City Council

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF MISSION HILLS, KANSAS December 13, 2021 The City Council of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas held a regular meeting on December 13, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. PRESIDING: Mayor David W. Dickey PRESENT: Councilpersons Bill Bruning, Barbara Nelson, Braden Perry (phone), Eden Thorne, and Andy Weed ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Lee, City Administrator; Justin Carroll, Assistant City Administrator; Meghan Woolbright, City Clerk; Spencer Jones, City Treasurer (phone); Anna Krstulic, City Attorney; Connor Mountford, Planning Management Intern (phone); Police Chief Byron Roberson, Prairie Village Police Department (“PVPD”) VISITORS: Daniel Miller, 2335 Guilford Lane 2021 BUDGET AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Councilperson Bruning opened the public hearing for a 2021 Budget Amendment at 5:30 p.m. and asked for public comment. There being no public present to comment, Councilperson Bruning closed the public hearing at 5:30 p.m. GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS Following the pledge of allegiance, Councilperson Bruning greeted visitors and noted that the order of the agenda could be adjusted to accommodate the interests of the visitors. Mayor Dickey joined the meeting at 5:32 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING Councilperson Nelson moved to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2021 meeting. Councilperson Weed seconded. Councilperson Thorne noted on page 3 “Mission Drive” is referenced and it should reference “Mission Road.” Mayor Dickey noted on page 4 “Dicky” should be corrected to “Dickey” and on pages 11 and 12 “caliber” should be corrected to “caliper.” Councilpersons Nelson and Weed accepted the edits. Approved 5-0. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police Report 1 Chief Roberson stated unfortunately the November police report was on par with the last few months. He referenced the narrative report and noted the aggravated burglary on Overhill Road included a stolen auto and the aggravated burglary on High Drive included thefts of items in the garage and unlocked vehicle. In both instances, the garage doors were left open, and the garages were attached to the house allowing for access to house, therefore they are categorized as aggravated burglary. If there had not been access to the house both instances would have been burglaries. Chief Roberson noted that the stolen auto on Overhill was recovered in Kansas City, MO. Chief Roberson referenced the burglary report on Willow Lane and noted the garage door was left open and items inside were stolen, including a handgun. He stated that he would encourage and reiterate at the Annual Homes Association Meeting in January that items need to be out of sight if in a locked vehicle and especially encourage all guns to be in a locked location when not in use. Chief Roberson clarified that the theft of vehicle parts was a license plate. He noted that the license plate has been added to the license plate reader (LPR) system and that unfortunately thieves will take a license plate and put it on vehicles to commit crimes. Chief Roberson noted there were three thefts from vehicles and in one case the resident observed the theft occurring and tried to follow the subject’s vehicle. He stated the police strongly discourage residents following any subject and request residents immediately contact the police. He added these situations can become dangerous as the subject may be carrying weapons and following could antagonize them into doing something they many do not do otherwise while trying to flee. Chief Roberson stated if you see a crime in progress the best action is to call police immediately and provide a description and trajectory of the subject. He added that often police receive a delayed response from victims who are trying to mentally process events and typically contact a spouse or friend before calling the police. Chief Robeson reiterated the police encourage all residents to call the police first, because the faster the information is out on the police radios, the better the response. Mayor Dickey noted in the case where the resident followed the subject, the resident first observed the vehicle being entered, waited until the subject had left the site, and the followed. He noted more than five minutes passed between first observing the theft and following the subject, and this time could have been used by the police to respond. Chief Roberson agreed and residents may think observing a crime is helpful to investigations, but it is taking away from the response timeline. He added that Mission Hills is a unique community and only certain main streets are known to those who are not familiar with the area. Councilperson Nelson asked for clarification, if the correct number to call is 911 when a crime is observed. Chief Roberson replied if anyone sees any crime in progress, the best response is to call 911. He noted the crime might not be an emergency, but it is the best way for police to pursue the matter. Chief Roberson added the police department encourages everyone to keep track of what is in their wallet and be aware of credit card activity. He noted that if a credit card is stolen it will typically be used immediately and police can use this information to track the subject’s activity in real time. Chief Roberson noted there a few other thefts and frauds in the police narrative. He added that the local and national news has highlighted the increase is frauds, specifically 2 Medicare and Medicaid, and with tax session approaching it is important to educate people that the IRS will not ask for personal information or payments over the phone. Chief Roberson stated that the Mayor requested the Police Department review data to determine the time of day of burglaries, stolen autos, and thefts. He noted many of these cases show up on the shift blotter in the morning, so it appears that these crimes are occurring during the daytime. After review, the burglaries and stolen auto are occurring in the overnight hours and the reports are occurring upon discovery in the morning, but the crime is occurring overnight. He added there have been a few crimes committed during the day, but the vast majority are occurring overnight. Chief Roberson noted that to date in 2021, there have been 20 vehicles who have fled during attempted traffic stops, and this trend is also occurring in Prairie Village, where there have been more than 60 vehicles flee attempted traffic stops in 2021. Chief Roberson noted that catching subjects can be problematic, as there is a risk to public in chase scenarios. He stated the best solution is crime