CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002
PRESENT: Mayor Anita Newsom
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross
Councilman Dan Bishop
Councilman Shirley Smith
Councilman Les Smith
City Manager Kirk Davis
Assistant City Manager Laura Gay
City Counselor David Ramsay
City Clerk Marilyn Ahnefeld
Mayor Anita Newsom opened the Regular January 28, 2002 City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the Gladstone City Council Chambers.
Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Anita Newsom invited three Scouts present in the audience to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14, 2002 MINUTES.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to approve the Regular January 14, 2002 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended. Councilman Shirley Smith seconded the motion. The vote: All “Aye” - Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Item 4a. on the Agenda. PROCLAMATION recognizing Gladstone resident Troy Thompson for his heroic efforts to rescue his father, Chad Thompson.
Mayor Anita Newsom read and presented the proclamation to Troy Thompson. Ms. Newsom thanked Troy for being such an fine, outstanding young man. Troy received a standing ovation from the Council, staff, family members who were present as well as members of the audience.
Mayor Newsom stated that she had a funny story to tell relating to 911. Students in school learned to dial 911 and emergency things like that. When 911 was new and not everyone knew about it yet, she had an old willow tree in her yard that she was trimming. Some neighborhood boys stopped by and were helping her get the limbs ready for trash pick-up. She asked the boys if they knew what to do if she fell out of the tree. They looked at each other, looked at each other again, looked at her again and said, “We won’t laugh.” She was looking for them to say they would dial 911.
Ms. Newsom said Troy did the right thing and she is very proud of him and knows his family and friends are also. There are many great kids out there and she told Troy Thompson he was a good example for all of them.
Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA
Following the Clerk’s reading, Councilman Dan Bishop moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
CONSENT AGENDA DETAIL
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. R-02-7, acceptance of work under contract with GC Construction for the 2001 Arterial Sidewalk Program and authorizing final payment from the Transportation Sales Tax Fund. Total Contract Amount: $42,354.40; Final Payment Due: $16,177.99. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to accept RESOLUTION NO. R-02-8, acceptance of work under contract with HNTB Architects, Engineers & Planners for the N Oak Corridor Study and authorizing final payment from the General Fund. Total Contract Amount: $50,000.00; Final Payment Due: $35.00. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to accept RESOLUTION NO. R-02-9, authorizing execution of a Real Estate Purchase Agreement with Holiday Apartments, L.L.C., and Prospect Studios, L.P., for certain parcels of land, and permanent and temporary easements for location and construction of storm water detention basin on Rock Creek near 68th & N Prospect. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
Rocky Carver, 3400 NE 68th Terrace, stated that he is here to talk about the trash collection and said it is an issue that needs to be moved forward. Six months ago, he received a notice from Deffenbaugh regarding a rate hike from $39 to $42 for three months. There is only one other trash hauler he can go to and they have the same rate. There needs to be level pay for everyone in every household.
Mr. Carver stated that the biggest cost is landfill. He only has one bag a week or even less. It is not senior citizens who are filling the landfill up. He said the biggest users are those with families and small children and they pay only $7 or $8 per month. Those with Homes Associations have a great set-up.
Councilman Cross stated that he lives four or five blocks from Mr. Carver and pays $27.75 for three months.
Mr. Carver stated that the trash companies even admit customers pay different amounts on the same street. He asks the City to move up the City contracting of trash collection.
Item 7. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilman Les Smith had no communications at this time.
Councilman Shirley Smith stated that our City lost a good person this week in Mr. Charlie Byrd. He was a personal friend and neighbor and they worked together at the County level and on City activities. There are not many around like him and she hopes those who are will come forward and try to take his place. He was honest, hard-working and did diligently what he pledged to do. He had convictions and believed in people and stood by them and never wavered. We will all miss him in many ways.
Councilman Dan Bishop stated that he agrees with Councilman Shirley Smith that Charlie Byrd will certainly be missed.
Mr. Bishop said that with such a mild winter, it was too bad that on the night of the anniversary kick-off reception, we had the biggest snowfall of the winter. It was a fun event and not a bad attendance given the weather. There is enthusiasm for our 50th year and it sounds like the committee has a whole series of events planned to go throughout the year to celebrate this significant milestone for our community. He thanks the committee that worked to put it together and also their ongoing work for the 50th Anniversary Celebration.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross also commented that the 50th Anniversary kick-off event had good attendance despite the weather. He said it was fun with so many fine people there and thanked the committee who set up an enjoyable event.
Mayor Anita Newsom said she agrees that the 50th Anniversary Celebration is moving in a good direction and will provide many opportunities for celebrating in our community and touting our community to other entities.
Ms. Newsom said she too extends her sympathies to the family of Charles Byrd. He was recipient of the City of Gladstone’s “Outstanding Citizen” recognition this past year. Charlie has meant a great deal to the City. He was one of those people who, if you asked his opinion, you got it and you knew it was straight-forward and she has always had a tremendous amount of respect for him. He was a founding member of the Capital Improvements Committee and he was a good benchmark. When something came forward to the committee and was a little innovative, if it passed the Charlie Byrd test, it was a good thing. She asked that our condolences be expressed to his family.
