BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING Kearney City Hall 100 East Washington 6:30 p.m., Monday, September 20, 2021 Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/623570901 Meeting ID: 623 570 901 A normal house phone can connect by dialing, +1 312 626 6799 and entering the Meeting ID: 623 570 901 Those desiring to observe the meeting from home may also select the YouTube live stream video found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYdRhAShDOj2qL9GQMrswVA? PLANNED AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CONSENT AGENDA C-1 Board of Aldermen Minutes September 7 th C-2 Bills Presented for Payment C-3 Sewer Plant UV Bulb Parts, Xylem Proposal $18,752 C-4 Lamp Rynearson Proposal to Design Eastside Lift Station Generator, $15,900 C-5 Approve Resolution Auth Wayfinding Signs, United Signs, LLC, $45,021 C-6 Approve Resolution Auth Contract with Lamp Rynearson for Water Study and Design of Ground Storage Tank at Water Plant, $208,050 C-7 Authorize Advertisement for Demolition Bids of 103 S. Clark at Lion’s Park 3. MAYOR'S REMARKS A. Proclamation Recognizing the Jesse James Festival’s 50 th year Anniversary and Congratulating the Festival Committee on its Outstanding Service to the City 4. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT A. Nathanial Thomas and Rob Wilson, fy2021 Audit Report Presentation B. Survey of Neighboring Cities relative to pit bull/dangerous dog regulations 5. PUBLIC REQUESTS & PETITIONS A. Deer Valley Letter of Credit Acceptance for Cottonwood Estates 4 th Plat Improv B. Kurt Hamilton, Application for Octoberfest Liquor License for Public Events, October 9th 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2021 Property Tax Levy, Consider Ordinance B. Jerry Syler, Greenfield "P" District Amendment for a retention pond on Tract A, Consider Ordinance C. Kearney Salt Storage Building Conditional Use Permit application, Consider Ordinance 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. 9. ALDERMEN DISCUSSION 10. ADJOURNMENT
Transcript
BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING Kearney City Hall 100 East Washington 6:30 p.m., Monday, September 20, 2021
A normal house phone can connect by dialing, +1 312 626 6799 and entering the Meeting ID: 623 570 901 Those desiring to observe the meeting from home may also select the YouTube live stream video found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYdRhAShDOj2qL9GQMrswVA?
PLANNED AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CONSENT AGENDA
C-1 Board of Aldermen Minutes September 7th C-2 Bills Presented for Payment C-3 Sewer Plant UV Bulb Parts, Xylem Proposal $18,752 C-4 Lamp Rynearson Proposal to Design Eastside Lift Station Generator, $15,900 C-5 Approve Resolution Auth Wayfinding Signs, United Signs, LLC, $45,021 C-6 Approve Resolution Auth Contract with Lamp Rynearson for Water Study and Design of Ground Storage Tank at Water Plant, $208,050 C-7 Authorize Advertisement for Demolition Bids of 103 S. Clark at Lion’s Park
3. MAYOR'S REMARKS
A. Proclamation Recognizing the Jesse James Festival’s 50th year Anniversary and Congratulating the Festival Committee on its Outstanding Service to the City
4. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
A. Nathanial Thomas and Rob Wilson, fy2021 Audit Report Presentation B. Survey of Neighboring Cities relative to pit bull/dangerous dog regulations
5. PUBLIC REQUESTS & PETITIONS
A. Deer Valley Letter of Credit Acceptance for Cottonwood Estates 4th Plat Improv B. Kurt Hamilton, Application for Octoberfest Liquor License for Public Events, October 9th
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2021 Property Tax Levy, Consider Ordinance B. Jerry Syler, Greenfield "P" District Amendment for a retention pond on Tract A, Consider
Ordinance C. Kearney Salt Storage Building Conditional Use Permit application, Consider Ordinance
7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS
A.
9. ALDERMEN DISCUSSION 10. ADJOURNMENT
jim
Typewriter
C-8 Dog Park Equipment, Jamestown Advanced Products, $11,608.88, GSA Coop Purch
jim
Rectangle
jim
Typewriter
2nd
2
ENCLOSURES
Agenda w/Meeting Notes 2A. Minutes, Planning and Zoning Minutes, September 13th CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
C-1 Board of Aldermen Minutes, September 7th C-2 Warrant 092021, Bills Presented for Payment C-3 Sewer Plant UV Bulb Parts, Xylem Proposal $18,752 C-4 Lamp Rynearson Proposal to Design Eastside Lift Station Generator, $15,900 C-5 Approve Resolution Auth Wayfinding Signs, United Signs, LLC, $45,021 C-6 Approve Resolution Auth Contract with Lamp Rynearson for Water Study and Design of
Ground Storage Tank at Water Plant, $208,050 C-7 Authorize Advertisement for Demolition Bids of 103 S. Clark at Lion’s Park 3A Resolution Congratulating the Jesse James Festival on its 50th Year Celebration 4A Fy2021 Audit Report, Separate Document 4B Survey of Neighboring Communities on Pit Bull/Dangerous Dog Regulations 5A. Deer Valley Letter of Credit Acceptance for Cottonwood Estates 4th Plt Improv 5B Kurt Hamilton, Application for Octoberfest Liquor License for Public Events 6A 2021 Tax Levy Calculations, Notice and Proposed Ordinance 6B Greenfield Detention Pond ‘P’ Zoning Amendment, Staff Report and Proposed Ordinance 6C Salt Storage Facility Conditional Use Permit Application, Staff Report and Proposed Ordinance MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE M-1 MoDNR Primacy Fee Increase notification M-2 Cathy Heuermann 903 Walnut, email concerning Pit bulls M-3 Amber Skaar, 620 Woodson, email concerning Pit bulls M-4 Elena Derrell, formerly resided at 707 E 15th, email concerning Pit bulls M-5 Jeanette Santucci, 617 N Jesse, email concerning Pit bulls M-6 Safewise Award for 10th Safest Missouri City M-7 Thank you note from Lanny Rawdon M-8 Asbestos Report on 103 South Clark Street REPORTS 1. Police Reports, 2. Building Permits, August 3. Sewer Plant Report, August 4. Budget Reports with Fund Balance, August 5. Prior Year Character Code Budget Comparison, August 6. Financial Statements, August
jim
Typewriter
C-8 Dog Park Equipment, Jamestown Advanced Products, $11,608.88, GSA Coop Purch
3
Next Meeting: The next regular Board meeting will be Monday, October 4 at 6:30 p.m., Kearney City Hall, 100 East Washington Street
2 CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda permits several items to be reviewed and approved by one motion in order to expedite the meeting. The following items are being submitted for Board approval: CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL C-1 Board of Aldermen Minutes, September 7 C-2 Warrant 092021, Bills Presented for Payment C-3 Sewer Plant UV Bulb Parts, Xylem Proposal $18,752 Mike Fort is undertaking the replacement of the remaining half of the Ultra Violet bulb and parts replacements at the wastewater treatment plant—he undertook the 1st bank of lights last year, saving the City considerable expense. The bulbs and parts from the original manufacturer are expensive—we have experimented with 3rd party bulbs unsuccessfully we think. Finished effluent flows through UV light just prior to release into Fishing River during the warmer months of April to October to kill bacterium as part of the EPA’s program designating certain streams for ‘full body contract’, making them safer for swimming. Fishing River has been designated as a full body contact stream. Approval is recommended to purchase $18,752 in UB bulbs and parts from Xylem C-4 Lamp Rynearson Proposal to Design Eastside Lift Station Generator, $15,900 Enclosed is a proposal from Lamp Rynearson to design plans for a generator at the Eastside Lift Station, which will include an elevated stand due to its location in the flood plain. The generator will keep the lift station operating through power disruption and has been a goal since 2015, when the lift station was flooded and created sewer backups into the Methodist Church. Since that time, the control panels have been raised to service such floods. Approval is engineering design proposal for $15,900, is recommended. C-5 Approve Resolution Auth Wayfinding Signs, United Signs, LLC, $45,021 Enclosed is a proposed resolution authorizing a contract with United Signs, LLC to provide and install Wayfinding Signs recently designed and sited by our wayfinding sign committee. Approval of the $45,021 proposal is recommended. C-6 Approve Resolution Auth Contract with Lamp Rynearson for Water Study and Design of Ground Storage Tank at Water Plant, $208,050 Enclosed is a resolution authorizing a contract with Lamp Rynearson for several stages of work evaluating the City’s water treatment, the City’s water storage needs, siting and sizing an appropriate new ground storage tank likely at the water treatment plant. Total contract costs are $208,050, although most of this cost will come in Fiscal Year 2023. Greg Kendall briefed the Board on this contract at the September 7th Board meeting. Approval is recommended.
jim
Rectangle
jim
Rectangle
jim
Typewriter
.
