City Council

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF MISSION HILLS, KANSAS April 14, 2025 The City Council of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas held a meeting on April 14, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. PRESIDING: Mayor David Dickey PRESENT: Councilpersons Bill Bruning, Gregg Davidson, Barbara Nelson, Eden Thorne, Andy Weed ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Meghan Woolbright, Assistant City Administrator; Spencer Jones, Treasurer; Jason Nickles, City Clerk; Anna Krstulic, City Attorney; Adam Taylor, Prairie Village Police Department (PVPD); Aaron Thomas, Intern; Judy Fang, Senior Financial Analyst; Jill Clifton, City Planner; Cole Carmack, City Arborist; Jennifer Lee, City Administrator. VISITORS: Dave Arteberry, Stifel; TJ Homan; Stinson; Tim McQuaid, Mission Hills; Mike McQuaid, Fairway, KS; Gary Matthews, Fairway, KS; David Battey, Fairway KS; Dan Fromm, Mission Hills; Jeff White, Indian Hills Country Club; Pat Rose, Kansas City Country Club; Cory Conklin, Mission Hills Country Club; Al Boulware, Mission Hills; David Ruisch & Jason Cole, Mission Hills; Beth & Bill Zollars, Mission Hills; Whiteney Stadler, Mission Hills; Mike Horner, Mission Hills. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Dickey calls the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and the pledge of allegiance was recited. GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Dickey greets visitors and notes that the meeting would be recorded for the purpose of meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING – March 10, 2025 Councilperson Nelson moves to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2025 meeting. Councilperson Bruning seconds. Approved 5-0. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police Report Captain Taylor reports Chief McCullough is attending a conference out of town and provides a summary of the public safety report for March, noting that there is only one incident during the month, marking a significant improvement compared to previous reports. Captain Taylor states that the incident involves a stolen vehicle on March 18th in the early morning hours where criminals accessed an unlocked car, found the keys inside, and stole the vehicle. Traffic cameras 1 and LPRs revealed that the suspects traveled to Kansas City, Missouri, where they used credit cards from a purse left in the vehicle to make purchases, and the stolen vehicle remains unrecovered. Apart from this incident, Captain Taylor reports no crashes, animal bites, or other significant issues in March and describes the month as highly successful and is ready to address any questions from Council to which there are none. Mayor Dickey comments on the unusual occurrence of two assault and battery cases, describing both incidents as domestic issues. B. Fire Report Ms. Woolbright updates the Council that the Chief Chick missed the meeting due to responding to a significant building fire in Mission, Kansas but plans to attend the next meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Councilperson Weed moves to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilperson Bruning seconds. Approved 5-0 A. Claims Ordinance No. 1672 B. Resolution No. 2025 - O: Agreement with Johnson County for Stormwater Inspections C. Ord. No. 1673: Allowing Alcohol at Community Engagement Events D. Resolution No. 2025 - P: Change Order for Contract with Evergy for 65th Street Undergrounding - Additional Pole Removals E. Resolution No. 2025 - Q: Amended Contract with RS Electric to Underground Lines from Additional Poles Being Removed as Part of 65th Street Undergrounding Project FINANCIAL REPORT A. March Financial Report Ms. Woolbright presents the first quarter finance report, prepared by Ms. Fang, and as noted in the report, the City is 25% through the fiscal year and has received 36.3% of budgeted revenues. Ms. Woolbright states the report includes notes on revenue and significant expenditure and Ms. Fang is available to respond to any specific questions. Mayor Dickey asks if there are any questions for Ms. Fang, but hearing none, thanks her for the report. B. 1st Quarter Analysis Ms. Woolbright reports on the first quarter financial analysis, noting that being early in the fiscal year, staff is monitoring a few revenue areas closely as the liquor tax revenue is currently a bit low, which is typical, as it usually increases in the third and fourth quarters. Ms. Woolbright reports that building permit revenue is also low, though staff expect a significant boost once four approved new home permits are issued and on the expenditure side, police spending is on target. Ms. Woolbright adds that the Park Board shows a few increased expenditures due to necessary items, including unexpected repairs such as a collapsed clay pipe under one of the fountains on 2 Tomahawk Road and these costs, though unplanned, are covered within available funds. Mr. Jones warns that sales tax may come in lower than budgeted. C. 1st Quarter Reserve fund Analysis Ms. Woolbright notes that the reserve fund analysis will be available next month once the audit data is received. OLD BUSINESS A. Repeat Nuisance Properties Ms. Woolbright states that 6510 Indian Lane was visited earlier that day and found that the lawn had been mowed, noting that it could have been done more thoroughly, and recommends that the property owner remove some limbs and debris. However, Ms. Woolbright acknowledges the owner's positive response to her Friday email, as they took some action over the weekend. Regarding the property at 2517 W 68th Street, Ms. Woolbright explains that code enforcement visited the site the previous Thursday and although the property has an open building permit for a pool, there are ongoing maintenance concerns, including improperly stored construction materials and a downed silt fence, which has since been addressed and weekly inspections by the codes team continue. Additionally, the property had a second permit for driveway modifications and the constructed driveway did not match the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved plans , so the owner was required to return to the ARB for further review. Ms. Woolbright notes that the ARB has required a change in material and that the project is scheduled for review by the City architect. Ms. Woolbright concludes by asking if there are any other questions to which there are none. NEW BUSINESS A. Park Use Application – Sunken Garden 5/3/2024 Mr. Nickles reports Mr. Knipp from Mission Hills applied for use of Sunken Garden Park for a child’s birthday party on Saturday, May 3rd. The application and a letter sent to nearby residents are attached, and no objections are received. Councilperson Thorne notes having read the application and mentions it references a bounce house, but believes they have not seen one used in the park before and expresses concern about precedent. Councilperson Bruning shares the same question and concerns about the precedent of allowing bounce houses for private parties in public spaces. Ms. Woolbright states she does not believe this type of request has been made before and explains the rule that nothing can be staked or secured into the ground in public parks. She notes there have been instances in the past where staking occurred without formal approval and restoration was required. Ms. Woolbright clarifies that the current application likely involves a structure set on the ground, not staked. Mayor Dickey emphasizes that the applicant needs to clearly understand the rules. Councilperson