City Council

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF MISSION HILLS, KANSAS March 4, 2024 The City Council of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas held a meeting on March 4, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. PRESIDING: Mayor David W. Dickey PRESENT: Councilpersons Bill Bruning, Gregg Davidson, Barbara Nelson, Eden Thorne, and Andy Weed (phone) ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Lee, City Administrator; Meghan Woolbright, City Clerk; Jill Clifton, City Planner; Jesse Kirk, City Arborist; Anna Krstulic, City Attorney; Spencer Jones, City Treasurer; Captain Eric McCullough, Prairie Village Police Department (PVPD) VISITORS: Mike McQuaid, Fairway, KS and Tim McQuaid, Mission Hills CALL TO ORDER Mayor Dickey called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and the pledge of allegiance was recited. GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Dickey greeted visitors and noted that the order of the agenda would be adjusted to accommodate the interests of the visitors. Mayor Dickey noted that the meeting would be recorded for the purpose of meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING – February 12, 2024 Councilperson Nelson moved to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2024 meeting. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police Report Captain McCullough referred to the February narrative report and noted the low activity. He highlighted the one residential burglary where the victim is out of town and upon their return further investigation could help specify the loss. Captain McCullough noted in the aggravated residential burglary case that a garage door opener was taken from an unlocked vehicle in the driveway and the garage door was then opened with this opener and items from the garage attached to the home were stolen. He noted this is an ongoing case and a reminder for locking all vehicles. Captain McCullough reported in the first theft from vehicle incident that a resident alerted the police of an unfamiliar individual going through their neighbor’s unlocked vehicle at 4 am. The suspect was detained and found to have property from seven unlocked vehicles that were burglarized in the area, which resulted in their arrest. Captain McCullough noted in the 1 second theft from a vehicle case an unlocked vehicle was entered, and nothing was taken from the vehicle. He noted in the theft of vehicle case that an unlocked vehicle with the keys accessible was stolen from the resident’s driveway. He added the vehicle has not been located but the license plate readers (LPR) identified a possible suspect and there is an ongoing investigation. Captain McCullough noted in the criminal damage to property case two juveniles were playing with a BB gun when a bedroom window was struck. He noted a parent of the juveniles will pay for the damage to the window and no charges were made. Captain McCullough added there was nothing of note regarding the two traffic accidents where the striking vehicle was cited. Captain McCullough referred to the February activity report and noted the assault and battery charge occurred when the suspect in the theft from vehicle fought the law enforcement officer during their arrest. He added the weapons violation charge occurred when a gun was recovered during a traffic stop and drug arrest. Captain McCullough noted in several categories the year to date is lower than the previous year. Councilperson Nelson noted there were two fraud cases in January and two fraud cases in February, which is double the rate of the previous year. She noted that fraud tends to target the elderly and asked for more information on these incidents. Councilperson Bruning asked in follow up for the difference between fraud and theft by deception. Captain McCullough noted he would need further details to speak on these incidents, but typically fraud cases are related to online crimes and this time of year tax related or identify frauds. Councilperson Nelson requested the police department provide a newsletter article regarding fraud since there is an increased rate. Captain McCullough noted that theft by deception typically occurs in person and is action under false pretenses, such as purchasing an item with a counterfeit bill. He noted he could review the two incidents of theft by deception and see if there is a pattern. He added that typically if a pattern emerges the police department sends an alert through their social media channels. Councilperson Nelson noted that both drug and alcohol arrests have slightly increased over this time last year. Captain McCullough noted that typically this means that officers are staying active overnight and engaging with drivers to keep the streets safe. He added that typically drug and alcohol arrests coincide with driving while under the influence (DUI) arrests. He noted the slight increase in DUI arrests does not cause concern and noted in both Mission Hills and Prairie Village there are young officers actively patrolling at night looking for this behavior. Councilperson Weed noted that in the financial report the revenues for traffic violations are down for the year. He noted that traffic enforcement is not a matter of generating