4
C-7 Authorize Advertisement for Demolition Bids of 103 S. Clark at Lion’s Park The City closed on the 103 South Clark property on September 8th, and we have received an asbestos report (Enclosed in M-8 of this agenda) which will require $2,100 in remediation costs which has been authorized to proceed. We are seeking the Board’s approval to demo the house and outbuilding and would like to proceed to advertise for bids. We’d like to have it removed before winter.
MAYOR’S REPORT 3A Jesse James Festival Resolution The Jesse James Festival has been a part of our local culture for 50 years. Enclosed is a proposed resolution of the Board congratulating the Festival Committee for the perseverance and commitment to promote our community celebration. Congratulations to Dan Colt and the Jesse James Festival Board for all of their volunteer efforts. 4A Nathanial Thomas and Rob Wilson, fy2021 Audit Report Presentation The City Auditors will deliver the annual audit report, which will accompany this agenda as a separate document. 4B Survey of Neighboring Cities relative to pit bull/dangerous dog regulations Pursuant to a request from Alderman Lehman, our neighboring Clay County cities have been surveyed as to their regulations on pit bulls and dangerous dogs. Also included is a 2018 model ordinance on dangerous dogs from the IMLA (International Municipal Lawyers Association).
jim
Typewriter
C-8 Dog Park Equipment, Jamestown Advanced Products, $11,608.88, GSA Coop Purch
jim
Rectangle
jim
Typewriter
MAYOR'S Report
jim
Typewriter
Enclosed in C-8 is a memo from Park Director Eric Marshall recommending the purchase of dog park equipment through Jamestown Advanced Products for $11,608.88 as per GSA government pricing. Approval is recommended.
5
5A Deer Valley Letter of Credit Acceptance for Cottonwood Estates 4th Plt Improv Enclosed in 5A is a memo from David Pavlich recommending the acceptance of a letter of credit from Deer Valley for the completion of some public improvements, in order that building permits may be issued in Cottonwood Estates 4th Plat. Approval is recommended. 5B Octoberfest Liquor License for Public Places Kurt Hamilton is working with the City Park Department to relocate the Annual Jim Bach Memorial Octoberfest celebration to the downtown area of Kearney from the Jesse James pavilions location. The event would take place on Saturday, October 9th. Events are being planned from 10 am - 10 pm. Businesses that are participating in this event are Diddy's BBQ, D'Creamery, Gino's, and Fatboys. Beer vendors would also be located in a beer garden on Washington street, along with in Lions Park. The bulk of these activities that involve alcohol are going to be from 2 pm - 10 pm. So the liquor license for alcohol in public places would be limited to the hours of 2pm to 10pm on October 9th, limited to the areas identified on the enclosed map. Events and activities planned for Oktoberfest include: Live music, themed activities (Keg toss, brat eating contest, etc.), Kid's carnival, car show, contests, and more. 6A Property Tax Public Hearing Enclosed in 6A is a proposed ordinance based on the State Auditors calculations using the latest assessment figures from the Clay County Clerk which are also enclosed. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening. After the hearing, it is recommended the Board consider the enclosed proposed ordinance 6B Jerry Syler, Greenfield "P" District Amendment for a retention pond on Tract A, A public hearing is scheduled this evening to consider a request from Jerry Syler for a “P” zoning change in Greenfield Subdivision to provide an additional storm water retention pond. Tabled from August 9th, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued a public hearing to their September 13th meeting at which time the Commission unanimously voted to recommend against approval of a proposed storm water retention pond—see enclosed minutes. After conclusion of this evening’s public hearing, the Board may elect to consider the enclosed proposed ordinance.
jim
Rectangle
jim
Typewriter
2nd.
6
6C Kearney Salt Storage Building Conditional Use Permit A public hearing is scheduled for this evening to consider a request from the City of Kearney for a conditional use permit for its proposed salt storage building at 504 East 19th Street.
Tabled from August 9th, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued a public hearing to their September 13th meeting at which time the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for the salt storage building subject to conditions including a landscaping plan and some fencing to better isolate the City’s property from Stonelake subdivision—see enclosed minutes. After conclusion of this evening’s public hearing, the Board may elect to consider the enclosed proposed ordinance.
1
Planmin2021-09-13
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 13, 2021
The Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Kearney, Missouri, met in regular session at City
Hall, 100 East Washington, and thru the Zoom meeting app, September 13, 2021 with Doyle
Riley presiding. Other members present were Wyeth Ervin, Chastain Parks, Paula Noble,
Kathy Barger and Kent Porter. Chuck Davis was absent. Staff members present were David
Pavlich and Shirley Zimmerman.
Doyle Riley opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following items were presented for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve:
Minutes of the August 9, 2021 meeting
A motion was made by Kent Porter and seconded by Paula Noble to approve the Consent
Agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
GREENFIELD POND ON TRACT A-P DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENT Staff presented
an application from GJM Development, represented by owner Jerry Syler, proposing to install a
new pond (pond 3A) on Tract A in Meadows at Greenfield, located north of Old Trail Run
between Prairie Creek Drive and the villas along Greenfield Point. This application was tabled
from the last meeting, giving the City Engineer time to review the plans and stormwater report.
The city engineer supports installation of the proposed pond, if approved by the P&Z, per the following review comments:
1. We understand that Pond 3A has not been approved by the City as of this date. Our approval is conditional on City approval. Proposed Pond 3 will reduce maximum water surface elevations and peak flow post development discharge rates from existing detention basin Pond 2; therefore, we support the addition of Pond 3A to the development.
2. Ensure a toe wall is installed at end section(s). We note this detail is provided on the street and storm sewer plan set. This can be addressed during construction.
3. Correct the Stormwater Detention Facility Storage Volume table on Sheet C309 to either label the cumulative volume (ac-ft) as incremental volume (ac-ft) or change the values in that column to cumulative volumes. This can be addressed with as-built record drawings.
Staff said if this is proposed it would go to the Board of Aldermen September 20th and a public hearing would be held.
2
Planmin2021-09-13
GREENFIELD POND ON TRACT A-P DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENT-CONT Doyle
Riley asked if this area is zoned R-1 and part of the greenspace. Staff said yes, it is.
Staff showed the path of the water coming down through the greenspace. They said Pond 2
holds water permanently. The new pond would capture that water and slow down the flow of
the drainage.
Chastain Parks said there is a pile of dirt in that area. He wanted to know if it altered the water
flow in that area. Staff said it might change direction a little bit but doesn’t alter the water flow.
He said there are trees in the area and do they affect the water flow.
Jerry Syler said he can move the dirt. He said the residents like the trees so he has left them
there. They don’t cause a water issue being there.
Wyett Ervin said if the culvert is the problem why don’t we fix the culvert.
Julie Sellers, Ollson Engineering for GJM Development, said it is a large culvert. It is the timing
of the water flow that causes the problem. She said the new pond would slow down the release
and the flow of the water into the culvert area going under the road. She said the homes in that
area are lower than the road and this pond will address their issues.
Jerry Syler, GJM Development, said behind Phase II there has always been a dirt pile to help
hold back the water flow. He said he is needing dirt in another phase so building the pond would
give him extra dirt as well as help the water flow issue. He said the engineers say this will
reduce the amount of water at a time by one third.
Kathy Barger asked about the homeowners concerns about mosquitoes, etc and the cost of the
fountain in the pond. Garrett Syler said the fountain could be removed. He said the fountain
won’t prevent mosquitoes but it will help prevent moss from forming on the pond. He said
retention ponds do add value to your property as long as they are maintained.
Jerry Syler said, remember stormwater always gets worse, it doesn’t get better. He said we don’t
have to do this, but we were trying to help out the residents. He said if the City says no to this
then they will be liable on down the road if it gets worse.
Paula Noble said the HOA has to maintain this and she wondered how they would vote on this
issue. She said HOA is to help control your neighborhood.
Jerry Syler said if we don’t fix the problem now, then later on when it has to be fixed, it will cost
about $80,000 and the HOA won’t have that kind of money. He said he doesn’t have to do this
but the engineer recommended it.