prevention and by residents committing to the “9 PM Routine,” which includes checking that all car doors are locked, and windows closed, garage doors down, and exterior lights on. Chief Roberson added that there have only been a few instances where vehicle windows were broken or forced entry of locks. He noted that subjects do not want to make noise unless there is a desirable item in plain view, so removing valuables from sight is also important. Mayor Dickey referred to the number of vehicles fleeing traffic stops and for comparison to previous years. Chief Roberson replied that the police department started collecting that data in 2020, but anecdotally there have been more pursuits than in previous years. He added that officers will terminate a pursuit if it becomes too dangerous but will continue chase so long as it is safe. Councilperson Bruning stated that if the Mayor and Chief are supportive, he recommends sending a letter to all residents with redacted police narratives to encourage behavior change. He noted that individual residents are crime victims, while at the same time all residents are at risk because these crimes of opportunity give the appearance that Mission Hills is a desirable location to commit crime. Councilperson Bruning opined the letter could include crime statistics from the past year and make a point that most instances are crimes of opportunity. Mayor Dickey agreed and noted the Council had discussed sending a letter to all residents regarding public safety at the November meeting. He added he plans to send a public safety letter the first of January that will identify the key topics discussed at this meeting. Councilperson Thorne suggested including a summary of the entire year’s police narratives in the public safety letter. Mayor Dickey agreed and added he will address this topic directly at the Annual Homes Association meeting in January and highlight that 90% or more of the stolen autos were unlocked with keys inside vehicle. He opined that these unlocked vehicle cases make it marginally more attractive for subjects to continue to look for opportunities. Mayor Dickey referred to the police activity report and noted there is has been a measurable increase in the number residential and aggravated burglaries over the past year. Councilperson Bruning agreed and noted an increase in auto thefts. Mayor Dickey reiterated that nearly all the auto thefts were unlocked vehicles. He added that he would request feedback from the Council on his public safety letter to all residents. Councilperson Nelson noted that the City’s country clubs have also been affected by unlocked 3 vehicle crimes and they have informed all the members, so non-resident members are being educated as well. Councilperson Nelson asked Chief Roberson if winter is an attractive time for crimes. Chief Roberson replied that some crimes might increase, such as vehicles being warmed up with the keys left inside, but snow and colder temperatures change criminal habits. He stated that the data suggests summer is a more common season for crime. Councilperson Nelson asked if foundation lighting can help deter crime. Chief Roberson replied yes, and stated that subjects like darkness, so lights and motion lights can be helpful in deterring crimes. He added that many driveways in the City are far off the road, so motion lighting can also be helpful in alerting officers patrolling the area. Councilperson Bruning asked if the LPR system works at both night and day. Chief Roberson replied yes. Councilperson Bruning noted his partner has witnessed many older vehicles driving in the community during the early morning. Chief Roberson noted there are multiple reasons for this, including many service industry workers and cleaning personnel work outside business hours, and younger people tend to be out late at night. B. Fire District Report No additional fire report was given. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims Ordinance No. 1597 B. 2021 Budget Amendment C. Resolutions Nos. 2021-Z and 2021-AA: Contracts with KC Arborist and Van Booven Tree for 2022 Street Tree Pruning D. Resolution 2021-BB: Agreement with CARS for Tomahawk Rd: State Line Rd to Mission Rd E. Ordinance No. 1598: Amending Start Time of City Council Meetings Councilperson Weed moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 1599 – Artificial Turf Revision Ms. Clifton stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the City’s artificial turf regulations after three owners had projects approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) that could not be issued permits for artificial turf, because the materials did not meet the City’s ordinances. She added that the current ordinance requires that artificial turf simulate the appearance of natural live grass and specifies that the minimum grass height be 1.75 inches, which is too tall for putting greens that require short grass for the golf ball to roll. Ms. Clifton added that the current ordinance specifies only two specific kinds of artificial turf materials can be permitted. She added that the Planning Commission worked with Sara Greenwood, sustainability consultant and environmental expert, to remove the minimum blade length for putting greens only and 4 identified a regulated level of lead in the products. Ms. Clifton clarified that any application for artificial tuff other than putting greens would have minimum and maximum blade length requirements. She added that companies provide specifications sheets on the artificial turf material that already includes the blade length and total lead content test with results, so staff will be able to administer the proposed ordinance revisions. Ms. Clifton presented sample products and added that infill would not be required for putting greens in the proposed ordinance revisions. Councilperson Bruning asked if the artificial turf in the proposed ordinance revision would be permeable. Ms. Clifton replied yes and the specification sheets from the artificial turf company must state the material is permeable. Councilperson Nelson noted the importance of the total lead content testing and the permeable surface testing. She asked for clarification on the permeable surface test. Ms. Clifton replied that the Chief Building Inspector has a standardized practice for testing permeable versus impermeable surface, which he currently does as part of the stormwater utility fee program. Ms. Lee noted that staff would require product specifications and certified test data before a permit for artificial turf could be issued and the permeable test would be conducted after product installation. Mayor Dickey asked if the proposed ordinance language defines putting greens. Ms. Krstulic replied no. Mayor Dickey noted that the proposed