Weed raises concerns about safety, stating a bounce house usually needs to be secured to the ground for injury prevention, and staking can cause damage to irrigation lines. Mayor Dickey suggests getting written acknowledgment from the applicant to confirm their understanding of the restrictions. Councilperson Thorne clarifies the permit mentions a bounce house or a bubble machine, and says they need clarification as this kind of request may not have been seen before and expresses concern about the public nature of the space. Councilperson Bruning adds that he has long been bothered by the private use of public spaces and how it is managed. Councilperson 3 Nelson mentions that weddings have been held at the Verona Columns before, but not often and states the $500 rental fee for residents may serve as a deterrent, and that parking is usually the biggest concern. Councilperson Thorne adds that food trucks were also mentioned in the request and expresses concern about traffic and congestion. Mayor Dickey states that the parking plan is part of the application and that signs would be posted along the street. Mr. McQuaid questions whether any structures have been allowed in parks other than City Hall and expresses concern about the appearance and liability of a bounce house. Ms. Krstulic asks whether the application includes a waiver or release of liability for the City, stating it could be added if it is not already included. Mayor Dickey suggests that if the Council passes the application, it should be contingent on the applicant signing the waiver drafted by the City attorney. Councilperson Nelson brings up the issue of insurance and whether the applicant is required to carry coverage. Ms. Woolbright states that the application is based on the ordinance and waiver could be added to the application process. Councilperson Bruning reiterates that the situation highlights the need to address private use of public spaces. Councilperson Weed says he would be okay with the event happening at City Hall, but he feels strongly that Sunken Garden is not appropriate for a four-year-old’s birthday party with a bounce house and argues that it sets a precedent and that the park is a treasure. Councilperson Weed distinguishes between formal events like weddings from children’s parties with inflatable equipment and expresses concern about the slippery slope of allowing similar events in the future. Councilperson Weed states they would support the City Hall location due to its general use for things like soccer, movies, and public events. Councilperson Nelson suggests offering the applicant an alternative space. Mayor Dickey questions whether City Hall grounds could realistically be used in full. Councilperson Weed clarifies he does not want any of the options, but since the event is close, he is trying to offer a compromise while standing by their belief that Sunken Garden is not appropriate. Mayor Dickey states there is no realistic way to conclude that every concern has been resolved. Mayor Dickey asks whether the applicants are present, and Mr. Nickles responds no and the applicant was encouraged to attend. Mayor Dickey asks if the Council plans to hold a meeting on the topic, and Councilperson Thorne says it is something that needs further thought. Mayor Dickey acknowledges that certain parks lend themselves to certain activities, and the City Hall location is more adaptable for recreational setups like soccer or public movie nights. Mayor Dickey moves to entertain a motion to approve the park use application. Councilperson Nelson moves to approve the Park Use Application May 3, 2025. Councilperson Davidson seconded. Denied 2-3. Councilperson Bruning, Councilperson Thorne, and Councilperson Weed opposed. B. Resolution No. 2025 – R: Engagement Letter - Mission Hills Conflict Counsel Ms. Woolbright explains that the retirement of Mr. Heaven creates an opportunity to appoint a new City conflict counsel, which requires approval from the Council. She notes that Tammy Owens is recommended for the position and refers to her resume, highlighting her extensive experience with the City of Overland Park. Ms. Woolbright states that Ms. Owens has already attended a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting and has met with Mr. Heaven. The approval being requested is for the engagement letter to formalize her appointment. Councilperson Bruning moves to approve Resolution No. 2025 – R: Engagement Letter - Mission Hills Conflict Counsel. Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0 A. Ordinance No. 1674: Helmets Required for Motorized E-Scooter 4 Ms. Krstulic introduces the topic of the helmet requirement ordinance noting that the issue was discussed several times over the previous year and that background information was included in the meeting packet. Ms. Krstulic explains that the City of Prairie Village has passed an ordinance requiring helmets for minors using electric-assisted bicycles and scooters, and this proposed ordinance aims to remain consistent with theirs to support police enforcement. However, Ms. Krstulic notes that their ordinance also includes one-wheel devices, which have been discussed previously and states that they retained that language in the draft and will leave it up to the Council whether they want to keep it. Councilperson Bruning agrees, stating there is value in paralleling Prairie Village and mentions having brought up a unicycle he saw, but ultimately consistency is more important. Ms. Krstulic adds that the only difference is in definitions and that the Mission Hills ordinance covers more equipment. Councilperson Nelson notes that enforcing helmet use with older teens may be difficult, but Ms. Krstulic clarifies it would not apply to 18-year-olds, only those younger. Councilperson Nelson expresses support for the ordinance, calling it smart and needed, and remarks that enforcement may be difficult with certain individuals but still worthwhile. Councilperson Thorne asks whether the ordinance addresses multiple riders on a single device to which Ms. Krstulic affirms that adding the single-rider provision would not be a problem. She mentions that Prairie Village police gave a presentation previously about their educational efforts, and that their ordinance allows for a warning first, which supports that goal. Mr. McQuaid reiterates the safety concern, emphasizing the need to keep riders to one per device. Councilperson Thorne agrees, noting it becomes even more dangerous with multiple riders. Mayor Dickey suggests Council could approve Ordinance No. 1674 and the City Attorney could draft additional language, limiting the number of riders on a device in May. Councilperson Bruning voices concern about the larger issue of kids on these devices potentially hitting pedestrians, saying there is no easy solution. Councilperson Weed asks whether the ordinance limits riding to streets or sidewalks to which Ms. Krstulic replies that it does not restrict where they can ride and notes that they can ride wherever permitted under state law, including sidewalks. Ms. Krstulic notes the Kansas Legislature passes the laws that form the basis of City ordinances through the Uniform Public Offense Code and the Standard Traffic Ordinance, which the City reviews and adopts those laws annually and implement them locally. Councilperson Bruning comments that this ordinance is a starting point in addressing a larger issue. Councilperson Nelson asks whether the ordinance is a mirror of Prairie Village’s to which Ms. Krstulic explains that while the helmet requirement is the same, this