Kent Porter said usually Staff recommends approval but at last meeting Staff didn’t recommend
approval. He said we usually don’t go against Staff approval. He asked if Staff had received
any public comment in favor of putting in the pond. He said he had studied the difference
between detention and retention. He said he would like to propose an alternative like they do in
Texas. He said they have ponds with a pump in them. He said then the pumps pump out the
water at controlled rate leaving the pond dry. He said that should help mosquitoes.
3
Planmin2021-09-13
GREENFIELD POND ON TRACT A-P DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENT-CONT Jerry
Syler said they are called dry basins and he is opposed to them. He said they are usually damp
and you can’t really mow them. They end up growing up in weeds and look horrible.
Kathy Barger said if this goes on to the Board of Aldermen, they will be taking public comments
at that meeting.
A motion was made by Kent Porter and seconded by Paula Noble to not recommend to the
Board of Aldermen to approve the application from GJM Development, represented by owner
Jerry Syler, proposing to install a new pond (pond 3A) on Tract A in Meadows at Greenfield,
located north of Old Trail Run between Prairie Creek Drive and the villas along Greenfield Point
as presented. The motion carried unanimously.
KEARNEY PUBLIC WORKS – SALT BARN STRUCTURE CUP & SITE PLAN Staff
presented the application from the Kearney Public Works proposing to construct a 3,200 square
foot salt storage building at 502 East 19th Street. This application was tabled at the last meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Commission requested a landscape plan and comment regarding
possible relocation of the building further to the northwest.
Staff reported that Donnie Smith, Utilities/Streets Director said that moving the building further
northwest would prevent any future expansion of the garage building. That building can only be
widened to the east, as going west encroaches on floodplain and the trail.
A copy of the proposed landscape plan was provided to the board members. Landscaping is
based on the City’s landscape buffer requirements between single-family and non-residential
uses. Staff is interested in replacing the fir trees with a native evergreen species, or other similar
type that is more tolerant in our area.
Kim Murphy, HOA representative for Stonelake HOA, provided an email approving of the
landscaping plan.
Chastain Parks asked if the landscaping plan was the only change from last month. Staff said
that is correct.
Kent Porter said the trees selected are excellent choices for that type of landscaping. Staff said a
berm would be built and then the trees would be planted on top of the berm.
A motion was made by Kent Porter and seconded by Chastain Parks to recommend to the Board
of Aldermen to approve the application from the Kearney Public Works proposing to construct a
3,200 square foot salt storage building at 502 East 19th Street contingent upon meeting all Staff
comments. The motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
131 EAST WASHINGTON ST, LAURA STEWARD-MINOR SITE PLAN FOR
CANOPIES Staff presented an application from Laura Steward, owner of VideoFizz at 131
East Washington Street, proposing to install new canopies above entry doors to the North and
East. The canopy above the north-facing front door, would be widened across the front of the
4
Planmin2021-09-13
131 EAST WASHINGTON ST, LAURA STEWARD-MINOR SITE PLAN FOR
CANOPIES building and include a sign for VideoFizz. A canopy on the East side of the
building, facing Grove Street, would just cover the side door.
The property is zoned CBD – Central Business District, which requires Planning & Zoning
approval of a minor site plan for any façade or exterior sign improvements in the district.
The proposed signage on the front door canopy will cover less than ten percent of the façade, in
compliance with sign requirements. A sign Permit is required prior to installation.
Laura Stewart said the area above the canopy and the white trim pieces on the front of the
building will all be painted black. She said the door will also be replaced with a black door.
A motion was made by Kathy Barger and seconded by Paula Noble to approve the application
from Laura Steward, owner of VideoFizz at 131 East Washington Street, proposing to install
new canopies above entry doors to the North and East and painting the trim area black and
contingent upon meeting all Staff comments. The motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
CAR WASH Staff reported that Club Car Wash has started construction on Watson Drive.
ROBERTSON PROPERTY Chastain Parks said he noticed they were moving a lot of dirt on
the old Albright Property off 10th Street and hauling off from the job site.
ROCK QUARRY Doyle Riley asked if we have heard anything from the Rock Quarry Project.
Staff said we haven’t heard anything from there.
BUILDING PERMITS Kathy Barger said it is good to see building permits be ahead of last
year at this time.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the agenda, a motion was made by Kent
Porter and seconded by Paula Noble to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously.
The Board of Aldermen, City of Kearney, Missouri, met in regular session on September 7, 2021 at 6:30 P.M. at City Hall, 100 East Washington Street. The Zoom meeting app was also utilized for public attendance and observation. Mayor Pogue presided. Members present were Kathy Barger, David Lehman, Dan Holt and Gerri Spencer. Staff members present were Jim Eldridge, Ryan Marcotte, Shirley Zimmerman, David Pavlich, Eric Marshall and Donnie Smith.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pogue opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA The following items were submitted for the Board of Aldermen to approve: C-1 Minutes for the August 16, 2021 Board meeting
C-2 Bills presented for payment C-3 Resolution No. 19-2021 Authorize Contract with Premier Pyrotechnics for 3-year July
3rd display, $15,000 Annual C-4 Change Order for Street Maintenance, McConnell & Associates, $78,664.39 with
Budget Amendment, $80, 00 Increase to Street Maintenance A motion was made by Alderman Lehman and seconded by Alderman Holt to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously.
MAYOR’S REMARKS
RECOGNIZE LANNY & SUE RAWDON, DESIGNATING THE LANNY & SUE
RAWDON ARBORETUM IN JESSE JAMES PARK A Resolution, designating the RESOLUTION NO. 18-2021 Lanny and Sue Rawdon Arboretum in Jesse James Park and expressing the City’s appreciation for their outstanding contributions to the Kearney Community, was presented and read in its entirety. Decades ago, local resident Lanny Rawdon attended a City of Kearney Park/Tree Board meeting and proposed starting an arboretum in the City’s 134-acre, Jesse James Park. He was authorized to work with the City staff in developing a planting grid that would not interfere with other park activities. Lanny, a retired airline pilot, and former tree nursery owner, laid out a plan to plant trees along a 1.5-mile trail in the park. Since 2010, he has planted over a thousand trees and woody plants in the park. His only assistant has been his wife, Sue, who has also bucketed water to the plantings. Most all of the plants were donated to the City by Lanny and Sue. The City has assisted in the purchase of some weed control chemicals, which he and Sue applied. In recent years, the City has paid for some tree spading of larger trees, and reimbursed for some of the trees and the City has paid for some tree invoices. The effort and credit for the project belongs solely to Lanny and Sue Rawdon.
jim
Typewriter
C-
jim
Oval
2
Aldmin2021-09-07
RECOGNIZE LANNY & SUE RAWDON, DESIGNATING THE LANNY & SUE
RAWDON ARBORETUM IN JESSE JAMES PARK Lanny and many thousands of hours of RESOLUTION NO. 18-2021 labor, donation of plant material and his sharing of expertise as an arborist makes him a prized asset to the Kearney and Holt communities. Lanny has earned statewide recognition for his and Sue’s work in Jesse James Park, and while the City has recognized Lanny and Sue in the past, we want to make their arboretum officially known as the Lanny and Sue Rawdon Arboretum. Staff showed a video of the Arboretum in Jesse James Park, which showed all the plantings the Rawdon’s had done. A motion was made by Alderman Holt and seconded by Alderman Barger to approve the Resolution designating the Lanny and Sue Rawdon Arboretum in Jesse James Park and expressing the City’s appreciation for their outstanding contributions to the Kearney Community. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pogue presented a framed copy of the Resolution, framed copy of the sign and a Key to the City to Lanny and Sue Rawdon. Lanny and Sue Rawdon thanked the City for recognizing them and said hopefully someone will follow in their footsteps and continue to keep the Arboretum going in the years to come. Doug Rawdon said he so appreciated the City recognizing his parents and that this will be something in the years to come that he will be able to go to and see as a memorial to his parents. Alderman Holt said you can see the love Lanny has for his wife and their love for plants. He said they are leaving a great legacy in the Park. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ROTARY CLUB A Proclamation, recognizing the contributions of the Kearney Rotary Club with their service projects to the City of Kearney, was read in its entirety. Mayor Pogue said he wanted to thank the Rotary Club for setting the pet waste stations along our trails, both at Fishing River and on the Jesse James Park/Mack Porter Park Trails. He said they work. Mayor Pogue said he wanted to thank the Rotary members for supporting our trails and other City projects and presented them with a framed copy of the Proclamation. Debbie Holt, President of Rotary Club, said she wanted to thank all the volunteers for helping with this project. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING KC SCHOLARS PROGRAM A Proclamation, recognizing KC Scholars celebrating five years of Paving Paths to Possible, was presented and read in its entirety.