ordinance language exempts putting greens from material requirements and opined a definition for putting greens should be included. Ms. Lee noted that the proposed ordinance language would maintain the restrictions on the amount of square footage and location allowed. Councilperson Nelson asked for clarification on District R- 1 referenced in the proposed ordinance language. Ms. Krstulic noted that District R-1 is a residential zoning reference that includes most residents and excludes City Hall, First Lutheran Church, and the Country Clubs. Ms. Lee noted that District R-1 is a defined term within the Zoning Regulations. Councilperson Nelson noted that the Country Clubs typically do not use artificial turf for putting. Mayor Dickey noted that artificial turf is only used in the practice areas. Mr. Miller asked if the proposed ordinance language increases the 250 square foot artificial turf limitation or if a variance could be granted for a greater amount. Ms. Clifton replied that the Planning Commission discussed the artificial turf limitation and there was not a desire to increase the amount of allowable square footage of artificial turf. She clarified that the lot coverage requirement is related to the amount of roofed structure on a lot, whereas the allowable greenspace requirement is specifically the amount of greenspace that is vegetation. Mr. Miller noted he would most likely not pursue a putting green due to the size limitation and the concept of approving a different material might be moot due to the size restriction. Mayor Dickey asked if any changes to the proposed ordinance language would require additional review by the Planning Commission. Ms. Krstulic stated the Council could adopt the proposed language and send back items for the Planning Commission to review. Mayor Dickey asked if there is a pressing desire to pursue this topic. Ms. Clifton noted there are three owners who have projects approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) that are waiting for their permits for artificial turf to be issued, but they would most likely wait to proceed on their projects until spring. Mayor Dickey opined that the definition of putting greens is necessary prior to proceeding with an ordinance revision. Councilperson Nelson moved to return the proposed 5 ordinance revision in Ordinance No. 1599 to the Planning Commission for the addition of a definition of putting green. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. FINANCIAL REPORT A. November Financial Report Mr. Carroll stated with the closing of November the fiscal year is 91.6% complete and the City has received 101.2% of the project revenues. He added that the City is a strong financial position as the revenue actuals have outpaced the previous fiscal year actuals. Councilperson Nelson referred to the financial report and asked for clarification of NPDES 01-04-2120. Ms. Lee replied it is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a federal permitting authority. As part of that program, the City monitors stormwater runoff through erosion controls, manages the level of salt used to clear the roadways of snow and ice, and contracts for monthly street sweeping which decreases the amount of debris entering the stormwater system. She added that the numerical series in the financial report is the accounting code that correlates to line-item spending in the Revenue and Expense Report. Mayor Dickey asked if there were any additional questions or comments on the November financial report. There were none. OLD BUSINESS A. Repeat Nuisance Properties Mr. Carroll stated that the repeat nuisance issue at 2517 W. 68th Street was abated by the date required. He added that the City Inspector was granted access to 3002 W. 66th Terrace to conduct the November inspection per the plea agreement. The inspector documented that no changes or improvements had been made, therefore the November inspection failed. Mr. Carroll stated that the inspection report was submitted to the City’s Prosecutor and a penalty will be assessed for the month of November. Mayor Dickey stated that the circumstances at these residences are examples of why the City’s staff needs tools to address nuisances. He noted that in both cases the property owners do not act until there is a deadline. Councilperson Weed noted that in the case of 3002 W. 66th Terrace that it is less expensive for the property owner to pay the penalty than address the minimum standards violation. Ms. Lee noted that if a nuisance is not abated the City can abate the issue and assess the related costs to the property through a special assessment. Councilperson Weed asked if assessments are only paid at the time of a property sale. Ms. Lee replied that the City submits special assessment with a collection schedule to the County for tax collections each August 25. The County then collects these assessments and remits to the City. She noted for example, a property owner needed assistance with paying for a sewer line replacement under the street, so the City completed the work, and the property owner paid a special assessment for the value of the work over three years. She added that there is a separate procedure for properties in arrears on payment of property taxes. Mayor Dickey noted the ordinances currently provide a framework for assessments if a structure must be repaired or removed. Councilperson Weed opined the special assessment functions as an installment loan. Ms. Lee noted that in very limited circumstances special assessments have functioned that way in the past. Councilperson Weed noted the Council is seeking a remedy that encourages behavior 6 change at nuisance properties. Ms. Lee noted that the proposed ordinance language in Ordinance No. 1603 provides language to charge a separate penalty for each day a nuisance is not abated. NEW BUSINESS E. Ordinance No. 1603 – Repeat Nuisance Penalties Ms. Lee stated the Council requested a proposal that could subject anyone violating the nuisance ordnance to a fine in addition to the process outlined in the current ordinance, which requires abatement. She added that staff structured the repeat nuisance penalties after the working without a penalty ordinance. Mr. Carroll stated the proposed nuisance penalties demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and would allow the City to take action to abate the nuisance and financially penalize the violator. He added that the Police Department would issue citations and the violator could also be subject to Municipal Court. Mayor Dickey noted the per day within a calendar year escalator and stated that this structure would require the issue be abated and the penalty could become significant after a few days. Ms. Lee clarified that in addition to the cost of abating the