Item 8. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
City Manager Kirk Davis announced that a public meeting will be held at City Hall on Tuesday, January 29th relating to the 67th & Garfield stormwater master plan project.
Item 9. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT on property at 903 NE 76th Street. Applicant/owner: Toni Faust. (File #1170)
Mayor Newsom stated that the applicant has withdrawn their request and no public hearing will be held.
Item 10. on the Agenda. FIRST READING SUBSTITUTE BILL 02-3, amending Schedule V of the Model Traffic Ordinance (Code Section 18-12) to designate No Parking Zones on Englewood Court. (North side of Englewood Court, from North Broadway easterly approximately 250 ft.; South side of Englewood Court, from North Broadway easterly approximately 350 ft.)
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to place Bill 02-3 on First Reading; Councilman Bill Cross seconded.
Councilman Dan Bishop stated that this was discussed at the last Council meeting with questions raised about the way in which the Bill was originally presented. He asked if we could have some discussion and description of the way it has been modified and why.
Public Works Director Andy Noll stated that with Councilman Les Smith’s urging, they have reevaluated the area for a blind spot when leaving the MAZUMA Credit Union when looking eastward from the entryway on Englewood Court. . If we allow vehicles to park that close to the entry it would limit the sight distance there. Staff had not taken this into consideration with the first presentation of the No Parking request. Staff went out and measured the sight distance and the 250 ft. is adequate distance.
Councilman Bishop asked if Mr. Noll feels from a traffic engineering standpoint this is the best proposal for this area.
Mr. Noll stated that yes, it addresses all the issues while leaving as much space for overflow parking that it will not impact residents or have a detrimental impact on traffic.
Councilman Bishop asked Councilman Les Smith if it addresses his concerns.
Councilman Les Smith stated that yes it does. He is in that area all the time and yes it would take care of the problem.
The vote: “Aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom.. Councilman Les Smith “Abstained”. (4-0-1) The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 02-3, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on Second Reading; Councilman Bill Cross seconded. The vote: “Aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. “Abstain” – Councilman Les Smith (4-0-1) The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 02-3 and enact the Bill as Ordinance 3.822; Councilman Bill Cross seconded.
Roll Call vote: “Aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. “Abstain” - Councilman Les Smith (4-0-1)
Item 11. on the Agenda. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW for the Determination of the Dangerous Building Appeal by H. Bradley Robertson on property at 7107 N. Kranz Road.
Councilman Dan Bishop moved to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Councilman Shirley Smith seconded.
Councilman Bishop stated that he had the opportunity to review the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as submitted in final form by City Counselor David Ramsay. He finds the Findings of Fact are consistent with the facts that were presented at the last Council meeting on January 14th, 2002. It has been brought to his attention that Mr. Robertson has approached City staff as recently as this afternoon and expressed a desire to proceed with bringing his property at 7107 Kranz Road into compliance with relevant City Codes.
Mr. Bishop stated that he speaks for the Council and staff when he says that it has been the sole objective of the City throughout this entire process to have Mr. Robertson bring his property into compliance with the relevant City Codes. That is all we have wanted from the outset and although Mr. Robertson’s efforts in this regard and coming to City Hall today are entirely too late, there is some encouragement that he wants to bring the property up to code. However, when we look at the amount of time and effort that has been spent already by City staff, specifically our Code Enforcement Division, Mr. Alan Napoli who was here at the last Council meeting and Code Enforcement Officer Dave Reyburn, Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson, Fire Marshall Chuck Duddy, our City Counselor David Ramsay, and our City Manager, all of whose time is so precious and their talents so valuable in serving the City in so many ways. This Council has spent a good deal of time on this issue already and he is opposed to delaying this matter beyond tonight.
Mr. Bishop stated that his conscience however, is not comfortable with tearing down a building that has been worked on and being brought up to code. So, what he proposes is that if, in fact, Mr. Robertson wants to fix the property and bring it up to code, he has an opportunity to do that because he has the ability to appeal the finding of this Council to the Circuit Court of Clay County. It is his understanding that Mr. Robertson has 30 days in which to do that. During that 30 days, the City cannot take steps to demolish the building. It will then be approximately another 120 days after an appeal will be filed that a hearing will be set. During that time, the City is stayed from enforcing the order.
We are looking at about 150 days before this matter would come up for hearing should an appeal be filed by Mr. Robertson. Mr. Bishop said he is proposing tonight that we amend the decision at the end of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to specify that if Mr. Robertson should choose to appeal the decision of the City Council and bring the property into compliance with all relevance to codes on or before the appeal is set for hearing, the City shall withdraw this order.
He thinks there is some merit to this and moved to amend the Decision on Page 6 to include the language “It is further determined that should Mr. Robertson appeal this decision and bring said property into compliance with all relevant City codes on or before his appeal is set for hearing, the City shall withdraw this order.” Mayor Pro Tem Cross seconded the motion to amend.