3
Aldmin2021-09-07
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING KC SCHOLARS PROGRAM-CONT Mayor Pogue
said he was asked to issue this proclamation recognizing the KC Scholars Program to help spread
the word about the program.
Eric Thompson, KC Scholars’ Manager of Stackable Credits, gave a brief explanation of their
program and how it serves the Kansas City area and specifically the Kearney Community.
Mayor Pogue presented a framed copy of the Proclamation to Eric Thompson for the KC
Scholars Program.
CITIZEN REQUEST TO CHANGE ORDINANCE ON CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONING Mayor Pogue said he had received a citizen request for the City to consider
modifying its regulations to permit the ownership of a limited number of chickens in residential
areas. He said he knows this is done in a number of Johnson County communities and think it’s
a reasonable request that we should consider.
Alderman Holt said we should look at this closely before deciding on it. He said Liberty allows
them but you have to have a certain size of yard and they have to be so far from any house.
Alderman Lehman said the community that he works in has a chicken ordinance. He said he has
had no complaints about chickens. They aren’t allowed to have roosters. He said they also
allow ducks, pot belly pigs and fainting goats.
Alderman Barger said she is concerned about enforcement of the ordinance. She said the Police
Department is short staffed now. She said if we get an animal control officer than we can police
these things.
Alderman Spencer said we need to have regulations to go along with it. She said a lot of the
Homeowner Associations don’t allow them.
Mayor Pogue asked Staff to look into what requirements other cities have. He said Shawn
Warfield sent a post thru Zoom asking if other citizens would have input on this.
KEARNEY CHAMBER BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARD Mayor Pogue said Executive
Director Stacie Bratcher of the Kearney Chamber of Commerce surprised him with an email
announcing the City of Kearney as being considered for Business Excellence Award. He said
it’s an honor for the Chamber to recognize the City in this manner.
She wanted to recognize the City for getting the community back into community activities with
the new Lion’s Park and Splash Pad and starting up activities at the Amphitheater.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
WATER PLANT CLEAR WELL LEAK AND PIPE GALLERY IMPROVEMENTS Staff
reported that the Water Plant clear well has developed a seal leak that has required us to retain
Decker construction in helping us repair it. While this pipe was not contemplated to replace, we
would like to proceed with bidding the pipe gallery replacement project that was designed by
Lamp Rynearson last year, but put on hold during the COVID pandemic.
4
Aldmin2021-09-07
WATER PLANT CLEAR WELL LEAK AND PIPE GALLERY IMPROVEMENTS In
addition to piping improvements, we are working with Lamp Rynearson on a contract proposal
to look at expanding the City’s ground storage at the water plant.
While our demands regularly exceed treatment capacities based on our current operational
staffing, the plant’s high service pumps make this location the logical place to store and
distribute water. Lamp Rynearson would prepare a report determining the appropriate size of a
tank expansion. We currently have one-million-gallon capacity and have other issues relative to
storage and water treatment.
Greg Kendall, Lamp Rynearson, said we will proceed with the Rehabilitation project bidding.
He said it will take thirty days for the bidding process. He said it will increase storage. He said
for long term we need to look at distribution. He said we might need a pump station. He said we
also in the future need to determine a different disinfectant practice. He said the project will take
twenty-two months.
Mayor Pogue said he has asked Donnie Smith if there was one item that caused him not to sleep
at night in regard to the water department, what would it be. He said he always says storage.
ARPA FUNDS RECEIVED $1,095,493.87 Staff said the City has received its first Fiscal
Recovery Funds as approved by the American Rescue Plan Act.
The Fiscal Recovery Funds must be used in one of the four eligible use categories specified in
the American Rescue Plan Act and implemented in the Interim Final Rule. The Item D is to
make necessary investments in water, sewer or broadband infrastructure and we would focus on
water and then maybe sewers.
PUBLIC REQUESTS & PETITIONS
COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION PETITION REQUESTING SIDEWALK ON NATION
ROAD Staff reported that a citizen petition was received from residents seeking a sidewalk
extension from Westwood Village. Certainly, a desirable project, funding was not available last
year when constructing the Dogwood sidewalk, that contractor, Mega Industries, proposed a
change order for $120,000.
We would suggest this project receive priority in the November 2nd Use Tax funding proposal.
Mayor Pogue said this will be a reason for the public to pass the Use Tax Proposal.
REDGATE TRASH SERVICE Terry Peterson, Redgate Trash Service, said he would like the
opportunity to bid the trash service for the City. He said he serves a lot of businesses inside the
City limits.
Mayor Pogue said if we go out for bid for trash service, he would be given the opportunity to
bid.
NEW SERVICE
5
Aldmin2021-09-07
WARD BOUNDARY MODIFICATION REFLECTING 2020 CENSUS Bill No. 26-2021,
ORDINANCE NO. 1473-2021 an ordinance amending Chapter 105 establishing new Ward
boundaries, was presented and read by Title only.
Staff presented a memo from David Pavlich, Community Development Director, identifying the
current populations of both Wards: Ward 1: 5,447 Ward 2: 4,957. That is a 9.4% deviation
and is small enough to actually leave the boundaries in place according to court interpretations
that say a 10% deviation is acceptable.
However, s simple boundary adjustment of returning to the State Highways for ward boundaries
does make sense: Ward 1 being West of 33 Highway and North of 92 Highway and Ward 2
would be South of 92 Highway and East of 33 Highway.
This would shift the Wards: Ward 1: 5,112 Ward 2: 5,292, which is a 3.4% deviation and well
within the 10% rule.
A motion was made by Alderman Holt and seconded by Alderman Barger to approve the ordinance as read on the first reading. Voting for the motion: Spencer, Lehman, Holt and Barger. Motion carried by a four to zero vote. A motion was made by Alderman Holt and seconded by Alderman Lehman to place Bill No. 26-
2021 on its second and final reading. Said Bill was thereupon read and considered, and was duly passed by the following roll call vote: Voting for the Motion: Spencer, Barger, Holt and Lehman. The motion carried by a four to zero vote. The Bill was then duly numbered Ordinance No. 1473-2021.
EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:24 PM a motion was made by Alderman Holt and seconded by Alderman Lehman to go into Executive Session to discuss matters of litigation, legal actions provided under Section 610.021 (1) and/or real estate under Section 610.021 (2). Voting for the motion: Gerri Spencer, Dan Holt, David Lehman and Kathy Barger. The motion carried by a four to zero vote.
The regular meeting reconvened at 7:57 PM with no action being taken in executive session.
ALDERMAN DISCUSSION
ALDERMAN BARGER Alderman Barger said she wanted to congratulate all who we honored tonight. She said Lanny and Sue Rawdon are amazing people and so giving to their community. ALDERMAN LEHMAN Alderman Lehman said he would like to respond in regard to the correspondence from Debbie Alexander in regard to fireworks and see where we stand with this. He said there is a difference of opinion on this Board, but he would like Staff to do research on specific breed dog ban ordinance. He said we have a vicious dog ordinance which covers all incidents. He said Liberty did away with their specific breed ban and have had no problems.
6
Aldmin2021-09-07
ALDERMAN LEHMAN He said it is all in how the dogs are raised. He said there is no research that shows specific breeds are more dangerous than others. He said we need to look at this more because he doesn’t see any liability to the City to remove the specific breed ban. Mayor Pogue said he was looking for more direction from Alderman Lehman in regard to fireworks. He asked if he wanted a specific motion to be made in regard to fireworks. Alderman Lehman said he lives in a neighborhood that likes to celebrate July 4th. He said for close to two weeks he was looking at picking up remnants of aerial fireworks from his yard and out of his pool. Mayor Pogue asked Staff to research neighboring communities to see what their fireworks ordinances are. Mayor Pogue said in regard to breed specific dog ban, it has been brought up at least two different times with no motion being brought forth to make any change. He said we have a very good dangerous dog ordinance in place. He asked Alderman Lehman what he is asking for. Alderman Lehman said he would like to see what other communities have done. He said he didn’t expect any immediate action but maybe we should bring it up for a vote in the future. Staff said we have modeled our breed ban ordinance after Independence and they still have theirs in place. There has been a movement in several communities to remove their ban. If we are going to consider doing this, we must have an animal control officer in place to be able to enforce the ordinance. The same goes for fireworks. To enforce a stricter ordinance requires more people to enforce it. If you simply chose between having fireworks or not having fireworks, then it’s much easier to enforce. Mayor Pogue said we didn’t have a specific breed ban and then we went to one without an animal control officer in place. He said he wasn’t sure how having an officer first plays into this. Alderman Lehman said the City has never had an animal control officer when he previously worked for the City and the ordinance went from no ban to a ban. He said he certainly isn’t opposed to an animal control officer but he doesn’t see why that is needed before any change can be made. Staff said we are now twice the size that we were when Alderman Lehman worked for the City and we have many more issues. Staff said they believe that when you remove the specific ban that there will be many more vicious dogs within the City limits. ALDERMAN HOLT Alderman Holt said in regard to fireworks we need to do a much better job of informing the public. He suggested that the rules be printed out and that part of the fireworks permit is that each permit holder would put the rules in the sack of each customer as they purchase their fireworks.