ordinance covers more types of equipment, such as motorized skateboards and one-wheeled devices, based on previous discussions. Mayor Dickey notes that Mayor Mikkelson of Prairie Village has been receptive in their discussions and may be open to adopting a similar expanded list of equipment, helping the cities align further. Councilperson Nelson asks if the Prairie Village police had any pushback to which Ms. Krstulic responds that the police were involved in the drafting and supported the ordinance. Councilperson Bruning moves to approve Ordinance No. 1674: Helmets Required for Motorized E-Scooter. Councilperson Weed seconds. Approved 5-0 B. Temporary Moratorium on Sports Courts Mayor Dickey references information included in the silver packet regarding a temporary moratorium on constructing new sport courts and provides background, mentioning that several years ago, Mission Hills Country Club added additional pickleball courts, which led to controversy with residents of Mission Woods. Mayor Dickey explains that while some 5 mitigation efforts were made, challenges persisted and highlights a similar situation in Prairie Village, where sport courts in Windsor Park were addressed by taking out pickleball courts. Mayor Dickey notes that the City's current sport court ordinance was not designed with the expectation of addressing pickleball courts and remarks that perceptions of sport courts have evolved over the years, presenting differing views and challenges based on individual preferences. Mayor Dickey proposes pausing construction, referring the matter to the Planning Commission for research on how pickleball courts are managed in purely residential areas, emphasizing the need to balance the unique characteristics of residential neighborhoods with effective zoning practices. Mayor Dickey explains the importance of avoiding future difficulties for residents wanting to install sport courts and those living nearby, who may have objections.. Councilperson Davidson asks if the City has had an increase of residents who have proposed a pickleball court, to which Mayor Dickey states that there is one proposal currently in process. He notes the similarity to a situation from a few years ago involving synthetic putting surfaces and recalls that ordinances at the time did not address the environmental and practical concerns associated with synthetic surfaces. Mayor Dickey explains that these surfaces are harmful to the environment, killing everything beneath them, creating impervious surfaces, and presenting unforeseen downsides. Mayor Dickey emphasizes the importance of avoiding a scenario where a proposal is approved without fully understanding its implications, which could lead to widespread implementation before action can be taken. Mayor Dickey suggests taking a proactive approach, carefully evaluating potential impacts, and ensuring that any necessary changes are made before challenges arise. Mayor Dickey concludes by noting that while it is possible no changes may ultimately be needed, it is essential to consider the matter thoroughly. Ms. Krstulic clarifies that the moratorium applies specifically to pickleball courts, including both new constructions and converting existing courts, noting the moratorium will last for six months and is intended to allow time for conducting research and ensuring the City is fully informed about potential issues. Ms. Krstulic explains that if regulations are implemented, they would involve public hearings and input from the Planning Commission, emphasizing that comments from the public would be welcomed and accepted. Ms. Krstulic reiterates that the moratorium is a temporary measure designed to ensure that all foundational elements are addressed. Councilperson Nelson asks if this applies to the Country Clubs to which Ms. Krstulic explains that the moratorium includes a policy establishing a 500-foot distance requirement from any residential property, which is the City's designated notification range and points out that many country clubs are located near residential properties. Councilperson Nelson states that this includes country clubs and inquires whether there are any country clubs with pickleball courts located closer than the specified distance. To which, Ms. Krstulic responds that there are existing pickleball courts at some country clubs but clarifies that these will not be affected by the moratorium, as they have already been permitted. Mayor Dickey explains that like previous similar ordinances, pre-existing conditions are typically not impacted by new regulations. Councilperson Bruning revisited a previous question regarding the 500-foot notice requirement applied to residential properties in the City of Mission Hills, pointing out that, as currently written, the regulation could allow sport courts to be constructed within 500 feet of Mission Woods residential properties. Ms. Krstulic clarified that the regulation does not apply to properties outside the City of Mission Hills. Councilperson Bruning acknowledged the limitations of the City’s jurisdiction and expressed concern that the wording in the title of the ordinance might cause confusion. Mayor Dickey states that the existing sport courts at country clubs have already been approved and are not impacted, and with relation to the fans discussion, the majority of homes are not next to the country clubs and emphasizes that the decision 6 considers not just the immediate neighbors, but the broader community as well. Councilperson Nelson draws a comparison between the impact of fans and pickleball courts, noting that both can create challenges for being good neighbors and emphasizes the importance of regulating such issues to foster a positive and fair neighborhood environment. Ms. Krstulic clarifies a question regarding the scope of the moratorium and explains that while the title of the ordinance references properties in the City of Mission Hills, the actual language of the moratorium specifies that it applies to any land within 500 feet that is zoned or used for residential purposes emphasizing that the scope is not limited to properties solely within Mission Hills. Ms. Stadler shares her perspective, highlighting her over 25 years of experience in real estate with a strong focus on Mission Hills, consistently achieving the highest average sales price in the City. Having lived in Mission Hills for over 20 years, including the past 8 years on Cherokee Lane, Ms. Stadler expresses concerns about the proposed construction of the multi-use pickleball court while also voicing support for Mr. Fromm and his efforts to improve the purchased lot. Ms. Stadler cautions against setting a precedent that could lead to undesirable changes, such as multiple homes being torn down for similar developments in the future, while stressing the importance of long-term planning for the City and balancing progress with preservation. Mayor Dickey and the Council thank Ms. Stadler for sharing her thoughts. Mr. Horner, also a resident of Cherokee Lane, shares his perspective on the practicality of sport courts, emphasizing that facilities for activities such as basketball or pickleball do not require large, dedicated spaces, noting that a basketball game only needs a hoop and sufficient space, which could even be accommodated in a driveway. Similarly, Mr. Horner points out that pickleball courts require significantly less space compared to tennis courts, occupying less than a quarter of the area and expresses uncertainty about how the ordinance might address such smaller-scale setups and encourages consideration of