revenue, but it is an indicator of activity and asked if Captain McCullough could comment on the decreased revenue. Captain McCullough noted he could not comment at this time, but he could review the number of traffic stops and citations this year and the previous year and follow up with the Council. Mayor Dickey referred to the financial report and noted the 2024 traffic stop related revenues decreased by 2% from the 2023 year to date. I. Update on Phase III – LPR and Camera Installation Captain McCullough referred to Captain Washington’s memorandum on the third phase of LPR and camera installations in Mission Hills. He verified that systems at Mission Drive and 2 Brookbank Lane, 63rd Street and Belinder Avenue, and 67th Street and Tomahawk Road have been installed and are awaiting SIM cards and the system at 66th Street and Mission Road is currently being installed. He noted that until the SIM cards are installed the cameras are not live reporting to the officers and dispatch, but if there was a cause for investigation the cameras capture the data internally. He added the installation schedule includes one system a week with the goal completion date of April 5th. II. 2024 Goals and Objectives Captain McCullough referred to Chief Roberson’s goals and objectives report and highlighted the department's intention to start the two-year accreditation process through the Kansas Law Enforcement Accreditation Program (KLEAP) to be accredited in 2026. Ms. Lee noted that the Prairie Village Police Department (PVPD) was accredited in the past by a different organization. Captain McCullough agreed and noted the PVPD was previously accredited for many years by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), which is an international accreditation agency. He noted that a few local agencies have CALEA accreditation and the annual accreditation costs in 2006 were approximately $10,000 whereas KLEAP is approximately $400 annually. He added that the administrative burden for CALEA was significant, and one sergeant was dedicated full-time to demonstrating the department complied with over 550 policies and provided proofs at the on-site review of the department’s files every two years. He noted the CALEA accreditation process advanced the professional organization and best practices of the department in the 1990s. He added the department has stayed up to date with the CALEA best practices, but due to the administrative and cost burden PVPD is no longer seeking their accreditation. Captain McCullough noted that KLEAP was established in 2021, has a streamlined set of approximately 150 policies and procedures for compliance, and the current personnel of PVPD can implement the administrative requirements. He added that PVPD already meets the standards required for KLEAP and their accreditation will certify this. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 1652 – Possession of a Firearm while Under the Influence Mayor Dickey referred to the report in the packet on this topic and noted the ordinance was requested by the PVPD as another tool for enforcement. He added that if the ordinance is adopted there could be a challenge from the State. Ms. Lee noted that since the agenda review with Mayor Dickey and packet preparation on Friday, Captain McCullough contacted her this morning and shared the PVPD is reconsidering their request for the ordinance. Captain McCullough noted there is a Kansas state statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm while under the influence and the PVPD wanted the exact same language to be adopted by the City for enforcement at the City level. He added that Prairie Village has the State statute incorporated into their City code, but Mission Hills does not at this time. He said he reviewed neighboring communities' codes and did not see the offense. He noted that in the absence of a local offense, any police reports of possessing a firearm while under the influence would have to be sent to Johnson County’s District Attorney for charges under the State statute. He added that the State prohibits cities from adopting certain firearm regulations and he would defer to the City Attorney’s recommendation on the matter. 3 Councilperson Weed noted he is in favor of prohibiting the use of firearms while under the influence but there is a concern that the City could become embroiled in a legal battle if there is a challenge. Councilperson Bruning noted the report references Senate Bill 156 that was introduced to repeal the statutes that prohibit, limit, and otherwise restrict cities from firearms regulations. He also noted Ordinance No. 1652 refers to narcotic substances but does not include any indication of how strong or long the substance has been in the body. Ms. Krstulic said the language in Ordinance No. 1652 is taken directly from the State statute. Councilperson Bruning reiterated concern about the vague language regarding the substances presenting in the body. Ms. Krstulic noted that SB 156 would repeal statutes that prohibit local regulation of firearms and was introduced in the last legislative session and referred to committee in February 2023. She noted that the legislature’s website does not provide any further details. Councilperson Nelson asked