nuisance, the violator would be penalized a daily fine until the issue is abated. Councilperson Bruning asked if the offense replicates so that if the nuisance is not abated in two days there would be two offenses for penalty. Ms. Lee replied yes, the penalty structure specifies that each day any violation continues, it constitutes a separate offense, and each violation is subject to a separate fine. Councilperson Bruning asked for clarification on the penalty amount for two offenses. Mayor Dickey replied, the penalty would be $750 because the first offense is $250 and the second offense is $500, because each violation is a subject to a separate fine. Ms. Krstulic agreed that each day a violation occurs it is a separate offense and subject to a charge. Councilperson Thorne noted the quick escalation of the penalty structure. Mayor Dickey agreed and noted that on the fifth day of violation the penalty would be $2,000. Councilperson Bruning asked if the repeat nuisance violators are aware of the financial implications of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Carroll noted that if the ordinance language is adopted it would be effective upon publication. He noted that 3002 W. 66th Terrace would be subject to the Municipal Court plea agreement for the previously documented nuisances. Ms. Lee noted that 3002 W. 66th Terrace must schedule monthly inspections as part of the Municipal Court plea agreement and any new nuisances would be documented and managed through the new ordinance if adopted. Councilperson Nelson asked about the status of the minimum standards violations at 3002 W. 66th Terrace. Ms. Lee replied that window and exterior openings must be replaced, and the foundation must be repaired, because the front wall is failing. She added that the property owners have an engineer’s report and estimate to do the work, but they have not made the choice to address these issues. Councilperson Weed asked if a property could be subject to concurrent nuisances. Ms. Lee replied yes, and each violation is a separate offense and could be subject to a separate fine. Councilperson Bruning asked for clarification on the procedure of issuing violations if Ordinance No. 1603 were adopted. Mr. Carroll replied that once the City documents a nuisance, the property owner would receive notice and have ten days to remedy the nuisance. If the nuisance was not addressed within ten days, then the property owner could be subject to fines in 7 accordance with the penalty provision. Councilperson Bruning asked if it is feasible for staff to enforce the proposed ordinance. Mr. Carroll replied yes. Councilperson Nelson noted the repeat nuisance properties and asked if the City anticipates additional properties being added to this list. Mr. Carroll stated that most nuisances are resolved within the ten-day notice period. Mayor Dickey noted that in the cases where the nuisance is not remedied within the notice period, it negatively impacts and appropriately frustrates the neighboring properties. Councilperson Weed stated that the goal in requesting an ordinance revision is to address nuisance issues and change behavior. Councilperson Bruning asked if the violations will trigger a court hearing. Ms. Krstulic replied yes, the violator is subject to a court hearing. Councilperson Weed noted that the City of Leawood requires violators to show up in person and opined that can be inconvenient. Councilperson Thorne opined requiring a court appearance is public. Ms. Krstulic stated the Municipal Court judge will determine if being present at court is required. She added that anyone who does not appear in court when required can be issued a bench warrant. Mayor Dickey stated the language in the proposed ordinance provides guidance for penalties to the Municipal Court judge, because it sets a no less than for fine for each offense. Councilperson Bruning stated he does not want to pursue bench warrants for nuisance abatement and prefers the option of adding a special assessment to be collected with the following year’s tax bill. Ms. Lee stated the current process allows for abatement expenses to be placed as a special assessment to a tax bill, whereas the penalty for violations would be due to the Court immediately. Ms. Krstulic noted the abatement costs would be still required. Mayor Dickey stated that a nuisance violator would be subject to both the cost to abate and any penalties for violations. Ms. Krstulic clarified that there is a Statue that authorizes the City to file action in court if assessments are not paid when due. Councilperson Bruning stated the special assessment through the County tax bill provides a more immediate option than property lien. Ms. Krstulic noted the special assessment is attached to the property, so if there is a sale within the year of assessment it would still be due. Councilperson Bruning reiterated that the Council is not seeking to punish people, and the intent of the proposed ordinance is to motivate the abatement of safety and health concerns. Mayor Dickey reiterated the proposed ordinance is fair to the neighbors who are negatively impacted by these nuisances. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1603 for penalties for violating the nuisance ordinance. Councilperson Weed seconded. Councilperson Perry stated the ordinance language does not provide adjustments for subjectivity because it sets a mandatory minimum. He stated he is cautious of any language that sets a mandatory minimum penalty. Councilperson Bruning stated a function of the court is to determine fines. Councilperson Perry stated that with a mandatory minimum set in the ordinance, the court could not have any discretion to assess a lower fine. Ms. Krstulic stated typically this type of ordinances is written with a fine maximum, as opposed to a minimum. She stated the discretion to assess a fine for violation would be from staff review and determination to submit to court. Councilperson Bruning noted it can be difficult to hire contractors at this time. Mr. Carroll noted for example, if someone is noticed for a tree nuisance and they contact the City and state they have been able to line up a certified arborist within three weeks, the City will work with the property owner on the timeline to address the issue. The situation is managed differently if someone is noticed for a tree nuisance and takes no action to address the issue or communicate with the City. Mayor Dickey referred to the repeat nuisances at 3002 W. 66th Terrace and that the Council had previously 8 discussed a timeline for the foundation repair in the spring, which has yet to occur. Ms. Krstulic noted that in any event if a nuisance condition is subject to structural failure, there are other ordinance procedures that provide an