their implications. Mr. Ruisch identifies himself as a resident at 3704 W 67th Street, noting that the front of his house and driveway is located 22 feet from the proposed pickleball court. He references the standard that a proposal should not adversely affect property values in the surrounding area or the general welfare. Mr. Ruisch expresses concerns that approval of the court could negatively impact both aspects, setting a precedent for future developments and adds that the proposal does not adequately align with the Comprehensive Plan and offers to provide a detailed study. Mr. Ruisch cites findings from the study, asserting that the pickleball court would significantly affect property values and mentions that multiple articles from across the country highlight similar findings, and note instances where lawsuits have been filed due to noise and other issues related to pickleball courts. He opines that all the neighbors are opposed to the courts. Mr. Fromm, acknowledges his role in initiating the discussion and expresses that hisprimary concern is timing. He clarifies that his property is not a country club, the project does not involve multiple courts, and is not exclusively dedicated to pickleball. Mr. Fromm argues that it is difficult to claim that the proposed court will harm home values, as it involves only one court, when there are multiple courts next to the neighborhood that are being used all the time. Mr. Fromm draws a comparison to basketball, noting that it lacks regulation, and while the sounds of neighbors playing basketball are audible, they are not bothersome. Mr. Fromm emphasizes that not all neighbors oppose the proposal and mentions that several neighbors have expressed support, although they were unable to attend this meeting due to short notice but they were planning to attend the next ARB meeting to show their support. Mr. Fromm details the timeline, stating that at the ARB meeting in the end of March, the chair confirmed that the plans adhered to the Design Guidelines and they had not received concerns from neighbors at that time but agreed to postpone the discussion to April 9th to address any potential concerns but since he 7 was out of town on April 9th and agreed to push to April 26th meeting. Since then, Mr. Fromm noted he has engaging 10 of his neighbors, many of whom were surprised by the distance of the court from the street and its elevation. Mr. Fromm reiterates that the court is a multi-use sport court, not exclusively for pickleball, and while it may occasionally be used for pickleball, they believe its usage will not disturb neighbors. Since the ARB meeting, Mr. Fromm explains that they have made modifications to the plan, including reducing hardscape, adding more landscaping, removing lights to address concerns about lighting, and incorporating a terraced wall design to minimize echoing at increased expense. Mr. Fromm argues that their project, which has consistently adhered to Design Guidelines and incorporated neighbor feedback, should not be included in the proposed moratorium, as it feels unfair to change the requirements after adjustments and compliance efforts have been made. Councilperson Bruning questions since the matter is still under review by the ARB, if it is appropriate to consider the case while the ARB's determination is still pending. Ms. Krstulic clarifies that this issue can be considered despite the pending application, and moratorium is intended to pause all related matters including this application. Councilperson Bruning raises a question regarding the potential informal use of existing basketball or tennis courts as pickleball courts and asks whether children could convert these spaces simply by stringing a net and playing and questioned whether such actions might unintentionally be criminalized. Mayor Dickey questions whether the existing ordinances, as written, are still appropriate given the recent surge in pickleball’s popularity over the past five years. He acknowledges the need to examine whether existing rules remain suitable or require updating and mentions the possibility of implementing new setback or sentencing requirements, citing previous cases where placement inside the setback had prompted policy changes. Councilperson Bruning states that he did not disagree but cautions about unintended consequences and points out that past requirements had placed sport courts closer to homes rather than property lines and questioned whether this configuration might cause echo effects or other unforeseen issues. Mayor Dickey agrees and referenced prior updates to the sport court ordinance, stating that at the time, no one anticipated the impact of pickleball’s rise in popularity. Mayor Dickey acknowledges Mr. Fromm's concerns, noting that any immediate decision could negatively impact their project timeline and that such effects were difficult to mitigate. Councilperson Thorne shares her experience attending the ARB meeting, where she observed opposition to the proposal. She acknowledges that some neighbors supported the project in today’s meeting. She believes approving the proposal at this time could set a precedent. Mayor Dickey adds that he had long cautioned against allowing current conditions to dictate future nonconforming structures and stresses that ordinances must account for both present and long- term impacts, as decisions made now could create future issues that are hard to predict. Councilperson Thorne expresses a desire for community unity and encourages the Council to take time to avoid creating neighborhood conflicts. Councilperson Davidson asks if Indian Hills Country Club has pickleball courts and if they can be heard on Cherokee Lane to which Councilperson Weed states no, there is a large street, a building, and a creek to the West. Councilperson Davidson expresses his personal support for Mr. Fromm, noting his thoughtfulness and care regarding the situation and state that he sympathizes with Mr. Fromm and his family. He noted he would be in favor of allowing Mr. Fromm the opportunity to proceed, provided he engaged further with the ARB and complied with their guidelines, acknowledging his active involvement in the process. Councilperson Davidson emphasizes his desire to formally record their sentiment. 8  Mayor Dickey invites a motion from the Council to approve the Temporary Moratorium on Sports Courts. Councilperson Nelson moved to approve. Councilperson Thorne seconded. Approved 4-1. Councilperson Davidson opposed. C. Review Data and Information on Fan Use for Aeration Mayor Dickey opens the discussion by noting that most attendees were present for the fan discussion and notes that agenda item 6E under New Business focused on reviewing data and information related to fan use for aeration. He clarified that no action would be taken during the meeting and the purpose was solely for staff to report information for Council’s consideration. City Intern, Mr. Thomas prepared the dataset that had been provided to the Council and reports the takeaway from that research was nationally residents are still divided on the issue. Councilperson Weed commended the research presented and expressed appreciation for the effort. Mr. Thomas asks if anyone has questions and notes that input had been received from multiple individuals, including Mr. Battey, and this collective input allowed for a well-rounded report. Councilperson Weed asks if any recurring data patterns, themes, or measurable amounts had emerged, despite the lack of consensus in the Newark, Delaware case. Mr. Thomas explains that the City of Newark had