Discussion on the Amendment.
Councilman Bishop stated that he mentioned “all” relevant City code and intends the language to include property maintenance issues such as vehicles, recreational boats, trailers, and this sort of thing to come into compliance. So this addresses that concern.
Mayor Newsom stated, “all” meaning all.. Mr. Bishop said yes, all meaning all City codes.
Councilman Cross stated that would give Mr. Robertson three to four months to get everything in shape.
Mr. Bishop stated that if this is approved, they need some indication from Mr. Robertson tonight that he would be willing to let inspectors on his property any time to look at the work being done pursuant to appropriate permits he would have to receive from the Community Development Department.
Mr. Bishop stated that what he likes about this solution is that if we continue this tonight, come back in two weeks, and then come back in 30 days, the problem from his point of view is that we have already committed so many City resources and manpower, City tax dollars, effort, time, sweat and tears to this project. He does not want to be coming back and revisiting this as we have with some other issues on this Council over a period of some months. This gets it off our docket for four or five months, City Inspectors can go out and see if progress is being made as appropriate. The only thing that really matters is the condition of the property on the day that this is set for hearing of Mr. Robertson’s appeal should he decide to file an appeal. If he does not decide to appeal, then we have 30 days to proceed with enforcement of the ordinance.
Councilman Les Smith asked Mr. Ramsay his experience in what is the general time frame an appeal would be heard.
City Counselor David Ramsay stated that he agrees with Councilman Bishop, that it would be three or four months after the appeal is filed.
Councilman Les Smith asked if the hearing is set for 30 or 60 days, would we have the ability to request a delay in the hearing. Mr. Ramsay replied yes.
Mr. Smith asked if the courts did set an early 30 or 60 day hearing, if we could set a minimum and ask for a continuance up to a certain point in time.
Councilman Bishop said he is being optimistic of our court system, but would not object to that and asked what timeframe he had in mind.
Mr. Les Smith stated a total of 120 days including a 30 day appeal, which would be 90 days after that.
Mayor Newsom stated for clarification that if an appeal should come in less than 120 days from this date regardless of when he files an appeal.
Councilman Bishop stated that it was suggested with staff today and maybe 90 days would be something we would look at. It is highly unlikely that it would come to a hearing before 90 days, but if you want to go the 120 days it is OK.
Councilman Les Smith stated that he would be hesitant to invest too much in a building if it was going to be torn down. If it was 75% or 90% complete, he deserves a fair opportunity to repair the building. However, the ball is in his court, we are willing to go along and allow him to show good faith in remedying the deficiencies in the property, but conversely, he should be afforded the opportunity to complete it after he puts some money and effort into it. He will defer to Council on the 90 or 120 days. The bottom line is, if it comes back to a question of whether there is one single deficiency left on that property, he will not budge another 24 hours.
Mayor Newsom commented that while Councilman Bishop is composing the wording for the amendment, she will offer her opinion that the bottom line is to get this property in compliance. She has no burning desire to tear it down if it can come into compliance. But she agrees with Mr. Smith that anything beyond that time, even though she will not be sitting in this chair, she will lobby whoever is here to vote to demolish the building if it is not brought into compliance at that point in time. There has been a lot of time spent where the property could have been brought into compliance prior to the hearing two weeks ago and Mr. Robertson has had adequate time to make offers to get it remedied. We are willing to give this extra time to wait for the demolition.
Mr. Bishop withdrew his motion to amend the last paragraph of the Findings of Fact as he had read and Councilman Cross withdrew his second.
Motion: Councilman Bishop moved to amend the last paragraph of the Findings of Fact as follows:
“It is further determined that should Mr. Robertson appeal this Order to the Circuit Court, and should he bring the property into compliance with all relevant City code requirements by the time his Circuit Court Appeal comes on for hearing, or 120 days from the date of this decision, whichever comes later, then the City Council will withdraw its demolition order.”
Councilman Shirley Smith seconded.
The vote on the amendment: All “aye” - Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Mayor Newsom stated there was a motion on the floor to adopt these amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and we are sending a very clear message.
The vote on the Decision with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the City Council of the City of Gladstone, Missouri as amended: Roll Call vote: All “aye” - Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Mayor Newsom told Mr. Robertson that he now has an opportunity to bring his property into compliance and advised that City Staff can direct and help him with this process to what we hope is a successful conclusion.
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the January 28, 2002 Gladstone City Council Meeting, Mayor Anita Newsom adjourned the Regular Meeting.
* * * * *
Councilman Les Smith moved to adjourn to Closed Executive Session in the City Manager’s Office pursuant to Missouri Open Meeting Act Exemptions 610.021(1) for Privileged Communication and Litigation Discussion, and 610.021(2) for Real Estate Acquisition. Councilman Shirley Smith seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Dan Bishop, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Anita Newsom. (5-0)
Marilyn F. Ahnefeld, City Clerk
Anita Newsom, Mayor