opportunity for the City to demolish the structure. Ms. Lee noted that the structure at 3002 W. 66th Terrace does not meet the minimum standards and is not currently fit for occupancy. Approved 4-1. Councilperson Perry stated he is in support of a penalty structure for violations to the nuisance ordinance but voted against Ordinance No. 1603 due to the mandatory minimum set in the ordinance. OLD BUSINESS (continued) B. Finalize 2022 City Council Meeting Dates and 2023 Budget Calendar Ms. Lee noted that following the discussion at the November meeting, the March meeting date was moved to March 7, 2022, and the financial/strategic planning meeting was moved to Wednesday, May 11, 2022. Mayor Dickey requested staff send out digital calendar invites for the Council and Budget calendars. Ms. Woolbright confirmed that calendar invites would be sent. Ms. Lee noted that following the rotation of liaison assignments, digital calendar invites will also be sent for those meetings. C. Resolution No. 2021 – CC: Agreement with Roeland Park for Arborist Services Mr. Carroll noted that Resolution No. 2021-CC is in the spirit of good neighbors to another northeastern Johnson County city. He noted that the City of Roeland Park is working toward their staff becoming certified arborists, but there is a back log in the Kansas Arborist Association (KAA) certification process because they were unable to complete certifications last year. Mr. Carroll noted Roeland Park would be requesting consultation only at their City’s parks and public spaces and the agreement specifically excludes residential consultation. Additionally, the agreement allows the City of Mission Hills the right to refuse any request. Mr. Carroll added that this agreement in no way would take away from the City Arborist’s current duties. Councilperson Nelson asked why the City of Roeland Park approached the City of Mission Hills with this request. Mr. Carroll stated that Mission Hills is the closest Kansas community with a certified arborist on staff. Councilperson Thorne asked if public street trees would be included in the agreement. Mr. Carroll replied yes. Councilperson Nelson asked how much the City anticipates Roeland Park will request to use this agreement and how many public spaces have trees. Mr. Carroll stated that Roeland Park’s public works department is working to complete a tree inventory. He anticipates Roeland Park will request case by case review related to safety. For example, if a limb was downed on a City tree, Roeland Park may ask for consultation on whether or not the tree is healthy enough to maintain or should be removed. Mr. Carroll reiterated that the contract is explicitly for public consultation on a case-by-case basis. Councilperson Thorne stated she could think of three parks in Roeland Park. Councilperson Nelson stated the City Arborist is an expert and excellent at his job. She added that the City Arborist’s duties at Mission Hills could be expanded. Ms. Lee noted that staff would manage the City Arborist’s schedule and Mission Hills duties would always take priority. 9 She added that the agreement would not have been entertained if staff did not believe it could be managed. Mayor Dickey stated that staff would be required to manage time appropriately. Mr. Carroll stated that Mission Hills could reject any request for consultation from Roeland Park. Councilperson Nelson opined she would like for the City Arborist’s role to expand into landscape management and noted his skills are valuable with a changing environment and continued redevelopment. Ms. Lee stated the agreement would be temporary and Roeland Park’s goal is for their staff to become certified arborists. Councilperson Weed asked if the agreement was timebound. Mr. Carroll replied that the agreement would be reviewed by both parties six months from adoption and could be for up to one year if both parties agree. Councilperson Bruning noted that it is the City Administrator’s role to manage staff and if the City Arborist would like this opportunity, he is supportive. Ms. Lee stated that staff can commit to internal checks and balances and would discuss every request from Roeland Park and determining if consulting on that issue is appropriate. She added that the City Arborist could include an update in his quarterly review and a formal review at six months. Mr. Carroll stated the agreement provides the City with discretion to review and either accept or reject each request. Councilperson Weed asked if the City anticipates the utility work for Tomahawk Road project to be an extensive time commitment for the City Arborist. Ms. Lee stated that the City Arborist has met with the utility foremen and completed field site reviews in advance, which should reduce issues. Mayor Dickey referred to the agreement and noted the insurance section. Ms. Krstulic stated the insurance language in the agreement utilizes existing contract language from the Police contract. Mayor Dickey stated that typically in a business relationship there is a no hire cluse. Ms. Krstulic stated that could be added. Mr. Carroll stated that Roeland Park would be amiable to changes. Mayor Dickey suggested a 12 month no hire clause following the expiration of the agreement. Councilperson Bruning moved to approve Resolution No. 2021-CC for an agreement with Roeland Park for arborist services. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Ms. Krstulic noted the agreement includes a reimbursement rate based on the City Arborist’s wages and benefits with 15% increase. Approved 5-0. D. Discuss Kanas City Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) Mayor Dickey stated that at this time, no action is required for this item, and it is on the agenda so that the Council is informed of this regional effort. He added that if there is an opportunity for the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to benefit from the City’s formal recognition or adoption of the CAP the item could return to the Council. Councilperson Thorne referenced the City Administrator’s staff report and repaving the City Hall parking lot could be an opportunity to add infrastructure for electric car charging stations at City Hall. Ms. Lee noted there was previous discussion about adding electric car charging stations in the City and she would return to Council with more information on electric charging opportunities. Mayor Dickey asked about the remaining lifetime of the City’s vehicles. Ms. Lee noted the City has a mix of hybrid and standard vehicles. Mayor Dickey stated the City could move to a fleet of electric cars. Councilperson Thorne stated electric charging at City Hall would be a nice community amenity. Mayor Dickey noted that the Police Department is moving to hybrid vehicles. 