to clarify that the language in Ordinance No. 1652 is currently the State law. Ms. Krstulic replied yes and noted that each year the League of Kansas Municipalities prepares the Uniform Public Offense Code (UPOC) that the City annually adopts to reflect any statutory changes. Possession of a firearm under the influence is not included in the UPOC because of the prohibition on local regulation in K.S.A. 12-16,124. She reiterated that in the absence of a local offense, the PVPD could not issue a citation to Municipal Court, and the case would be referred to the District Attorney’s office for charges. Councilperson Thorne asked why it would be advantageous to charge at the local level instead of referring to the District Attorney’s office. Captain McCullough replied that local charges would be easier on everyone, including the citizen who could address the charges at the municipal level, and the District Attorney’s office that has a high caseload. He added that these charges typically arise in conjunction with driving under the influence arrests, and there are 10 to 15 cases a year between Prairie Village and Mission Hills. He said this conversation started after a DUI arrest in Mission Hills where a firearm was present and PVPD became aware that Mission Hills’ code was different than Prairie Village’s code. He noted if Ordinance No. 1652 is not adopted then traffic charges would be submitted to Municipal Court and the possession of a firearm charge would be submitted to the District Attorney who would decide whether to file charges and issue a warrant. Captain McCullough noted he has a call out to the District Attorney about how they would prefer to handle these cases. Mr. Jones asked if the downside to adopting Ordinance No. 1652 is the cost if there is a challenge. Ms. Krstulic replied that preemption would be at issue. In preemption analysis, the first question is whether there is a state law on the subject and if so, does the proposed law conflict. Here, there would be no conflict because Ordinance No. 1652 mirrors K.S.A. 21-6332. The second question is whether there is a prohibition from regulation. Here, K.S.A. 12-16,124 specifically prohibits cities and counties from regulating the carrying and transportation of firearms, among other things. Mr. T. McQuaid asked if celebratory discharges of firearms by intoxicated individuals would be covered by this ordinance. Captain McCullough replied no, discharge of a weapon is not addressed by the ordinance. He noted the intent is to keep someone who is impaired from carrying a firearm. Captain McCullough said officers would have to complete a field test to demonstrate impairment whether while driving or at a public event where the individual is walking around. Councilperson Bruning referred to subsection (h) of the ordinance, which establishes the intoxication limit for alcohol but there is no amount identified for other narcotics that might be present in the system. Councilperson Davidson noted the ordinance refers to use of a medical professional for intoxication testing. Captain McCullough 4 noted that the ordinance would allow for the use of a breathalyzer to establish intoxication, whether or not there is a separate DUI charge. He added that if the officer believes there is drug impairment, then an authorized person at a hospital would complete the blood draw and testing. Captain McCullough clarified that there is no specific limit for driving under the influence of drugs and it is the officer’s responsibility to establish impairment independently based on the officer’s observations and field sobriety tests. Councilperson Bruning stated that impaired individuals should not be in possession of firearms, but he is concerned with the definition of intoxication, for example the inclusion of somnifacients and the lack of a definition of degree of impairment. Councilperson Weed agreed with Councilperson Bruning that an impaired individual should not possess a firearm, but consideration of Ordinance No. 1652 seems rushed. Mayor Dickey proposed that Ordinance No. 1652 be tabled for further consideration. B. Fire District Report No report was provided at the time of the Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims Ordinance No. 1651 B. Councilperson Bruning moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0. FINANCIAL REPORT A. February Financial Report Ms. Lee reported there were a few items of note in the February financial report including a few weak trends as the year starts, such as the reduced revenues in traffic fines compared to 2023. OLD BUSINESS A. Repeat Nuisance Properties Ms. Woolbright noted that 6510 Indian Lane is being reviewed weekly by the Chief Building Inspector to document any changes to the property. Councilperson Bruning asked what date the City required action to be taken by the property owner to abate the nuisances. Ms. Woolbright replied March 15, 2024. Councilperson Thorne asked if a graphic documenting the history and progress of repeat nuisance properties could be developed. Ms. Lee replied yes. NEW BUSINESS B. Community Engagement Committee - Proposed 2024 Calendar of Events Ms. Woolbright noted with the Council’s approval the 2024 calendar of community engagement events has been finalized. She