previously used decibel readings to compare with their general sound ordinance and although the readings did not exceed the threshold for enforcement, Newark amended its ordinance to classify fans as industrial fixed mechanisms. Mr. Thomas notes this reclassification allowed the City to enforce noise control under that definition, despite minimal decibel violations. Mr. Thomas shares that the community remains divided with some residents supporting mitigation, while others raised concerns about overregulation and unintended consequences, such as the impact on social gatherings. Councilperson Nelson noted the quality of the report and specifically appreciated the data suggesting that golf courses can negatively affect home values and emphasized the importance of relying on research rather than assumptions. Mr. Thomas notes the scarcity of research on this topic, particularly compared to the abundance of academic studies on other issues. Mr. Thomas adds that conflicting findings were present with some studies suggesting proximity to golf courses increased property values, while others showed decreases depending on distance and neighboring development density. Mr. Thomas suggested that further localized research might be beneficial. Mayor Dickey warns against drawing broad conclusions without accounting for variables such as public vs. private courses and community characteristics. Councilperson Bruning asks for clarification regarding how the City previously addressed portable versus fixed fans to which Ms. Krstulic explains that fixed fans were considered structures. Councilperson Bruning also shares that he had examined property data and found that of 114 houses abutting Mission Hills golf courses, only 24 were located within Mission Hills. Councilperson Bruning questions whether the City had obligations toward properties outside its boundaries. Ms. Krstulic responded that the City does have obligations to properties outside Mission Hills. Mayor Dickey asks if there were any additional questions from Council and acknowledged the large public turnout and thanked everyone for attending. Mayor Dickey concludes by emphasizing that more time may be needed to fully absorb the data and determine whether a reasonable path forward exists and highlights the importance of considering all constituents, including those living near clubs and the Clubs themselves, and expressed openness to further discussion if needed. D. Resolution No. 2025 - S: Revised Personnel Guidelines 9 Ms. Woolbright states that the Personnel Guidelines included are months in the making, developed in collaboration with Stinson’s HR team and reviewed extensively from that perspective. From the City's perspective, they also incorporated the Council-approved parental leave and existing policies such as the staff cell phone policy and the City’s social media policy. Ms. Woolbright explains that in the past, updates like this included a redline, but due to the complete reordering and restructuring, the entire document would have been red. She offers to go over any items if there are questions, noting that this is likely the most significant review of the guidelines since their adoption about 20 years ago. Councilperson Weed responds that the update is great and very comprehensive and offers congratulations but questions whether anything in the update might be a roadblock or speed bump for hiring and attracting people. Ms. Woolbright replies that she does not believe so. She added MPR provided a personnel handbook training last year on how to make such documents more user-friendly for employees and note she believes this version would be more attractive to a new employee Councilperson Nelson comments that she finds the document very useful and a big improvement over what she has seen before and expresses hope that the staff feels the same. She raises a question regarding section C5, which addresses nepotism. Councilperson Nelson acknowledges that such language is typically included but notes that for years the City has hired children of staff for tasks like painting curb numbers or helping at the Street Fair, and these young workers have done a good job. Councilperson Bruning responds that such a policy is needed, acknowledging Councilperson Nelson’s point but emphasizing the necessity of having something in place. Ms. Woolbright suggests the nepotism policy could specify that it applies only to full-time hires, as the examples Councilperson Nelson referred to were temporary hirings. Councilperson Nelson agrees and says that would make the policy more inclusive and expresses confidence that the language can be worked out appropriately and supports the idea. Ms. Woolbright thanks them and adds that the City is very transparent if it hires someone’s child to work at the Street Fair that information appears in the Claim’s Ordinance. Mayor Dickey invites a motion from the Council to approve Resolution No. 2025 - S: Revised Personnel Guidelines. Councilperson Thorne motions to approve Resolution No. 2025-S. Councilperson Bruning seconded. Approved 5-0. E. Resolution No. 2025 - T: Real Estate Purchase Agreement for 6400 State Line Road Councilperson Weed inquires whether there are any limitations regarding the proposed bonds, specifically if income earned from the property during the life of the bonds could impact the ability to issue general obligation bonds and questions whether the income ratio between down payment and bonds could trigger restrictions. Mr. Arteberry of Stifel states that this question has been under review, particularly concerning income from the cell tower and its impact on the tax- exempt status of the bonds. Mr. Arteberry reports that, based on the latest analysis, most of the issue can still be financed with tax-exempt bonds and if any portion must be financed as taxable, it could be managed either through a cash contribution or a small taxable issue. Mr. Arteberry adds that legal counsel will issue an opinion to determine which amounts are taxable versus tax- exempt. Councilperson Weed asks whether an IRS or Kansas state interpretation is required. Mr. Arterberry clarifies that the attorneys will render the necessary opinions without requiring such interpretations. Councilperson Weed raises the concern of whether any taxable portion could significantly influence the City’s decision and responsibilities. Mr. Arteberry notes that while it could influence decisions, it is unlikely to be significant enough to alter the overall financing strategy and will be addressed in more detail at the next meeting. 