10 NEW BUSINESS B. Ordinance No. 1600 – Short Term Rentals Councilperson Thorne noted the proposal prohibits rentals for less than 30 days and asked if there are concerns about someone renting a residence for 30 days and hosting a one-night event. Ms. Krstulic noted that if that occurred the noise disturbance and other existing ordinance could be enforced. Ms. Lee noted that the Planning Commission discussed short terms rentals and identified 30 days as an appropriate time length. Councilperson Nelson asked how the City will restrict short term rentals to 30 days. Ms. Lee stated enforcement would be complaint drive. Councilperson Nelson stated a 30-day minimum seems appropriate. Ms. Lee stated that a review could be set to determine the appropriateness of the 30-day limit if desired. Councilperson Weed asked if there is a current issue with short term rentals. Mayor Dickey noted that it is an anticipated issue and short-term rentals for events are increasing in popularity in the South Plaza, Kansas City, MO. Councilperson Bruning asked if the number of days could be adjusted. Ms. Krstulic stated that modifying an ordinance recommendation from the Planning Commission would require a supermajority of the voting Council. She added that other communities have rental requirements including building code inspections if the Council is seeking to be more restrictive. Mayor Dickey noted that there have not yet been issues, so he does not want to prohibit all rental opportunities. He added that Mission Hills is not a destination location for short term rentals and requested a 6-month review of the language in May 2022. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1600 for short term rentals. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. C. Ordinance No. 1601 – Drainage Study Requirements Revision Ms. Clifton stated that the proposed changes in Ordinance No. 1601 originated from a discussion at the joint retreat of the City’s Boards. She noted that City staff and members of the ARB have received complaints about the triggers for a drainage study. Ms. Clifton stated that the Planning Commission is recommending that a drainage study be required for projects that add 1,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, cause the greenspace to fall below the minimum greenspace recommendation, or have a documented drainage issue filed against the property. She added that if the property does not currently meet the greenspace recommendation a drainage study would not be required if the project is to replace the existing structure in approximately the same location and does not increase the existing greenspace, so long as there are no neighbor complaints. Mayor Dickey noted that most of the Council attended the joint retreat where this matter was discussed and asked if drainage studies will no longer be required if the project is within plus or minus 3% of the minimum greenspace and if 1,000 square feet of impervious surface was added over the last 10 years. Ms. Clifton replied yes, those conditions for drainage study were removed in the Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council. Ms. Clifton stated that the City Administrator or ARB would still have the authority to order a drainage study for unique situations and all new homes are automatically required to submit a drainage study. Councilperson Nelson asked if significant additions or remodels would require a drainage study. Ms. Clifton replied that if the project added 1,000 square feet of impervious surface or if there 11 was a neighbor complaint a drainage study would be required. Councilperson Bruning asked how drainage complaints are documented to the City. Ms. Clifton noted that City staff records complaints received by resident or observed by staff in the property records. Councilperson Nelson referred to a BZA meeting where a resident seeking a variance for an outdoor project learned in the meeting that a neighbor had complaints about receiving water from the current condition of the property. She stated that with smaller projects, such as a new driveway, requiring a full drainage study from an engineer might not be necessary. Councilperson Nelson noted with the general growth of impervious surface, continued redevelopment, and climate change water will continue to be a challenging issue to manage. Ms. Clifton noted that the ARB is discussing how projects could impact run-off water and talks through options for addressing known or potential issues with applicants. Councilperson Nelson noted there are landscapers who are knowledgeable in addressing water issues and their services could be useful. Ms. Lee stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Council took into consideration feedback provided to City staff, ARB, and the joint retreat discussion. She added the ARB discusses the current and potential water situation when reviewing every applicable project and noted the recommendation would not require drainage studies for in-kind replacements, such as driveway replacements, so long as there is not a documented water complaint or a decrease in the existing greenspace. Ms. Lee stated staff has heard from residents at multiple venues that the current drainage study requirement is cumbersome. Councilperson Nelson suggested that water issues should be a topic of discussion at the Annual Homes Association meeting. Ms. Lee noted that the Summer 2021 City Newsletter focused on water issues and there will be on going conversations to educate residents on available resources, options, and restrictions related to water. Councilperson Bruning moved to approve Ordinance No. 1601 for drainage study requirement revisions. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Councilperson Bruning asked if the City is approving drainage basins as a solution in the drainage study review. Ms. Lee replied not at the same frequency as in the past. She noted in a case where the applicant had identified a drainage basin as a possible solution in their drainage study. The City consulted a third party who recommended against that solution because the rock shelf formation at that location would not allow water to penetrate. Ms. Lee noted that in many cases the drainage study occurs after the ARB review, but if there is a neighbor concern, the ARB can require a drainage study as part of its review. She added that the geology at some properties does not allow for drainage basins. Mayor Dickey noted that the City’s adopted drainage study ordinance requires drainage system to be test for functionality every two years. Ms. Krstulic added that three solutions must be provided in the drainage study for staff to review and determine the most appropriate solution. Approved 5-0. D. Ordinance No. 1602 – Solicitation Revision Mr. Carroll stated that