noted the Diner a Verona rain date has been highlighted for discussion and whether or not a rain date is practical for attending residents. Ms. Woolbright noted the Committee discussed the rain date being on the following Saturday as opposed to Sunday. She noted while working through the logistics of vendors and residents planning their food and table arrangements, further consideration from the Council is requested. Ms. Woolbright added the Committee selected the 75th Anniversary logos and are considering having an off-duty officer at the events held at City Hall. Councilperson Bruning asked if there was a recommendation from the Committee for the Diner a Verona rain date. Ms. Woolbright replied the following Saturday, September 28. Councilperson Thorne added that it is hard to plan 5 for a Sunday rain date, because it could possibly be a Chief’s football game. She added that the event was rained out last year and since there was a Chief’s game the following Sunday, the event was totally cancelled. She noted another possibility was renting a large tent, so that the event could proceed if there was rain. Councilperson Nelson noted that between the weather and Chief’s schedule it can be a tricky time of year to plan. Ms. Lee noted the Committee initially planned for the Diner a Verona on Saturday, September 21st with a rain date the following Saturday, September 28th rain date. She noted after further consideration of vendor and resident logistics we are seeking the Council’s input. Councilperson Nelson suggested that a rain date could be determined later once more is known about the Chief’s schedule and vendor options. Councilperson Thorne agreed and noted the postcard of events out to residents could list the rain date as to be determined. Mayor Dickey agreed. Ms. Lee noted that the goal is to mail the postcard of events to residents in mid-April and a separate invitation to the Diner a Verona with event details is mailed at a later date to residents. Councilperson Davidson asked if holding the Diner a Verona on a Friday had been discussed. Councilperson Thorne replied yes and noted it would be challenging for residents to coordinate tables on a Friday. Councilperson Thorne noted that Street Fair will be considerably more elaborate to celebrate the 75th Anniversary. She encouraged everyone to plan to attend with their family and friends. C. Ordinance No. 1653 – Allowing Alcohol at City Events in 2024 Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1653 to allow alcohol at City events in 2024. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. D. Resolution 2024-E: Professional Services Agreement with Kim Bomberger for Consulting Arborist Services Mayor Dickey noted the agreement with Ms. Bomberger provides a good short-term solution for the upcoming vacancy in the City Arborist position. He noted that Ms. Bomberger has previously worked with the City and as a state forester. Councilperson Thorne asked if the agreement was for an hourly rate. Ms. Lee replied yes and noted Ms. Bomberger will generally be in town one day a week for scheduled consultations and if needed would consult on the phone. She added the City would pay for mileage and any incidental expenses. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-E for professional services agreement with Kim Bomberger for consulting arborist services. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. E. Resolution No. 2024-F: Design Guideline Revision re: Solar Panels Ms. Clifton noted that the Planning Commission (Commission) is proposing changes to the Design Guidelines regarding solar structures and the proposal distinguishes solar panels, solar shingles, and integrated roof systems, such as Tesla roofs. She added that the Commission has reviewed this topic for the last year and a half, reviewed and incorporated the results of the resident survey, and reviewed how other cities are regulating solar. She referred to the Commission’s proposal that solar panels should be completely screened from public view. Solar shingles may be located on street facing roof facades if they are within a similar color range and texture of slate, clay tile or concrete tile and must have a uniform appearance over all portions of the roof. Solar shingles must have a minimum thickness of 3/16 inch measured at the exposed 6 end of the overlap creating the shadow line, which provides depth in appearance. Integrated solar roof systems may be allowed on street facing roof facades if they are installed to cover all street facing roof facades. Councilperson Thorne noted there was a case before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) where there was an issue with the thickness of the concrete roofing material along the edging and asked if edging was considered for solar shingles. Ms. Clifton replied that the solar shingle material is thinner than the concrete shingle referenced, so there would not be an issue with the edging. Ms. Lee noted that the minimum thickness of 3/16 inch for solar shingles is in keeping with the thickness of a standard asphalt shingle. Councilperson Bruning noted he is appreciative of the Commission’s research and the proposal. He referred to the solar roof system example on page 6 and asked if shiny or