10 Councilperson Bruning asks if the existing cell tower lease, which runs through 2044, affects the marketability of the bonds. Mr. Arteberry confirms that it should not, as the bonds are marketed based on the City's AAA bond rating, and the lease will not have an impact on that rating. Councilperson Weed revisits discussions about possibly relocating the cell tower and asks if doing so would affect the property's income stream. Mr. Homan, explains that the City has reached a preliminary agreement to amend the T-Mobile lease to allow the relocation of the cell tower, provided the new location meets T-Mobile's technical requirements and confirms that such relocation could reduce the income attributed to the original property, which could affect future financial analysis. Councilperson Weed expresses concern about unforeseen changes, such as the daycare center ceasing operations, and how those changes might have an impact on income and bond financing. Mr. Homan clarifies that the City will not receive any daycare income, as that revenue will remain with the Church. The only income during the first 18-months post purchase is period of nominal $1,000 for monthly rent. Mr. Homan notes that under a 10- year bond issuance, this represents approximately 15% of the total term with no income, and future income, $100,000 from the cell tower, will be relative and factored into updated analysis. Mr. Homan reminds the Council that the due diligence period is 60 days, but earnest money becomes non-refundable after 30 days. Mayor Dickey confirms that the next Council meeting falls within that 30-day window. Mr. Homan informs the Council the survey, environmental, and building inspections will occur during the due diligence period. Councilperson Thorne asks whether a special meeting is scheduled for June to discuss the bond. Mr. Arteberry confirms and distributes a draft bond issue calendar and a copy of the ratings letter from the last bond issuance noting that the daycare operations, when properly structured, typically do not have an impact on a bond's tax-exempt status. Councilperson Weed reiterates strong support for the project but emphasizes the need for careful financial planning. Councilperson Nelson raises a question about insurance responsibilities during the initial 18-month period. Mr. Homan clarifies that tenants must maintain insurance, and the City will obtain proof of current policies during due diligence adding there is a $1 million single occurrence and $3 million aggregate policy in place, to which Councilperson Davidson confirms is actually $2 million is the aggregate. Councilperson Nelson asks if the City is fully responsible for costs if the T-Mobile tower is moved, to which Mr. Homan affirms. Councilperson Nelson expresses concern over the lease’s length, and Mr. Homan responds that getting permission to relocate the tower was already a major concession, and terminating the lease is not an option. Councilperson Bruning acknowledges excitement about the project but remains cautious due to potential unknown risks. Mr. Homan agrees and states that the next 30 days will yield much more information through building and environmental reports, which will help assess liability and at the end of that period, the City will decide whether to proceed or let the earnest money go. Councilperson Davidson expresses appreciation to Mr. Krstulic, Mr. Homan, and others involved in preparing the sales contract and lease asks about the effective date and due diligence materials. Mr. Homan states that the effective date clause is designed to preserve the full due diligence window and no materials have been received yet, but they are in close communication with the seller's counsel. Councilperson Davidson estimates due diligence could begin within a week or two, and Mr. Homan expects it to start this week and prefers to be fully prepared before triggering an effective date to ensure the due diligence period is used efficiently. Councilperson Davidson concludes by summarizing that if due diligence begins by month’s end or early May, the City retains the option to withdraw and recoup the $50,000 earnest money if needed within 30-days to which Mr. Homan confirms. 11  Mayor Dickey then entertains a motion to approve Resolution No. 2025 - T: Real Estate Purchase Agreement for 6400 State Line Road. Councilperson Thorne moved to approve Resolution No. 2025-T. Councilperson Nelson seconded. Approved 5-0 F. Review Draft Bond Sale Calendar for Purchase of 6400 State Line Rd. Mr. Arteberry presents the bond issue calendar to the Council, noting several key action items stating the Council has just approved the purchase agreement for the property and the next step is scheduled for the May 12th Council meeting, where different financing options will be presented. Mr. Arteberry states these options will include various borrowing terms and payment structures for the Council to consider and at that meeting, the Council will also review two resolutions: a “project resolution,” which declares the City’s intent to undertake the project and sets a maximum borrowing amount and a “sale resolution,” which authorizes staff, financial advisors, and legal counsel to prepare and conduct the bond sale. Mr. Arteberry explains that the bond sale is tentatively scheduled for June 23rd and will require a special meeting, and the date is selected to avoid conflict with other bond sales, initially considered for June 9th. Mr. Arteberry emphasizes that this date can shift slightly based on Council availability and the meeting can be held virtually if preferred. Mr. Arteberry notes that between the May meeting and the June sale, staff will prepare offering documents, conduct due diligence, obtain a rating, and distribute bid and disclosure materials and the bond sale is expected to occur in the morning, with the special meeting held later that day to review bids and accept the one with the lowest interest rate. Mr. Arteberry notes closing and fund delivery are planned for July 16th. Councilperson Nelson requests clarification on the first action date, and Mr. Arteberry confirms it is May 12th, with the special meeting for the bond sale on June 23rd. Mayor Dickey encourages everyone to tentatively block off time for the June 23rd meeting from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., although Mr. Arteberry suggests a late afternoon meeting would be preferable to allow time to finalize documents after morning bids. The Council tentatively agrees to meet at 4:00 p.m. and Mayor Dickey emphasizes the importance of full attendance, noting that all members are needed as Councilperson Thorne will not be in attendance due to traveling. Mr. Jones asks about changes in the municipal bond market. Mr. Arteberry reports that until recently, interest rates have been stable, but last week rates spiked by nearly a full percentage point and municipal rates temporarily exceeded taxable rates, though they have since partially corrected. Mr. Arteberry expects some stabilization and will provide updated figures at the May meeting and fortunately, since the City is considering a short borrowing term, of around 10 years, the impact of interest rate fluctuations is reduced compared to a longer-term bond. Mr. McQuaid asks about the expected bond term, and Mr. Arteberry confirms that the current plan is for a 10-year term, pending final approval at the next meeting. Mayor Dickey expresses enthusiasm for the upcoming steps, and with no further questions, thanks Mr. Arteberry for the presentation. G. Replat of 2101 W 59th St. & 5920 High Dr.: Accept Dedication of Utility Easement Ms. Clifton explains that the owner of 2101 W. 59th Street and 5920 High Drive is proposing to replat their two properties into a single lot. The plan includes demolishing the home on the southern property, as City ordinances do not permit two homes on one lot. The Planning Commission approved the replat on the condition that the demolition occurs before the plat is filed with Johnson County. The City Council’s role is to vote to accept the newly created utility easements, a 10-foot easement along the rear (south) property line and an expanded 5-foot 12 easement along the west property line, both of which are required by City zoning regulations. Councilperson Weed raises concerns, referring to a previous discussion earlier in the evening, and asks how the City can ensure the new larger property will not be used in ways that cause problems. Mayor Dickey agrees and says with the replat, the property now has a 59th Street- facing address and the merged southern lot becomes the backyard. Mayor