it, but once you're close to having your membership canled, I think that might be helpful if if there's a way to say, okay, you're you're nearing your membership being cancelled, you know, just as an as potential idea

as a heads up. Yeah, they they've expressed some difficulty with pulling data in real time like that. That was one of the concerns up front is how often are we able to pull data? I don't think they have a daily poll that's going to show they're they're kind of taking a snapshot each month and sending it over to us. Um, if there's a way to engineer that, it would be good. Um, but again, somebody shows up without a membership, they're going to still get in the gym. If they were like blocked at the door and couldn't get in for like a week, then yes, let's give them all the red flags they can get. So, I'm hearing kind of consensus on let's go ahead and have the memberships that are not uh hitting that minimum minimum of three times in a rolling three-month period. So, go ahead and have those canceled on the subsidy.

All right. And is the way just so we're clear on communication of the why membership gets canceled. It doesn't the subsidy doesn't get removed because if the subsidy gets removed, they're getting build full freight. That would certainly become a problem, right? the Y I mean what we can do is is say you know we're not subsidizing anymore and the Y would notify the the membership that hey this is going away

that's so that's tricky because if somebody misses that notification they start getting auto build for their full membership number then we've created a hardship um I think that might need to be pressed out as part of the anything future that gets signed up for but also as a notice to all current members this is coming and we give a I don't a couple months head start for people to internalize that. I don't know if we're able to have the why just cancel them. Um I'll impress upon I mean yeah they've been good to work with. Yeah. Okay. Because they also don't want to get hit with you know um an angry what the heck all of a sudden. Yeah. Right. Okay.

Those will be details to be worked out and then we can have a final discussion and and decision on it. Um you want me to come back with that? Yes. Um or if they just say yes, absolutely. Do you want us to if no problem? Yeah. Seems the directive is I like the idea of some sort of like as of this date, this is going to be the policy. So, if we've got people right now who haven't been in a while and they don't want to mess with the hassle of having to, you know, potentially get their membership canled, um, you know, give them like give us like a month to for people to, you know, get an extra visit in or something. But, um, yeah, maybe say as of whatever date the Y says they can do it on. Yep.

Have the discussion with the Y, bring it back to us at the next meeting. We'll give you the final say on it and, uh, then we can set a time frame as well. Okay. Um, and Just to clarify, staying at two or less in a three-month period. Yep. Okay. All right. All right. Very good. Uh total by membership. Yes. Total use by rolling three month. Rolling three month. All right. Thank you. Very good. And thank you again for putting all the spreadsheets and number crunching together. That was extremely useful. Took me a minute when I read the memo to know what the heck you were talking about, but you got there.

All right. Uh item 16. Consideration of an ordinance amending the city code regarding above ground storage tanks. Bill number 7975, ordinance number 9772.

All right. This codifies the discussion from the last meeting. As I understand it, there's really no change to what was recommended. We've all had a chance to review it. Any thoughts or questions before we have a motion? All right. Yes, sir. I just wanted to ask uh just kind of one follow-up question um about secondary containment areas. So, um I I appreciate too that there's a you know a list of you know requirements that would have to be met in order to qualify for that exception. Um, but I just kind of wanted to ask a little bit about that because uh, you know, it sounds like, okay, for an above ground fuel storage tank, you need a containment area of like 110% of the capacity of the tank in case of a leak or spill, right? So, um, could you mention to me just a little bit like, um, kind of the, um, you know, the exceptions that are upon that exception as well or the exceptions of that requirement. Uh it looks like if a tank is you know uh has certain capabilities the interstitial monitoring um like overfill protection automatic gauging those kinds of things then those tanks would not have to have a containment area of any kind.