7
Aldmin2021-09-07
ALDERMAN HOLT-CONT Alderman Holt said he had been asked why the Splash Pad closed on Labor Day with warm days still ahead in the forecast. Staff said the Splash Pad has been closed down and winterized as is customary with all water facilities. They operate from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Staff said the same amount of water runs for one child as it would if 200 kids are in the park. Alderman Holt said he believes that if it is hot, it should be used. Mayor Pogue said the manufacturer, who is out of Oklahoma, recommended that we do this. He said it is also part of the rules of the Splash Pad and Park, which were adopted by the Park Board. He asked Staff to check and see what other communities are doing. ALDERMAN SPENCER Alderman Spencer said she was very impressed with all the work and dedication that Lanny and Sue Rawdon had shown towards Jesse James Park and the Arboretum. Alderman Spencer said the Jesse James Festival is coming up soon. The Demolition Derby is this week-end and the Festival will be the next week-end. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the agenda, a motion was made by Alderman Holt and seconded by Alderman Lehman to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The following bills were presented for payment at the September 7, 2021 meeting:
VENDOR NAME ORG DESC ACCOUNT DESC AMOUNT
CHEC
K NO FULL DESC
PAYCOR PAYROLL General Fund Federal Withholding 7,696.83 2919 FICA,FIT,MED PAYRL TX
PAYCOR PAYROLL General Fund Missouri Withholding 2,722.00 2920 STATE WITHHOLDING
GUARDIAN General Fund Health Ins Payable 2,417.23 24701 DENTAL-EYE-ELECTIVE INS
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHLD General Fund Health Ins Payable 17,253.90 24678 HEALTH INS-SEPT
PAYCOR PAYROLL General Fund Employee Withholding-FICA 8,122.46 2919 FICA,FIT,MED PAYRL TX
PAYCOR PAYROLL General Fund Medicare Withholding 1,899.62 2919 FICA,FIT,MED PAYRL TX
MISSOURI LAGERS General Fund LAGERS Payable 11,065.20 2932
MO LAGERS #5479 PAYROLL
DEDUCTION
VOYA INSTITUTIONAL General Fund Deferred Comp Payable 2,679.46 24766 DEFERRED COMP VF-3137
B-COMM LLC General Fund Street Bonds Payable 250.00 24770 ST BOND REFD 1307 MELISSA CT
BENNETT CONCRETE General Fund Street Bonds Payable 250.00 24677 ST BOND REFD 303 S GROVE
MO DEPT OF REVENUE-
C General Fund Crime Victm's Fee Payable 220.88 24726 CVC FEES-JULY
MO DEPT OF REVENUE-
C General Fund Crime Victm's Fee Payable 470.25 24726 CVC FEES-AUG
MO DEPT OF REVENUE General Fund Police Ofr Traing Payable 31.00 24725 POST FEES-JULY
MO DEPT OF REVENUE General Fund Police Ofr Traing Payable 66.00 24725 POST FEES-AUG
SYNERGY SERVICES INC General Fund Domestic Violence Payable 124.00 24756 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FEES
SYNERGY SERVICES INC General Fund Domestic Violence Payable 264.00 24756 DV FEES-AUG
UNCLAIMED PROP General Revenue Fines & Court Costs 19.86 24761
SPECTRUM City Hall Expenses Telephone 64.99 2917 INTERNET SERVICE
CONSOLIDATED COMM City Hall Expenses Cell Phones 302.79 24689 CITY HALL,PD,ST,PRK PHS-INT
PAYCOR PAYROLL City Hall Expenses Payroll Service 255.57 2918 PAYROLL SERVICE FEE
NPG NEWSPAPERS INC City Hall Expenses Legal Notices/Publishing 281.00 24730 HEARING PROP RATE AD
8
Aldmin2021-09-07
CINTAS CORP City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 61.11 24685 CITY HALL RUGS
CINTAS CORP City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 22.00 24685 WTR & CH RUGS/UNIFORMS
CINTAS CORP City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 22.00 24685 CH RUGS & UNIFORMS
CINTAS CORP City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 22.00 24685 CH + ST RUGS-UNIFORMS
ROYAL PAPER City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 111.45 24747 T-PAPR, HAND TWL
LEGENDARY LAWN CARE City Hall Expenses Building Maintenance 195.00 24713 MOWING 8/11-8/31
VISA City Hall Expenses Computer Equip/Sftwre Mnt 408.72 24765 3 backup drives for city hall
VISA City Hall Expenses Computer Equip/Sftwre Mnt 29.98 24765 ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION
VISA City Hall Expenses Training/Meetings 515.00 24765 Gerri Spencer-conference
STITCH OF TIME City Hall Expenses Training/Meetings 266.76 24754 7 BUTTON DOWN COLLAR SHIRTS
LEGENDARY LAWN CARE City Hall Expenses Cemetery Maintenance 960.00 24713 MOWING 8/11-8/31
COSENTINO'S PRICE City Hall Expenses Office Supplies 23.92 24692 8 CS H2O
VISA City Hall Expenses Office Supplies 268.93 24765 MUSEUM BOXES
PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL City Hall Expenses Postage 48.27 24736 POSTAGE LEASE 3 QRT
PITNEY BOWES City Hall Expenses Postage 333.34 24735 RESERVE POSTAGE
VISA City Hall Expenses New Equipment 269.99 24765 2T ext ssd-back up device
TAKECAREOFMYWEBSIT
E City Hall Expenses Internet Web Page 300.00 24757 WEBSITE HOSTING
LEGENDARY LAWN CARE City Hall Expenses Other Expenses 70.00 24714 Code violation mow
CLAY COUNTY DETENTN Court & Legal Expenses Incarceration Services 234.00 24687 3 INMATES-6 Days
NPG NEWSPAPERS INC Community Dev Dir Exp Legal Notices/Publishing 72.84 24730 SALT STORAGE AD
NPG NEWSPAPERS INC Community Dev Dir Exp Legal Notices/Publishing 68.50 24730 GREENFIELD POND AD
NPG NEWSPAPERS INC Community Dev Dir Exp Legal Notices/Publishing 100.84 24730 WAY FINDING SIGNS AD
LAMP RYNEARSON Community Dev Dir Exp Engineering Fees 3,286.40 24712
GREENFIELD PLAT REVIEW-HACKER
ACRES
SUMNER ONE LEASING Community Dev Dir Exp Equipment Maintenance 211.38 24755 KYOCERA LEASES
US BANK EQUIPMENT Community Dev Dir Exp Equipment Maintenance 205.00 24764 RICOH LEASE
IBTS Community Dev Dir Exp
IBTS Blding Code Software
Fees 150.00 24704 GOVMOTUS
CLAY COUNTY
RECORDER Community Dev Dir Exp Recording Fees/Surveys 91.00 24688 RECORD FOR WILKERSON, ONEILL
PORTERS BLDG. CENTE Community Dev Dir Exp Small Tools & Equipment 9.18 24739
CINTAS CORP Community Dev Dir Exp Uniforms 5.38 24685 WTR & CH RUGS/UNIFORMS
CINTAS CORP Community Dev Dir Exp Uniforms 5.38 24685 CH RUGS & UNIFORMS
CINTAS CORP Community Dev Dir Exp Uniforms 5.38 24685 CH + ST RUGS-UNIFORMS
LEGENDARY LAWN CARE Historic Museum Exp Building Maintenance 45.00 24713 MOWING 8/11-8/31
KEARNEY CHAMBER OF Historic Museum Exp City Museum 150.00 24708 CHAMBER MAP AD
SPENCER, GERRI Historic Museum Exp City Museum 117.46 24752 WILKERSON ESTATE SALE & POSTER
DYKHOUSE, DAVID J Police Dept Exp Salaries--Part Time 168.00 24696 COVER FRONT OFFICE 8 HRS
DYKHOUSE, DAVID J Police Dept Exp Salaries--Part Time 336.00 24696 16 HRS FRT DESK
PLATTE CLAY ELECTRIC Police Dept Exp Electricity 549.13 24737 POLICE STATION
CONSOLIDATED COMM Police Dept Exp Cell Phones 401.38 24689 CITY HALL,PD,ST,PRK PHS-INT
Jim this is the bid on rebuilding the second bank UV lights. Mike would like to get the parts ordered so he can rebuild themover the winter so it is all ready to go in the spring.The UV building will be a100% again. This is the succession we talked about this spring when he did the 1st bank. Sohopefully they are staggered for repair in the future.Can we possibly get it at the next board meeting?