reflective roofing materials should be prohibited. Councilperson Nelson referred to the solar panel example on page 2 and opined that neither example was attractive. Ms. Clifton noted that currently solar panels cannot be street facing and must be screened from public view. Councilperson Nelson added that these solar panels might not be appropriate on any side of a home or when visible to neighbors. Ms. Lee added that the solar panels shown on page 2 would currently be allowed by ordinance if placed on a non-street facing side of the home. Councilperson Thorne referred to the example on page 2 and noted separating from the roof edge is required by fire code and the only way to not have a visible edge is a complete solar roof system. Ms. Clifton added that solar panels are raised approximately six inches from the roof, while solar shingles are not raised and are integrated with the roof plane. Councilperson Nelson opined that the solar panels appear industrial and unattractive, and asked if there are any in the City. Ms. Clifton replied there have been several solar panels approved by the ARB in the past year. She added the scale of the installations were less than shown in the example photos. Councilperson Nelson and Councilperson Bruning opined that solar panels are not attractive for neighbors to view. Mr. T. McQuaid opined that solar panel technology is in its infancy and regardless of the location on the home solar panels are unattractive. Mayor Dickey noted that the Commission spent a considerable about of time reviewing the topic of solar structures. He added their proposal is a modification of the existing Design Guidelines and would still not allow solar panels on street facing roof planes. Mayor Dickey suggested the proposal could be approved with a built-in review by the Commission after 24 months. He noted there could be solar structures installed during that period that inform the changes to solar technology, or changes in attitudes regarding solar structures. Councilperson Bruning reiterated his concern about the shiny application of the solar roof system on page 6 and opined that the example of the solar shingles on page 3 is the model example for the City. Councilperson Thorne asked if the Commission had considered the tree canopy and the possibility of people removing trees to better capture solar. Ms. Clifton noted that the Commission did discuss the canopy and are opposed to removing trees for the purpose of solar structures. She noted the City currently has a tree policy. Councilperson Bruning asked how the tree policy would impact solar structure installations and noted that backyard tree removals are not restricted. Ms. Clifton noted that applicants to the ARB are asked to identify any trees proposed for removal because of the proposed project. The City Arborist reviews the tree removal plan, identifies any good specimens marked for removal, and provides a recommendation to the ARB, which could include planting trees to replace identified removals. She noted that the ARB reviews the Arborist’s recommendations and discusses recommendations in the meeting. Mr. Kirk noted any application to the ARB is subject to the same loophole, private trees are only subject to the tree policy when there is an application or open permit. Mayor Dickey noted from a business case 7 perspective that removing mature trees in advance of a solar panel installation would result in removing shade to the home and most likely overwhelm the value of electricity created by the solar panels. Councilperson Bruning noted that trees being removed in advance of a project being submitted to the ARB is a strategy to avoid tree protections. Ms. Krstulic stated that the Council’s options upon receipt of a recommendation from the Commission are to adopt it, override it by two thirds majority of the Council, or return the recommendation to the Commission along with a statement specifying the Council’s failure to approve. She noted that based upon the Council’s discussion she could modify the proposal to be approved with a sunset provision for review or return the proposal to the Commission with a statement specifying items for reconsideration. Ms. Clifton noted that the Commission engaged a solar structure expert, and these products are designed to capture and absorb the sun’s rays and not be reflective. Councilperson Bruning referenced the diagonal configuration of the tiles on page 6 and opined that this example should be excluded from the Design Guidelines. Ms. Clifton noted that any solar shingles would have to be reviewed and approved by the ARB and noted the reference designs in the Commission packet are not included in Resolution No. 2024-F. Mr. T. McQuaid noted that he attended most of the Commission’s discussions on solar and decisions were made about product based on photographs and opined a story board of the actual materials should be considered to make sure it does not adversely affect the neighborhood. Councilperson Nelson agreed and noted these structures once installed will be long-lasting for neighbors. Mayor Dickey noted that specific items for review must be identified to return the proposal to the Commission. He noted Councilmembers had expressed concerns about reflectivity and