Dickey notes that the owners of this property could be among those who later propose a different use for the property, so recent actions were necessary. Ms. Clifton adds that although it may not directly impact the Council’s decision, the owners had previously shared their site plan with the City and sought feedback before submitting their replat request. After completing construction on their house about eight years ago, they realized they lacked green space, prompting them to buy the adjacent lot. Their plans now include seating areas, a pergola, plantings, a small roofed storage area to the back of the pool house and a patio, with the overall goal being a peaceful outdoor living and green space. Councilperson Weed acknowledges that sounds wonderful and asks whether the neighbors were consulted. Ms. Clifton says she suggested to the Landscape Architect, Reed Dillon, to speak with the Zimmers and that he expressed a good relationship with them and planned to do so. Councilperson Bruning comments that this kind of replatting is fairly typical. Mayor Dickey agrees that it is a valid concern and commends the outdoor plans noting that in 10 years, ownership could change, and protections are still important. Mayor Dickey calls for a motion. Councilperson Bruning motions to accept the dedication of utility easement as part of the replat of 2101 W. 59th Street and 5920 High Drive. Councilperson Davidson seconds. Approved 5-0 REPORTS OF CITY STAFF A. City Clerk Mr. Nickles shares that the Council Calendar has been updated to June 2025 and meetings available on Zoom have been indicated. Councilperson Nelson notes to add the June 23rd special Council meeting. B. Assistant City Administrator Ms. Woolbright provides an update on several City matters, starting with the upcoming “Pizza with Police” event featuring Chief McCullough, stating it will be held at City Hall and catered by Dispatch Pizza. The event will include door prizes and give residents a chance to sign up for various services. Ms. Woolbright reports the additional undergrounding on 65th Street have been addressed in the claims ordinance and can now move forward, and sidewalk improvements are also progressing. For the 63rd Street crossing, the City is close to scheduling work, with full road closure for a few hours being deemed safer than alternating lane closures. Ms. Woolbright notes the Belinder Road project is being delayed until next year to accommodate utility work this year and Ms. Lee is working on a modified capital improvement program of non-stormwater-related projects that could be completed in 2025. Looking ahead to May, Ms. Woolbright shares the City will receive the 2024 audit, conduct a year-end and first-quarter review, and review the amended 2025 capital projects list along with financing options for the church project. Ms. Woolbright also responds to a question from the March council meeting about multiple building permits issued to a single residence and a 10-year review shows some properties have received two or more permits, with one home receiving as many as ten, details of which are broken out in the report. Ms. Woolbright explains that in the past, concurrent construction 13 meetings were only required for substantial projects like new homes or large additions. However, a 2018 ordinance change expanded that definition to include any project lasting three months or more due to ongoing neighborhood disruptions from smaller projects. As a result, the number of concurrent construction meetings has increased, which helps address logistics like parking, deliveries, and points of contact. Ms. Woolbright also reviews data on permit extensions issued annually and notes that only two projects since 2015 required Council approval for a second permit. Ms. Woolbright explains that stop work orders can be issued not only for work done without a permit but also for violations of tree protection plans and revoked occupational licenses. Ms. Woolbright concludes by offering to answer any further questions. Mayor Dickey notes that during the strategic meeting in May, the Council will examine a few problematic building permit cases in more detail and the goal is to develop a process that distinguishes between residents acting in good faith who encounter unforeseen issues during renovations and those potentially abusing the permitting system. Councilperson Bruning agrees and mentions homeowners acting as their own general contractors partly leading to serial permits and asks if the City should be more aggressive during the initial permitting. Ms. Woolbright adds that while some residents are hiring individual contractors, which mimics general contracting, many of the issues stem from deferred maintenance in older homes and as unexpected problems often arise during renovations, requiring additional permits for things like electrical or foundation work. Councilperson Bruning suggests being more proactive during the initial permit process by helping applicants anticipate project complications, especially when projects appear to have hidden complexities. Mayor Dickey sympathizes, pointing out how even experienced contractors can be surprised by hidden problems. Councilperson Bruning reiterates concern about specific past cases that could not have been prevented under current procedures. Mr. McQuaid takes the opportunity to praise staff member Ms. Clifton for her outstanding contributions to the Planning Commission, especially her research and preparation, calling her work fantastic. Mayor Dickey thanks her and affirms the value of putting such appreciation on record. Mayor Dickey also reflects on public input about sidewalk priorities gathered during recent surveys, noting that while some areas deserve additional sidewalk development, others likely do not, and that the City has mostly taken a balanced approach. Councilperson Nelson inquiries about the latest on the 63rd Street sidewalk project. Mayor Dickey explains it has been approved and is awaiting final design and he recently met with a concerned resident to explore whether adjustments could be made to address objections, and while the concerns conflict with engineering recommendations, he hopes minor design changes could resolve them. C. City Arborist Mr. Carmack highlights ongoing Tier 2 assessments, something learned from a recent qualification, which involves walking around almost every tree in the City, inspecting the base for flaws, fungal infections, and other issues. Mr. Carmack notes two problem trees, one on Mission Drive and one on Cherokee Lane that were immediately removed. Mr. Carmack states he has gone through about three-fourths of Mission Hills so far and has noticed trends like sugar maples being in severe decline, along with pin oaks. Mr. Carmack mentions that they have started looking into prolonged treatment for Kermes scale affecting the pin oaks. Mr. Kirk helped inspect about 15 trees between 68th Street and 70th Terrace, to get a baseline for treatment. So 14 far, around $2,200 has been expended on treating 15 trees, but based on the number of pin oaks, the total treatment cost for the City’s pin oaks could range from $96,000 to $130,000. Councilperson Thorne asks if the cost is for removal and Mr. Carmack clarifies this would be the cost for one year of treatment. Councilperson Thorne follows up, suggesting eventually tree removals could be necessary, and Mr. Carmack says yes, recommendations for removal will depend on how the trees respond to treatment. Councilperson Bruning notes of the unhealthy- looking trees on Overbrook Road to which