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mike Fort <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:14 PM Subject: UV System To: Donnie Smith <[email protected]>
This is the quote from Xylem to rebuild the 2nd bank of UV lights. As we discussed I found the exact cooling fans from AlliedElectronics, which we have an account with, for $32.00 cheaper. That is also attached.
-- Mike FortCity of KearneyChief Waste Water OperatorOffice (816)628-6689Cell (816)935-9387
September 8, 2021 CITY OF KEARNEY PO BOX 797 100 E WASHINGTON KEARNEY MO 64060-0797 Re: KEARNEY - 201466 - UV SPARES - 2ND BANK Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. - WEDECO is pleased to provide a quote for the following equipment and/or services for your approval.
1 14-65 39 62 ALLEN BRADLEY 1769-IF4 ANALOG INPUT 4PT COMPACTLOGIX
$ 697.00 $ 697.00
Total Project Price $ 18,627.00 Freight Charge $ 125.00 Total Project Price $ 18,752.00
Incoterm: 3 DAP - Delivered At Place Named Placed: 08 - Jobsite Incoterms 2010 clarify responsibility for costs, risks, & tasks associated with the shipment of goods to the named place. Terms of delivery: Freight PP/Add Actual Warranty: Standard warranty terms apply to the items in this quotation. Validity: This Quote is valid for thirty (30) days.
Taxes: The prices quoted above do not include any state, federal, or local sales tax or use taxes. Any such taxes as applicable must be added to the quoted prices.
Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Wedeco Products
4828 Parkway Plaza Blvd. Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28217 Tel 704/409-9700 Fax 704/409-9839
Quote # 2021-WED-1116 Account# 201466
Page 2 of 3
Schedule:Delivery lead times are approx. 5-10 working days after order acceptance. Lamp Cables - approx 6 weeks. Terms of payment: Net 30 Standard Xylem’s payment shall not be dependent upon Purchaser being paid by any third party unless Owner denies payment due to reasons solely attributable to items related to the equipment being provided by Xylem Inc.
Terms and Conditions: This order is subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale - Xylem Americas effective on the date the order is accepted which terms are available at <http://www.xyleminc.com/en-us/Pages/terms-conditions-of-sale.aspx> and are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the agreement between the parties
Shortages: Seller will not be responsible for any apparent shipment shortages or damages incurred in shipment that are not reported within two weeks from delivery to the jobsite. Damages should be noted on the receiving slip and the truck driver advised of the damages. Please contact our office as soon as possible to report damages or shortages so that replacement items can be shipped and the appropriate claims made.
Back Charges: Purchaser shall not make purchases nor shall Purchaser incur any labor that would result in a back charge to Seller without prior written consent of an authorized employee of Seller.
Delivery lead-times may be impacted by the current COVID-19 virus pandemic relative to transportation logistics. Customer Acceptance: A signed facsimile of this quote is acceptance as a binding contract. Signature: ______________________________________________ Name (please print) _______________________________________ Date: _____________________ PO# ________________________
Jim,Attached is a resolution for United Signs to manufacture & install the wayfinding signs project.They are an out-of-state vendor; however they do work across the country. They have done some projects thatinclude MUTCD compliant signage and completed a monument sign project for Parkway Middle School in Chesterfield,MO.
-- David Pavlich Community Development Director City of Kearney, Missouri 100 East Washington Kearney MO 64060 phone: 816-903-4731
www.ci.kearney.mo.us
Wayfinding signs packet for BOA - resolution.pdf 339K
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH UNITED SIGNS FOR WAYFINDING SIGNS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Administrator is authorized to sign a contract with United Signs LLC in the amount not to exceed $45,021.00, for the Wayfinding Sign Project, in accordance with the advertisement for bids; Section 2. Pursuant to RSMo 292.675, the contractor and all sub-contractors contracted to perform any construction of public works for any public body shall provide a ten-hour Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) construction safety program for their on-site employees, as described in the services contract; Section 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. APPROVED:
_____________________________ Randy Pogue, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jim Eldridge, City Clerk Y:\wp\Resolutions\res __-2021- Wayfinding Signs.docx
Summary of Engineering Agreement Page 1 of 1 Lamp Rynearson, Inc.
Study and Report phase (See Part 1.02 on page 2 of Exhibit A)
Goals of the study are to investigate the following:
Increase finished water storage at the plant (an additional tank or a single larger tank)
Determine need for a booster pump station on the KC supply line in the future
Evaluate whether the City’s residual disinfectant should be free chlorine or combined
chlorine.
Major tasks include surveying and geotechnical investigation of the plant tank site,
performing hydraulic analysis, forecasting 20-year demands on the low-pressure and
high-pressure zones, estimating costs, preliminary layout drawings, and summarizing in
the findings in a report.
Lump sum fee of $36,300 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
Design Phase (See Part 1.03 on page 5 of Exhibit A)
The design phase begins after approval of the study phase by the owner and after any necessary
adjustments in the contract price (see Part 1.03.A on page 5 of Exhibit A. The initial contract
pricing is based upon the assumption that the project will include increasing the existing ground
storage tank volume by raising the overflow elevation and walls, constructing a second ground
storage tank, and constructing an ammonia feed system at the water plant to provide system
wide chloramine disinfection.
Bidding/Proposal Phase (See Part 1.04 on page 8 of Exhibit A)
The bid phase begins after approval by the City of the plans and specifications developed during
the design phase. Services include assistance during the advertising phase of the project,
preparing any needed addenda, being available to answer contractor questions, attending the
bid opening, evaluating the bids, preparing a recommendation of award for the contract to the
City, and preparation of contract documents after the bid is awarded.
Combined lump sum fee for the design & bid phases is $95,000 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
Construction Phase (See Part 1.05 on page 9 of Exhibit A)
Upon award of the contract by the City, construction phase services include preparing for and
attending the preconstruction and progress meetings, being available to answer contractor’s
questions, issue any needed change orders, review contractor’s material submittals, review
contractor’s applications for payment, and make a final inspection of the project.
Lump sum fee of $36,750 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
Resident Project Representative (Observation) (See Article 1 on page 1 of Exhibit D)
Includes part-time on-site observation during the construction phase.
Hourly fee up to $40,000 (see Article 2 of Exhibit J)
Total lump sum and hourly fee $208,050 (see above and Part 2.05 on page 5 of Agreement)
Fee is based on 22 months of service (Article 1 of Exhibit J)
jim
Typewriter
C-6
jim
Oval
jim
Typewriter
Summary of Lamp Rynearson Contract Proposal for Ground Storage tank design
RESOLUTION NO.____________________
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH
LAMP RYNEARSON FOR STUDY AND REPORT, DESIGN, SPECIFICATIONS,
PREPARE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION FOR WATER PLANT PIPE GALLERY REPLACEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE
CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The MAYOR is authorized to sign an agreement with LAMP RYNEARSON to provide engineering services, including study and report, design, specifications, prepare construction drawings, bidding and construction administration for replacement of pipes at the water plant, said agreement attached and made part of this resolution as if wholly re-written herein: Study and Report phase (See Part 1.02 on page 2 of Exhibit A)
Goals of the study are to investigate the following:
Increase finished water storage at the plant (an additional tank or a single larger tank)
Determine need for a booster pump station on the KC supply line in the future
Evaluate whether the City’s residual disinfectant should be free chlorine or combined
chlorine.