irregular shape of solar shingles. Councilperson Nelson proposed an additional review of the existing regulations for solar panels and suggested there could be a more uniform installation of panels. Mr. T. McQuaid reiterated a request for a storyboard review of the solar structure materials. Councilperson Thorne asked if the Commission could consider tree protections related to solar structure installation. Mr. Kirk noted that during the ARB process solar projects would be subject to the existing tree ordinance, but there would still be the loophole of removing trees before or after the permitting process. Councilperson Bruning noted the considerable work of the Commission on this topic. He asked if there could be a review session with the Commission to further explain the concerns of the Council. Mayor Dickey suggested working within the existing Commission meeting structure. Ms. Clifton noted the April Commission meeting agenda could include a solar structure review. Councilperson Nelson requested the discussion occur at the May meeting. Ms. Clifton reiterated that the Council is returning the proposal to the Commission for additional consideration of structure reflectivity; irregular shape of shingles; aesthetics of solar panels; aesthetics of solar shingles; and tree protections. Councilperson Nelson moved to return Resolution No. 2024-F for Design Guideline revisions related to solar panels to the Commission to further review structure reflectivity; irregular shape of shingles; aesthetics of solar panels; aesthetics of solar shingles; and tree protections. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5- 0. REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. City Clerk Ms. Lee noted that Ordinance No. 1653 included Beverages with Byron on Thursday, May 9th from 5 pm to 7 pm and the event would be similar to last year. Councilperson Weed noted that 8 Chief Roberson has filed to run for Johnson County Sheriff and asked if his run is unsuccessful if he would continue as the Police Chief. Mayor Dickey replied that Chief Roberson has indicated he would continue to serve as the Police Chief. Councilperson Bruning referred to the website data report and there was spike in activity February 3rd and asked if there was correlated event. Ms. Woolbright noted that some data spikes in the past cannot be attributed to an event, but February 3rd was a Notify JoCo test which prompted increased traffic to the website. B. City Administrator Ms. Lee referred to her report and noted in advance of the City’s stormwater and street project on Indian Lane, Kansas Gas will be doing a significant project on Indian Lane from 63rd Street to 65th Terrace, which will impact the City’s start date. She noted that Evergy is finalizing the bid process for the electrical undergrounding of 65th Street. Ms. Lee noted that the City received many good applicants for the City Clerk and City Arborist positions and hopefully by April 15 these positions will be filled and in the on-boarding process. She added that Mr. Kirk is part of the interview team for the City Arborist position. C. City Planner There was no additional report or discussion. D. City Arborist Councilperson Nelson referred to the project along Mission Road and noted that Mr. Kirk requested the project manager use different plant material than originally proposed. Mr. Kirk noted that the restoration plan originally included five trees and 140 shrubs, and since the goal for Mission Hills property owners whose rear yards face Mission Road is to screen the roadway, he recommended adding several tree species that will grow taller. He added that planting smaller caliper trees will have a higher success rate, because transplanting and watering larger trees is more challenging. Councilperson Nelson noted that these rear yards were not visible to the roadway prior to the Mission Road project. Mr. Kirk noted that the impacted residents have been understanding of the project. He noted that the restoration for the property closest to Tomahawk Road is more manicured in design, while the restoration for properties to the north is designed for conservation and soil stabilization. Mr. Kirk noted that the stormwater easement is 10-feet wide, so the shrubs are being planted just into the easement, the trees will be planted outside the easement, and the native grasses and forbs will be the infill. Councilperson Nelson asked if the plantings along the hillside will succeed. Mr. Kirk noted there was discussion about planting trees closer to the channel, but he advised against it based on his experience of trees planted outside the channel in Peetwood Park being washed out by rain. Ms. Lee noted that the City of Prairie Village has a three-year maintenance contract for the hillside plantings. She noted plantings along the City owned creek in Peetwood and Hiawassee parks require annual clearing to encourage desirable plant material to grow. Mr. Kirk noted the goal is to establish shrubs over the next three years, because once the hillside is no longer maintained honeysuckle will seek to invade. He added the hope is that there will be enough native, desirable species established to create a barrier. He noted that homeowners could remove honeysuckle as it 9 is