Okay so this is a very technical point over here I'll try to explain in a little bit of way that people can generally understand. So that 110% in a lot of way in the industry they refer to the standard of 110 or 25. So that gets to if it's 110% that is the largest tank among is say you have multiple tanks if that's the situation where 25 uh% of the total of when you calculate that if you have multiple so whichever is greater and in this case we typically will only address 110 because we're not addressing more than one tank we already limited that and for the secondary containment area there are different ways of achieve this goal. Oh, that's also called um you know secondary containment. Part of that is you can be a UL certified and you can have double wall and when you have double wall and then you already have the secondary containment area. It's in a much smaller space, not the traditional looking like a concrete pool. That's the exterior secondary containment where most people refer to it as a concrete dyke or something like that. And then usually those are um proofed um by particular type of chemical linear um from the oil to being um contaminated or saturated into the ground. So that's probably what you have in your mind and this is also one of the reason where um in the I assume you're talking about the exception condition number seven over here that there is a list of A to G that talking about in what cases you don't need a big concrete pool looking uh secondary containment over there did that help kind of picture what that is

yes yes and that was

and I'll conclude that for uh really for EPA's requirements over there. Generally, they do not require a secondary containment area for certain type and certain size capacity of the uh above ground tanks. Um just because the amount that usually they're much smaller and to um meet the EPA requirement, you have to already have the secondary containment area for a size like that, like say 12,000 or above 1,320. I don't know why they picked that number, but that is a number. When you go above that one, you are required for secondary contaminant. Yes, that's the SPCC requirement. That's the spill protection um containment control. Yeah. Council Saber,

uh, if you could clarify something that that I'm not I don't really understand enough about and that's in terms of the piping that goes to and from the tank and containment of that. Are there sensors that can be replaced that can replace physical containment? I'm not quite sure if I'm following your question. Okay. You have tanks and you have to get things in and out of those tanks. You've got piping going to them. Does there have to be any sensors or andor containment of that piping? Oh, yeah. There will be sensors because

And are Okay. And can you substitute sensors for containment? Maybe the fire maybe fire department come in on that. It it uh all depends. I mean, you can have a there's probably 20 different parameters that you have to look at to decide that. Um, in this case, I don't see any piping going to it. you're just going to have a tank out there and they bring a truck in and they fill it up and then they and now if it comes from outside to inside or something like that then there would be

there's all kind like I said there's probably 20 different parameters you have to follow within the IFC to you know I I and I don't know them all off the top of my head but that's not at some point in time you can get away with no containment depending on how much other stuff you have to tell you whether or not you have a spill or not. So like if you have sensors or you have a double wall, you know, like a double or even triple walled type things. Thank you. Section E also says piping transfer areas and equipment outside the double wall tank are provided with appropriate contamination or leak detection. So they'd have to be as part of it. Thank you, Council Member Alvarez.

Um yes, I have kind of a question, kind of a comment. Um, first of all, I I kind of have an issue anytime we have to amend um a code that we have with the city. Um, it looks like there's been a lot of work to accommodate this tank. Uh, which after looking over the modifications and the requirements, I think is very thorough. Um, I'm okay with this amendment, but anytime we amend um one of the codes that we already have set in place, uh, I I kind of question why why are we doing that? Because if you make an exception, when you start making exceptions for the codes that we have, it it concerns me that we're doing that um, for one particular business or company. And then do we continually make exceptions when somebody doesn't meet the requirements for the codes? And I'm curious, again, I struggled with why this one doesn't meet the codes. And I don't know if if if this would make sense, but was the tank um designed before or purchased before they checked with the codes or how did this come about that we had to completely amend the code that's already set up?

I can probably speak a few words about that one. I don't think we're making an exception for a single case in what we're doing right here. We're merely considering a code amendment that provides exception to any business who can meet the exceptional conditions over here. And we should not consider as I agree with council member Alvarez, we should not consider making an exception to a single business just because of their request. This code modification came to you. I kind of mentioned the background a little bit more as it was generated by the business but this is not the only request that we have received in the past. There were other businesses want to do similar things and we denied them before and there's also existing ones that have nonconforming status on this. So as most of the code which you will see amendment it goes along with the need and you're going to find the balance of where the business e economic impact is versus the safety component is as well as when the technology is evolving itself. So we have been looking into our here organizations and our neighbors and trying to understand what they are doing and in most of the cases they have a dedicated area that doesn't cover the entire city. Ours is very unique because we're only 4.6 square miles over here. So when we did the code um amendment back to 2018's code which was much later on we just applied it to the entire city without dedicating a specific area. And moving forward we are also looking into um amending our current 2018 code.

So this topic is not new. So it is might feel kind of fresh in front of the city council members because this is the first time you're looking at a fire code and often when exception comes they're called alternative means methods. They typically don't really come into a code amendment. A code amendment should be considered as it is a blanket of rule apply to all businesses that meet the requirements. So, I would say that's probably what you should consider if this is what we want to do to all the businesses in North Kansas City or if not. Um, but that's just a clarification I want to make. And we're continually looking into the 2024 code. So, moving forward, we'll probably bring um the very full deck of the code amendment to our current code when we're adopting the new ones.