Major tasks include surveying and geotechnical investigation of the plant tank site,
performing hydraulic analysis, forecasting 20-year demands on the low-pressure and high-
pressure zones, estimating costs, preliminary layout drawings, and summarizing in the
findings in a report.
Lump sum fee of $36,300 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
Design Phase (See Part 1.03 on page 5 of Exhibit A)
The design phase begins after approval of the study phase by the owner and after any necessary
adjustments in the contract price (see Part 1.03.A on page 5 of Exhibit A. The initial contract pricing
is based upon the assumption that the project will include increasing the existing ground storage
tank volume by raising the overflow elevation and walls, constructing a second ground storage
tank, and constructing an ammonia feed system at the water plant to provide system wide
chloramine disinfection.
Bidding/Proposal Phase (See Part 1.04 on page 8 of Exhibit A)
The bid phase begins after approval by the City of the plans and specifications developed during
the design phase. Services include assistance during the advertising phase of the project, preparing
any needed addenda, being available to answer contractor questions, attending the bid opening,
evaluating the bids, preparing a recommendation of award for the contract to the City, and
preparation of contract documents after the bid is awarded.
Combined lump sum fee for the design & bid phases is $95,000 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
jim
Typewriter
C-6
jim
Oval
Construction Phase (See Part 1.05 on page 9 of Exhibit A)
Upon award of the contract by the City, construction phase services include preparing for and
attending the preconstruction and progress meetings, being available to answer contractor’s
questions, issue any needed change orders, review contractor’s material submittals, review
contractor’s applications for payment, and make a final inspection of the project.
Lump sum fee of $36,750 (see Article 1 of Exhibit J)
Resident Project Representative (Observation) (See Article 1 on page 1 of Exhibit D)
Includes part-time on-site observation during the construction phase.
Hourly fee up to $40,000 (see Article 2 of Exhibit J)
TOTAL OF ALL FEES $208,050
Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF
KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS _____ DAY OF
Mayor, Jim, and BOA members... Here is the dog park equipment package we would like to purchase using the GSA agreement through JamestownAdvanced Products. We looked at this equipment and others as well, and the other dog park equipment Ryan and Ilooked at, only offered renderings, instead of the actual equipment photos and drawings that Jamestown offered.
We would like to purchase this equipment in the amount of $11,608.88Thank you,Eric
-- Eric MarshallKearney Park/Kearney Amphitheater Director816-903-4724 Direct816-665-2622 [email protected]
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE 14546
DOG WALK RAMP
5/10/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
3 of 8
5' - 10 1/2" 5' - 10 1/2"
3' - 0"
3' - 4"
0' - 10"
LOWER CONNECTION HARDWARE
UPPER CONNECTION HARDWARE
13' - 10 1/4"
A
B
DETAIL ASCALE 1 : 3
42 2 3 UPPER
CONNECTION HARDWARE
DETAIL BSCALE 1 : 3
32
2
1LOWER CONNECTION HARDWARE
Reinforced 1/8" thick steel •construction.
A-frame is supported by 1-1/2" x •1/8" thick steel tubing to be placed in concrete.(concrete not supplied)
Recycled plastic planks for •traction.
Standard finish is Thermoplastic •coating.
Powder coated steel posts.•
Stainless steel hardware.•
Estimated weight: 340lbs•
WARNING: MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED
ITEM NO. QTY. Part Number DESCRIPTION
1 4 11094-5-20-3 3/8-16 x 2.50LG HEX HEAD CAP SCREW2 22 11329-7-2 3/8 FLAT WASHER3 2 11952-11-2 NYLON HEX NUT 3/8-164 7 11094-5-7-3 3/8-16 x .875LG HEX HEAD CAP SCREW
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE
3' HIGH A-FRAME
14547
5/10/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
REV NO. 3 7/2/18- ADDED HARDWARE
4 of 8
10"
4'-2 1/8"
4'-1 3/8"
3'-10 3/8"
3'-0"
1'-4"
Constructed from 1/8" & 3/16" thick •A36 steel.
Jump is supported by 1-1/2" x 1/8" •thick tubing to be placed in concrete. (concrete not supplied)
Jump bar is constructed from solid •aluminum.
Jump bar drops from position with •minimal contact to help avoid injury.
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE
ADJUSTABLE DOG BONE JUMP
14548
5/10/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
5 of 8
9' - 8"
1' - 1/4" 4' - 9 1/4" 4' - 9 1/4"
0' - 10"
1' - 1 1/2"
WARNING: MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED
Constructed from 1/8" thick A36 •steel.
Teeter totter supported by 1-1/2" •x 1/8" thick tubing to be placed in concrete. (concrete not supplied)
Rubber bumper on either end to •resist vibrations during landings.
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE
TEETER TOTTER
14549
5/10/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
6 of 8
1' - 3"
0' - 10"
1 @ 12"
2 @ 4"2 @ 8"
1' - 1"
1' - 3"
1' - 1"
123
4
Constructed from 1/8" thick A36 steel.•
Agility walk is supported by 1-1/2" x 1/8" •thick square tubing to be placed in concrete. (concrete not supplied)
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE 14555
AGILITY WALK (SOLD AS A SET OF 5)
5/11/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
7 of 8
2 '- 2"
1' - 0"0' - 10"
1' - 10"
9' - 2"
Weave post constructed from 1" PVC •pipe with cap.
1" steel pipe base is to be placed in •concrete. (concrete not provided)
Color tape provided for decorative •strips. (Done by customer)
THIS DRAWING, WHICH CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, IS THE PROPERTY OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION :
DATE :CUSTOMER APPROVAL :
CORPORATION
CPAR OD V
UDNA C
STDE 14556
WEAVE POSTS (SOLD AS A SET OF 6)
6/10/11
REV NO. 2 12/10/15- ADDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY MOUNTED NOTE
8 of 8
GSA Contracts #GS-03F-008DA & #GS-03F-009DA
General Services Administration/Federal Supply Service Federal Supply Schedule Catalog/Price List
Contractor: Jamestown Advanced Products Corporation 2855 Girts Road Jamestown, NY 14701 Tel: 800/452-0639 or 716/483-3406 Facsimile: 716/483-5398 Contractor’s Administrative Source: Wendi Lodestro Business Size: Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) Schedule Title: Park and Outdoor Recreation Equipment FSC Classes: 4520, 7192 Contract Numbers: GS-03F-008DA & GS-03F-009DA Contract Beginning: October 30, 2015 Information for Ordering Activities 1a. and 1b. Table of Awarded Special Item Numbers (SINs) and Lowest Priced Model Number and Price for this SIN SIN SIN
Description Lowest Price Model Number
Lowest Price Model Description
Price
192 37B Tables and Benches
11643-12 Economy Bench 2 Powder Coated Frames
$73.23
192 37B Tables and Benches
11139-92 4 foot Standard Picnic Table Frames Only
$73.23
192 37I Grills and Bike Racks
11277 Staples $4.78
192 37I Bear Proof Food Storage Lockers
14167 15 Cubic Foot Food Storage Locker
$582.65
2. Maximum Order*: $500,000 per SIN and per order *If the “best value” selection places your order over the maximum order, identified in this catalog/price list, you have an opportunity to obtain a better schedule contract price. The contractor may (1) offer a new price this requirement, (2) offer the lowest price available for this contract, (3) decline the order. A delivery order that exceeds the maximum order may be placed under the Schedule Contract in accordance with FAR 8.404 3. Minimum Order: $100.00 4. Geographic Coverage: CONUS 5. Points of Production: Chautauqua County 6. Basic Discount: 21% 7. Quantity Discount: None 8. Prompt Payment Terms: Net 30 Days
9a. Government purchase cards are accepted at or below the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) 9b. Government Purchase cards are accepted above the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) 10. Foreign Terms: None 11a. Time of Delivery After Receipt of Order (ARO): 30 Days 11b. Expedited: 10 days with telephone confirmation of stock availability 11c. Overnight and 2
nd Day Delivery: None
11d. Urgent Requirement: Clause I-FSS-140-B of the contract applies. Agencies can contact contractor’s representative to possibly affect a faster delivery 12. FOB Point: Origin 13a. Ordering Address: Same as Contractor 13b. Ordering Procedures: For supplies and services, the ordering procedures, information on Blanket Purchase Agreements(BPA’s) are found in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-3. You can place your order by telephone, fax, Email or through the GSA Advantage website 14. Payment Address: Same as Contractor 15. Warranty Provision: Standard Commercial Warranty 16. Export Packing Charges: N/A 17. Terms and Conditions of GCCC Acceptance: Accepted at/or above or below the micro-purchase threshold 18-23. N/A 24a. Environmental Attributes: Recycled Plastic Lumber 24b. Section 508 Compliance: N/A 25. Data Universal Number System: 181760430 26. System for Award Management (SAM) database: SAM Registration is Current; Case Code 1HGC8
The City of Kearney, Missouri
100 E. Washington
P.O. Box 797
Kearney, MO 64060
816-628-4142
816-628-4543
www.kearneymo.us
RESOLUTION NO. 20-2021
A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE JESSE JAMES FESTIVAL’S 50TH YEAR
ANNIVERSARY AND CONGRATULATING THE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE ON ITS
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE CITY