at the Council’s request, the Crime Prevention and Safety Committee (CPSC) reviewed the City’s solicitation ordinance over two meetings. He stated at the first meeting the CPSC reviewed the current language and reviewed how neighboring communities 12 are managing this issue. Mr. Carroll stated following that initial review, the CPSC identified the Prairie Village solicitor license program to model, which requires solicitors to register at City Hall for a small fee and submit to a criminal history check. He noted the criminal history check would reveal any outstanding warrants. Mr. Carroll stated that the City Attorney reviewed Prairie Village’s language and 2021 Uniform Public Offense Code (UPOC) for compliance with the First Amendment, State statutes, and case law. Following this review and discussion with the CPSC, the proposed ordinance language recommends requiring anyone who is soliciting in the City to register. Ms. Krstulic stated in reviewing first amendment case law and State statues, a city cannot regulate campaign related activities, as they are not defined as soliciting. She stated the proposed ordinance revision focus on regulating solicitation of funds, such as those trying to sell goods or services or asking for money without listing a purpose. Ms. Krstulic noted a city attempted to ban all solicitation with a religious exception, and the Court found there to be no distinction. Councilperson Bruning opined that allowing people to approach a home can be an opportunity for them to case the residence for a potential crime. Ms. Krstulic stated the concern is the protection of free speech and someone approaching your home may be doing so for campaign or civic related purposes. Mayor Dickey stated your First Amendment right does not give someone the right to trespass. Ms. Krstulic stated the court ruled in favor of freedom of speech and religion when the Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged a city that required for all those going door to door to receive a permit. The court determined witnessing door to door is how they provide ministry. Mayor Dickey stated these individuals could witness at public locations. Councilperson Nelson stated the length of a driveway is a considerable distance to travel before reaching a no solicitation sticker at someone’s door and asked if a resident could place a no soliciting sign in their yard. Ms. Lee replied yes, so long as the sign met the City’s sign regulations. She noted there had been discussion of the City subsidizing the cost of no solicitation yard signs or painting on the streets a specific color to indicate no solicitation. Ms. Lee stated that currently the resident must post notice that solicitation is prohibited. Mr. Carroll stated that the CPSC determined that the registration process would discourage bad actors and provide an opportunity to share the City’s no visit list. He added that the ordinances already allow for a no visit list, but without a registration process there has not previously been an avenue to share this list with solicitors. Mayor Dickey asked if instead of a no visit list if the City could have an visit list that residents opt-in, so that residents would have to select to be solicited. Mr. Carroll stated that residents could ask to see a solicitor’s registration and if they cannot produce it then the resident could call the police. He stated that in Prairie Village the police ask to see registration if there is a report of soliciting. On the first occurrence, the police will educate an unregistered solicitor and if there is a second occurrence the police issue a citation. Ms. Krstulic stated that requiring residents to opt-in to solicitation would function as de facto ban. Mayor Dickey stated that an opt-in would still allow solicitation to those who chose to be solicited. Ms. Krstulic stated that she cannot provide a firm recommendation tonight regarding an opt-in list. She stated she would review case law and report back to the Council. Councilperson Bruning agreed that further investigation in case law is appropriate and opined the Council should adopt language that is defensible. Councilperson Thorne asked the current 13 restriction if a resident has a no solicitation sticker. Ms. Lee replied that the no solicitation sticker provides the visitor notice and if they attempt to solicit the resident can call the police who will ask them to leave or issue a citation. Mayor Dickey stated that if the curb was painted or there was a yard sign then the visitor could not approach residence. Ms. Krstulic agreed. Mr. Carroll stated the CPSC discussed the options of painting the curb or signs and moved forward with registration. Councilperson Bruning stated the current system is not working and a licensing process could provide a structure for the no visit list. Ms. Lee and Mr. Carroll agreed. Councilperson Bruning asked if the City Attorney had any recommendation for additional language at this time. Ms. Krstulic replied that the language on handbills could be combined to not allow the posting of handbills in the Rights of Way, streetlights, or vehicles. She stated she would research the reverse opt-in discussed. Mayor Dickey stated that the best marketing practice is to require individuals to opt-in, such as signing up for email, as opposed to opt-out. He stated that the burden should be on the party selling something. Ms. Krstulic stated the Attorney General’s office prioritizes protecting speech and the Supreme Court juris prudence states going door to door is a time-honored tradition and there should not be restraints on freedom of religious or political speech. Mayor Dickey noted the purpose in the proposed ordinance language references a statement from the Supreme Court that a home is the “last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick.” Ms. Krstulic stated you have the right to deny anyone entry to your home. Mayor Dickey stated that residents do not like solicitation, and he is willing to be the tip of the spear on this matter. Ms. Krstulic stated that if there is evidence that solicitation is being used as cover for casing homes there could be more regulation, but at this time the police department has not provided a case. She stated the potential labor trafficking is a greater concern, where individuals are dropped off at a location and not picked back up until they have made a specified number of sales. Councilperson Bruning stated that although the matter is frustrating, he is supportive of measured action because this is a highly litigated issue. Councilperson Nelson stated she has anecdotal evidence of soliciting being a casement opportunity. Mr. Carroll suggested sharing this type of information with the police. Councilperson Thorne stated if solicitors were required