Yes. Yeah. Did that help understand the kind of background a little bit? Yeah, codes grow and change over time as use cases change, needs change. Um, and we're going to learn about these needs coming forth by businesses bringing questions to us. Um, if it was a simple oneoff, it would be done through AMI or a variance and and since this is a a code change, it's not just an exception for one business. This is a this is a more holistic look at it. Further, yeah, that's what I was concerned about. Thank you. Very good. All right. Do we have a motion on item 16? Move to approve. Yeah. First reading. First reading. Sorry. First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes.

Yes. Any opposed? Got to read the text.

Had to get ordinance. An ordinance amending the code of the city of North Kansas City, Missouri by amending title 15 building and construction chapter 15.34 international fire code at section 5704.2.9.6.1 allowing for an exception to the 1,000galon above ground storage tank provided that certain conditions are met. I move that bill number 7975 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9772. Call a second. Second. Call the role.

Council member Saper. Yes. Council member Mcgrron. Yes. Council member Kaine. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Yes. Council member Selenus. Yes. An ordinance amending the code of the city of North Kansas City, Missouri by amending title 15 building and construction chapter 15.34 international fire code as section 5704.2.9.6.1 allowing for an exception to the 1,00galon above ground storage tank provided that certain conditions are met.

All right, moving on to item 17. Condition condition consideration of an ordinance approving 13th amendment to city councelor's employment agreement with the city bill number 7977 ordinance number 9774. All right. This is the 13th time we've decided to keep Mr. Barzee around. Uh does anyone have questions or comments on what we have in front of us? Otherwise, we'll take a motion. First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes.

An ordinance adopting and approving and adopting the 13th amendment to employment agreement by and between the city of North Kansas City, Missouri and Thomas E. Barzee Jr. City Councelor. Okay. I move that bill number nine I mean 7977 to be placed on second and final reading and passes as ordinance number 9774. Second. Call the role. Council member Saper, yes. Council member Mcgro, yes. Council member Kaine, yes. Council member Alvarez, yes. Council member Selenus, yes.

An ordinance approving and adopting the 13th amendment to employment agreement by and between the city of North Kansas City, Missouri, and Thomas E. Barzy, Junior, city counselor. All right. Item 19, consideration of an ordinance approving accounts due payable by the city through April 3rd, 2026, bill number 7978, ordinance number 9775. First reading. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes.

An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due payable by the city through April 3rd, 2026. I move that bill number 7978 to be placed on second and final reading and passes at an ordinance number 9775. Second. Call the role. Council member Saper. Yes. Council member Mcgrron. Yes. Council member Kaine. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Yes. Council member Selenus. Yes. An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due in payable by the city through April 3rd, 2026. Staff comments. We have no staff comments tonight.

Brilliant. Council member comments. Starting with Council Member Saper. Uh I'm stunned by that last no comment. We're ready for that. Yes. Uh encouraging everyone. It's a small ballot, but please come out and vote tomorrow. Because it's a short ballot. It won't take you much time. will be in and out very quickly. And this will be at the North Kansas City YMCA. And to all those celebrating Passover, I will say pesa to you and pass it on to the next council member GR. I don't have any comments tonight either.

Council member Kaine.

Uh yes. Uh first I want to thank those who came out for public comment tonight. Uh so Michael Wells, George Schlutoter, uh Michael Wells, to your point on uh Vernon Street, uh obviously very well taken. Um the Ward 4 walk audit back last November, I think was really eye opening for a lot of us who live west of the highway and don't uh walk those streets as often. Um so I appreciated getting an opportunity to do that and to come up with a list of findings. So um that was a a good opportunity to see that firsthand. Um, I also want to thank folks in the community who I've had a chance to meet with uh in the recent weeks. Uh, Lindley Davis, uh, the community manager at Park Lofts, uh, has met with me to chat a little bit about opportunities for renter civic engagement. Uh, so as a result of this, Parkloffs will be holding a civic crawl on Wednesday, April 22nd at 4 p.m. So, uh, I've heard a lot of people say, imagine like a condensed citizens academy for one night only. Uh so that is uh Lynley's idea and we're going to run with it and try to and try to launch it. So uh again, yeah, so loosely based on a pub or bar crawl, but a walking tour to go see, you know, come across the street, uh see city hall, go swing by the library, and then go down to the fire station, go check it out. Uh that would be Wednesday, April 22nd at 4 p.m. Um so 4 to 6. Uh, and then just at the end to be able to go down to Iron District and have a community meal and get together. So, um, so that'll be a nice time. Um, and I'm going to continue meeting with community managers in Ward 3. Um, but, uh, if you're listening and interested, uh, feel free to email me. That's dkain nkc.org. Um, so, uh, I know street safety obviously front and center nowadays with the, uh, safe streets plan. Uh, I met with Philip Jones at the Iron District