Mr. Carmack notes that they have been flagged and are watched closely. Councilperson Nelson asks if Mr. Carmack has received many requests from residents to inspect trees to which Mr. Carmack states yes and he sent out notices to residents between 68th Street and 70th Terrace regarding the Kermes scale treatment and received about 20 replies just last week. Mr. Carmack has already gone to three properties that day, doing assessments. Mr. Carmack explains that some people are not sure if they have a street tree, and he has been giving recommendations. Two out of three properties he visited that day did not have street trees, so he has been directing people to Urban Forestry license holders. Councilperson Nelson says the City’s canopy is one of the things the City is most proud of. Councilperson Thorne asks if the tress on Overbrook Road are being removed, to which Mr. Carmack clarifies no they are under observation and clarifies that many of these trees are older and are beginning to show signs of decline. Councilperson Bruning asks if the owners are aware and Mr. Carmack states yes. Mr. Carmack shifts to good news noting the City has planted 75 trees, with six or seven going to residents and the rest going into public areas including the median of High Drive and Overbrook Road. He noting taking a quality-over-quantity approach, removing mangled trees that are eyesores and keeping with the area’s aesthetic. He noted the City continues to work with Country Club Tree Service to spray crabapples Councilperson Bruning thanks Mr. Carmack, saying the report he sent to the Park Board was really comprehensive and full of great detail. COUNCIL LIASION REPORTS Councilperson Bruning reports that the Park Board has installed the new Verona Columns benches, which are gorgeous. However, they are still struggling with what to do about protecting the statuary on Colonial Court and are continuing to consider bollards. Councilperson Bruning said he personally suggested bollards and have encouraged the board to pursue them, noting that while the board is meeting on site to review options. Councilperson Bruning also shares that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on front-facing and projecting garages, as well as horizontal massing types and explains this is a continuation of issues under review that impact the south part of town, especially related to ranch-style houses. Councilperson Weed reports on the latest ARB meeting, where the main issue was related to driveways and impervious surfaces. During the pre-meeting, ARB members stated they feel they have addressed the issue to their ability and could refer the matter on to City Council. Mayor Dickey confirms the ARB chair, who has served for many years, plans to step down when his term ends in May and since the board selects its own chair, that process will take place then. Mayor Dickey states the City typically tries to include someone with architectural or design experience, and a qualified City resident who expressed interest last year will be contacted. Mayor Dickey notes of Mr. Woofter’s great job on the Board and thanks him for his service. 15 Councilperson Thorne thanks Councilperson Bruning for attending the Park Board meeting and shared that the community engagement team completed the postcard listing all City events for the year and should be out in the mail. Councilperson Nelson states the BZA met and reinforced its denial of the Wenonga Terrace underground garage request. The homeowner was seeking a 10-foot variance and the BZA agreed to a 6-foot compromise, so it is unclear how the project will proceed. . There was also another discussion about Country Club fans, but the BZA is waiting for directions from the Planning Commission and City Council. Councilperson Nelson shares the April BZA meeting has been canceled. Councilperson Davidson states he has nothing to report and thanks Councilperson Thorne for her wonderful community engagement report. MAYOR REPORTS Mayor Dickey reminds the group that Ms. Clifton and the Planning Commission are now on the clock and need to prioritize certain items. Ms. Clifton brought up the topic of pickle courts, noting that the Planning Commission has already had months of discussion and asks if there is any specific direction from the Council. Mayor Dickey asks for clarification of the results of those discussions to which Ms. Krstulic explains the prior discussion was about whether to require a special use permit. Ms. Clifton adds they leaned away from requiring one, instead suggesting setback adjustments reflecting how other cities, like Overland Park and Leawood, have approached it. Mayor Dickey emphasizes setbacks as a key issue, noting that depending on lot orientation, different setback rules apply, such as backyard versus front yard as well as screening and sound mitigation. Ms. Clifton explains that in a recent project, the ARB required acoustic screening, even for sunken courts. Mayor Dickey states this worked well in that case because the homeowner was cooperative, but future applicants might not be and stresses that solutions should be permanent and not just rely on landscaping. Councilperson Bruning observes that lots and green space are getting smaller, creating pressure to address these issues proactively. Mayor Dickey adds that many communities have quickly shifted their thinking on these topics and it might be time to look at updated examples from similar cities. Councilperson Weed shares that during a recent strategic planning session, pickleball prompted a loud negative response from attendees and someone even jokingly compared it to fracking. Councilmember Weed suggests possibly surveying the community further since consultants are already engaged. Ms. Clifton notes that existing basketball courts being repurposed for pickleball could complicate things. Councilperson Bruning reminded the group that their temporary ordinance also addressed sport court conversions. Ms. Clifton brought up noise complaints from neighbors about kids playing on driveways. Mayor Dickey responds that while pickleball may not technically violate noise codes, it is still widely disliked for its sound. Ms. Krstulic adds that other cities use large setbacks, sometimes up to 600 feet, to reduce impact, even for residential courts. Councilperson Weed mentioned Prairie Village reopened two of six previously closed courts. Mayor Dickey states they added screening and limited usage times. Councilperson Thorne asks whether property values were being considered, as that was a major resident 16 concern. Ms. Clifton said the Planning Commission understood that concern and was trying to determine how far to go with it. Councilperson Thorne points out the difference between buying a home next to an empty lot, versus one next to another home that becomes a backyard sports facility. Mayor Dickey agrees and challenges the Planning Commission to imagine starting from scratch with no existing sport courts what would they allow now, knowing what they know. Mayor Dickey notes ongoing complaints about sport courts with lights and other features that irritate neighbors. Mr. McQuaid states previous Planning Commission reviews have not gone deep enough and that it is time to take a broader look. Mayor Dickey reiterates that noise and light need to be managed and highlighted the irony that homeowners push noisy elements to the edges of their lots closer to neighbors, not themselves, adding the City had managed fine without backyard sport courts for decades. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. /s/ Jason Nickles 17