reintroduced to the hillside, but it has been the primary screen from Mission Road. Councilperson Bruning noted there could be resident resistance to removing honeysuckle and suggested the City could fund this effort for the native species to establish. Mr. Kirk noted that this area could be maintained by the next City Arborist, as Hiawasee Park and Peetwood Park are in the maintenance phase of honeysuckle removal. Councilperson Nelson suggested homes associations could fund the mitigation of honeysuckle on private properties. Mr. Kirk noted that honeysuckle is invasive, drinks a significant amount of water, it puts on leaves first and is the last to drop them, and prevents regeneration of native trees such as oaks and hickories by shading out the forest layer. Ms. Lee noted that the maintenance contractor will remove honeysuckle in the areas disturbed by the project for three years. She noted that after this maintenance period the Council could have a conversation about how to continue mitigating honeysuckle. She added that Mr. Kirk has started the conversation with residents adjacent to the disturbed areas about the long-term benefits of establishing native screening. Mayor Dickey thanked Mr. Kirk for his extensive service to the City and noted the City Arborist position was a new concept because the Council believed the expertise was needed. He added Mr. Kirk has done an excellent job and residents have loved working with him. He added Mr. Kirk advanced the ball for the City and proved that the City needs the expertise he brought to table, which is appreciated and recognized. Mayor Dickey added that everyone will miss Mr. Kirk and wishes him all the best. Mr. Kirk thanked the Council and expressed how fortunate he was to join the City years ago. He noted that leaving the staff was a very difficult decision. The entire Council thanked Mr. Kirk for his service. Ms. Lee noted details for a farewell reception on March 22nd will be shared. Mr. Kirk added that he will continue to be a resource for the next City Arborist. Mr. T. McQuaid asked if Mr. Kirk has been with the City for approximately 10 years. Mr. Kirk replied that his 10-year anniversary was in February and noted he was originally a contractor and then hired as a full-time employee. MAYOR’S COMMENTS A. Liaison Reports Councilperson Weed noted the Planning Commission’s work related to solar panels was previously discussed by the Council. Councilperson Thorne reported that the Architectural Review Board will hold a meeting next week. Councilperson Nelson reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) did not have any application, so there was not a February meeting. Councilperson Bruning reported the Park Board will hold its first meeting of the year tomorrow. He noted at the February 13th ARB meeting there was a proposal to convert a split-level home into a two-story home and after reviewing it the ARB determined to send the project to the Professional Review Panel (PRP). Councilperson Weed asked the significance of the ARB sending this proposal to the PRP. Councilperson Thorne noted that the proposed renovations to 10 the existing split-level were so significant that the ARB did not feel comfortable making a decision and sent the proposal to the PRP so professional architects could make a determination. Councilperson Bruning noted the ARB also required a new home proposal to be lowered six inches, which was also a significant decision. Councilperson Bruning opined that the City is fortunate to have the ARB. Mayor Dickey noted that there are still board and committee positions available and asked the Council to share possible candidates. He noted the spring Newsletter is being produced and requested the Council share any additional topics that they wish to address in his letter to residents. Councilperson Bruning moved to enter an executive session, stating “I move that the City Council recess into executive session to discuss the City Administrator's annual review pursuant to the personnel matters of nonelected personnel exception in K.S.A. 75-4319(b)(1). The executive session will include the City Attorney. The open meeting will resume in the Council chamber at 7 p.m.” Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0. The Council reconvened in open session at 7 p.m. Councilperson Bruning stated that no binding action was taken during the executive session. Councilperson Bruning moved to extend the executive session, stating “I move that the City Council recess into executive session to discuss the City Administrator's annual review pursuant to the personnel matters of nonelected personnel exception in K.S.A. 75-4319(b)(1). The executive session will include the City Attorney. The open meeting will resume in the Council chamber at 7:05 p.m.” Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. The Council reconvened in open session at 7:05 p.m. Councilperson Bruning stated that no binding action was taken during the executive session. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve Resolution No. 2024 – G to authorize a 7% increase to the City Administrator's base annual salary, $575 monthly car allowance, and $11,000 bonus. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. /s/ Meghan Woolbright 11