to talk a little bit about pedestrian accessibility on 16th Street. Um, so again, just in W three, you see a lot of folks that are walking on 16th Street because sidewalks kind of end on the east side of the highway. Um, so it's something that happens. Um, and it's obviously a big uh safety issue. So, I'm going to continue to meet with uh folks on 16th uh and then on Diamond Parkway as well to kind of talk about where residents are going, where they're walking. Um, I also want to thank uh Zack Clevenger. He came and met with uh uh myself and council member Alvarez uh for our first uh uh resident coffee kind of at uh at uh he had a little store on Knox. Yep. So, um thank you for coming out and talking to us. Uh we'll continue to push those out. Um and then also congratulations to Brandy Collins on an appointment to the SEAK tonight. Uh uh representing W three very well. So those are the end of my comments. Council member Alvarez.

Yes. I just want to thank everybody that came out uh tonight. Again, uh Michael Wells, good point on Vernon Street. I encourage everybody to come out if they have issues around their their home or their residence. Um that's how we know what you're thinking, what you need. So, appreciate everybody coming up. And that's it. Council member Selenus,

I just want to also say thank you, Michael, for advocating for River Forest. Um, Dylan, congratulations on filling a seat we haven't been able to do in a while. So, congrats in a matter of weeks. Good job. Um, no matter how the election plays out, I'm still here. This is my home. I'm not going anywhere. And, um, I know people now. So, if you I can still be your voice. Um, to all my neighbors, these people here, thank you for your feedback, for your support. So, this is one of my last meetings. I know I'm leaving y'all in great hands. The city staff is amazing again. And I'll say it again. Vote, vote, vote tomorrow.

Very good. Uh, brings it around to me. Happy Easter to everyone who celebrates. I also saw on the ballot on the consent agenda, Screenland is ramping back up their summer movie series. So, be sure to get out and check out one of those. It's always a a nice time. Uh I've gotten about a dozen maybe more calls or text messages about the sign at Denim and Diamonds coming down. Uh that was not intentional. A storm blew it off. I am sorry to burst people's bubbles. Um there's nothing new happening there. I just wanted to let everybody know that. Um there was also a lot of ado made on opening day for the Royals that um the owner John Sherman told the newscasters that talks are still ongoing with Kansas and with North Kansas City. All I will say on that matter is that was news to me. Um war two walk audit went very well. Uh council member Gro came out, council member Kaine was there. Uh a number of residents showed up. We'd had a great time walking around checking out uh how tough it is to walk on Burlington. Um also in tandem with this civic crawl, I also have visits coming up to the park loft. So everyone at the park lofts watching this, all tens of you, um come out and and join us for a discussion. Same with the Oxbow. I've got messages out to other community managers that have not been returned yet, but we're hopeful. And last thing I'll say is vote, vote, vote. The election is tomorrow. Uh in roughly n I think it was sometime in the 1950s, we had greater than 50% voter turnout for an election. Two 219 votes cast with under 4,000 residents. Let's top those numbers tomorrow. Come on now. Let's go. All right, that's all from me. We're move on to item 23. Consideration of a request to hold in recess into an executive session is requested by the city administrator to be held on this date pursuant to Missouri revised statute section 610.0212

real estate matters and section 610.0211 litigation matter real estate real estate litigation. We have a motion. So moved. Second. Call the role. Council member Saper. Yes. Council member Mcgro. Yes. Council member Kane. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Yes. Council member Selenus. Yes. Okay. At this time, the live stream and channel 2 will cut off. There will be no further votes or business this evening.