to register with a criminal history check, then the City could educate residents on the no visit list through the Newsletter. Ms. Lee stated registered solicitors could be listed on the website so that residents could double-check their status. Councilperson Bruning asked if the solicitors would have to list all individuals from their organization for criminal history check. Mr. Carroll stated the person applying for the permit is checked. He stated that annually a few individuals inquire at City Hall for a solicitation permit because they assume we have a registration process. Councilperson Bruning noted another possible exposure is hired landscape workers. Mayor Dickey replied those individuals were invited to the property when hired. Ms. Krstulic stated that the solicitation license requires the City to be provided a copy of the applicant’s driver’s license. Mr. Carroll stated with the license program anyone in the City can report the observation of solicitation to the police. Councilperson Bruning moved to approved Ordinance No. 1602 for revisions to the solicitation ordinance and stated that there should be ongoing dialogue on solicitation and requested the City Attorney review case law for options for further restrictions. Councilperson Perry seconded. Mayor Dickey noted the revision limits the time for soliciting from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm and 14 suggested the times could be more restrictive. Ms. Krstulic asked if there was a recommendation for a more restrictive timeframe. Councilperson Nelson opined that revision is appropriate. Councilperson Bruning noted his motion requests further review at a later date. Approved 5-0. Resolution No. 2021 – DD: Opioid Settlement Ms. Lee stated for the City to participate in the nationwide opioid settlement, Council must adopt Resolution No. 2021 – DD prior to January 1, 2022. She stated any settlement funds would most likely be programmed to the police department. Councilperson Bruning asked if the City has incurred the minimum costs required for the settlement. Ms. Lee stated the Police are preparing a report of all opioid abuse and addiction mitigation related expenses and noted the use of Narcan was recently on the blotter. She stated by adopting the resolution and submitting the required paperwork, the City will be eligible for any settlement funds. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Resolution No. 2021- DD for opioid settlement. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. City Clerk Ms. Woolbright asked if there were any questions to the report. Councilperson Thorne noted the Annual Tree Lighting was a nice event and she had received positive feedback from residents. B. City Administrator Ms. Lee noted that the Tomahawk Road project open house was well attended and provided a good opportunity for residents to ask questions. She stated the City may want to do hold an open house for large projects in the future. Councilperson Weed noted he was surprised by the number of attendees and the open house was worthwhile. Ms. Lee noted it was helpful for residents to receive real time answers. Councilperson Bruning noted that everyone attending was really engaged and it was a good session. C. Assistant City Administrator Mr. Carroll stated the report includes the new trash schedule map starting January 1, 2022. He stated staff has planned communication to go out right after Christmas regarding the tree recycling program, unlimited trash week, and a link to the new route map. Mayor Dickey asked if the City of Prairie Village is holding its tree recycling event and that link be included in the trash related communications. Councilperson Bruning asked if Mr. Vogt will be the trash hauler every day. Mr. Carroll replied yes, he will be the trash hauler on the days there is trash pickup. D. City Planner No additional report of the City Planner was given. MAYOR’S COMMENTS A. Liaison Reports 15 Councilperson Bruning stated that the Planning Commission met twice, and the results are the ordinances recommended to the Council. He noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing without any attendees. He added the Planning Commission is reviewing language from the Design Guidelines regarding compatibility of surrounding structures for a potential ordinance recommendation following the ARB’s denial of a new home application at 5930 Oakwood Road. Councilperson Nelson stated the Board of Zoning Appeals had not met. Councilperson Thorne stated the ARB denied the home application at 5930 Oakwood Road, because the proposal was not compatible with the surrounding structure and recommendations of the Professional Review Panel not being met. She noted the architect and owners were given direction from the Professional Review Panel and staff, but they continued to proceed without making the advised changes. Councilperson Thorne noted the vote to deny was unanimous. Councilperson Bruning noted the five required findings for the ARB. Ms. Krstulic stated that if the ARB votes against one of the five findings the application must be denied. She added the applicant specifically asked to not hear the rest of the findings after the first was voted against. Councilperson Weed stated the Park Board Chair met with the homes association presidents in preparation of the Annual Homes Association meeting in January. Councilperson Perry noted that the Crime Prevention and Safety Committee (CPSC) had met twice. He noted at the second meeting there were attendees who were aggressive in their remarks, and he has offered to meet with them over coffee. He noted these comments should have been directed at the Council and not the CPSC. B. Liaison Assignments Mayor Dickey stated he reviewed liaison assignments with each Councilperson and the 2022 assignments are Councilperson Nelson to BZA, Councilperson Bruning to Park Board, Councilperson Perry to CPSC, Councilperson Weed to Planning Commission, and Councilperson Thorne to ARB. Mayor Dickey noted that Joint Homes Association is set for January 13, 2022, at the Kansas City Country Club. He noted his goal is to send a safety letter to all residents at the beginning of the year with a redacted narrative from police reports. He asked if any Council had recommendations for the letter to send them to him. Councilperson Nelson asked if the City could prepare a list of security camera vendors. Ms. Lee replied staff will bring that information to the Annual Homes Association meeting. Mayor Dickey noted an agenda item for the Annual Homes Association meeting is the City’s sales tax, which will require a vote to renew in 2022. Mayor Dickey congratulated Councilperson Weed on his upcoming retirement at year’s end. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm. 16 17