WHEREAS, In 1970, the Kearney Merchants Association, and more particularly Fannie Shanks, did conceive and plan the first Jesse James Days Festival, and WHEREAS, during the 1970’s the event did flourish under their leadership, becoming an annual event and sponsoring Country Music Shows involving Barbara Mandrell, Shoji Tabuchi, Don Lyman and many other well-known entertainers, and WHEREAS, In 1981 under the leadership of Keith Doss, Chastain Parks and Richard Weber, the Festival was incorporated as a not for profit, and commenced hosting the United Rodeo Association’s Championship Finals, moving from April to the 3rd weekend in September of each year, and WHEREAS, during the 1980’s, the Festival continued to be affiliated with a rodeo and other events, moving locations from West Major Street (Mr. Dell Foods site) to Gary Shanks’ Major Place property, in 1988, and WHEREAS, in 1992, under the leadership of Tom Sloan, Jr., the Festival Committee did acquire the Jesse James Festival grounds, and WHEREAS, during the 1990’s the Festival did grow and mature in its new locations, expanding their event schedule to include activities over a two week period, and WHEREAS, in 1998, the Festival grounds were purchased by the City of Kearney, at the urging of Alderman Tom Miller, to develop a park, and City did grant a perpetual agreement for the Festival to continue its annual event, and WHEREAS, during the next two decades, the Jesse James Festival has continued to expand its programs and has become a Kearney tradition celebrated as a holiday by our Community. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen do resolve to congratulate the Jesse James Festival on its 50th year celebration and does commend President Dan Colt and all the members the Jesse James Festival Committee for their resolve and commitment to promote an annual festival and parade designed for the entertainment and enjoyment of our Community and our visitors. PASSED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. APPROVED:___________________________________ Randy Pogue, Mayor ATTEST:_________________________
Jim Eldridge, City Clerk
jim
Typewriter
3A
jim
Oval
The City of Kearney, Missouri
100 E. Washington
P.O. Box 797
Kearney, MO 64060
816-628-4142
816-628-4543
www.kearneymo.us
September 13, 2021 To: Mayor and Board of Aldermen From: Jim Eldridge SUBJECT: Neighboring Cities Dangerous Dog/Pit Bull Ordinances Pursuant to Alderman Lehman’s request, our neighboring cities’ ordinances have been collected relative to dangerous dog/pit bull regulations. Summarized below: City of Kearney Dangerous Dogs and Pit Bulls: The City has BOTH a Dangerous Dog Ordinance AND a Pit Bull Ordinance. The determination of a dangerous dog must be made by the Kearney Municipal Judge after a Court hearing. Our ordinance was modeled after the City of Excelsior Springs code. Since 2006, the City of Kearney has prohibited pit bull ownership. Our ordinance was modeled after the City of Independence. City of Kansas City Pit Bulls are permitted, but they must be spayed or neutered according to Kansas City, Mo ordinance with certain exceptions. City of Gladstone Pit Bulls are permitted but are declared dangerous dogs by city ordinance. Ordinance allows no more than one dangerous dog per residence, and all dangerous dogs must be registered as dangerous with minimum insurance requirements and special regulations including spay and neuter requirements and leash with muzzle. City of Liberty The City adopted a complete new Animal Control ordinance in 2018 with dangerous dog provisions. The Pit Bull prohibition was repealed by voters in 2019. (Liberty is a Special Charter city and may have the ability to hold such binding elections. 4th Class Cities, such as Kearney, do not have a provision for binding elections specifically for animal control—if held by Kearney, the election would be an ‘advisory’ election such as was done with smoking in enclosed places.)
City of Smithville Smithville’s Ordinances’ are silent on Pit Bulls, having a vicious dog procedure. City of Excelsior Springs Similar to Kearney’s current ordinances, the City of Excelsior Springs has both a dangerous dog procedure, and a prohibition against pit bulls. International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) Dangerous Dog Model Ordinance The IMLA has a model ordinance relative to dangerous dogs, that make the distinction of potentially dangerous, dangerous and vicious dogs. This contains a discussion on breed specific legislation.
jim
Typewriter
4A
jim
Oval
SECTION 205.195: KEEPING OF PIT BULL DOGS PROHIBITED A. Prohibition--Definition. It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own or in any way possess within the corporate limits of the City of Kearney, Missouri, any pit bull dog; provided, that pit bull dogs residing in the City on the date of passage of this Section may be kept within the City subject to the standards and requirements herein set forth. "Pit bull dog" is defined to mean: 1. The bull terrier breed of dog; 2. Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog; 3. The American pit bull terrier breed of dog; 4. The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog; 5. Dogs of mixed breed or other breeds than above listed which breed or mixed breed is known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit bull terriers; 6. Any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier; any other breed commonly known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit bull terriers or a combination of any of these breeds. 7. A pit bull may be identified as any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club as described in the identification checklist which is on file in the City offices. An identification using the above standards shall be prima facie proof and create a rebuttable presumption that a dog is a pit bull. B. Standards For Keeping Already Resident Pit Bull Dogs. Pit bull dogs residing in the City of Kearney at the time of passage of this Section may be kept by their owners within the City, subject to the following standards: 1. Registration. Pit bull dogs residing in the City at the time of passage of this Section must be registered with the City by the owners within ten (10) days of the passage of this Section. 2. Leash and muzzle. No person shall permit a pit bull dog to go outside its kennel or pen unless such a dog is securely leashed with a leash no longer than four (4) feet in length. No person shall permit a pit bull dog to be kept on a chain, rope or other type of leash outside its kennel or pen unless a person is in physical control of the leash. Such dogs may not be leashed to inanimate objects such as trees, posts, buildings, etc. In addition, all pit bull dogs on a leash outside the animal's kennel must be muzzled by a muzzling device sufficient to prevent such dog from biting persons or other animals. 3. Confinement. All pit bull dogs shall be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel, except when leashed and muzzled as above provided. Such pen, kennel or structure must have secure sides and a secure top attached to the sides. All structures used to confine pit bull dogs must be locked with a key or combination lock when such animals are within the structure. Such structure must have a secure bottom or floor attached to the sides of the pen or the sides of the pen must be embedded in the ground no less than two (2) feet. All structures erected to house pit bull dogs must comply with all zoning and building regulations of the City. All such structures must be adequately lighted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 4. Confinement indoors. No pit bull dog may be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition. In addition, no such animal may be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open or when screen windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the dog from exiting the structure. 5. Signs. All owners, keepers or harborers of pit bull dogs within the City shall within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Section display in a prominent place on their premises a sign easily readable by the public using the words "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull". In addition, a similar sign is required to be posted on the kennel or pen of such animal. 6. Insurance. All owners, keepers or harborers of pit bull dogs must within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Section provide proof to the City of Kearney of public liability insurance in a single incident amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by any persons which may result from the
ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal. Such insurance policy shall provide that no cancellation of the policy will be made unless ten (10) days' written notice is first given to the City of Kearney. 7. Identification photographs. All owners, keepers or harborers of registered pit bull dogs must within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Section provide to the Deputy City Clerk two (2) color photographs (two (2) different poses) of the animal clearly showing the color and approximate size of the animal. 8. Reporting requirements. All owners, keepers or harborers of pit bull dogs must within ten (10) days of the incident report the following information in writing to the Deputy City Clerk as required hereinafter: a. The removal from the City or death of a pit bull dog; b. The birth of offspring of a pit bull dog; c. The new address of a pit bull dog owner should the owner move within the corporate City limits. 9. Sale or transfer of ownership prohibited. No person shall sell, barter or in any other way dispose of a pit bull dog registered with the City to any person within the City unless the recipient person resides permanently in the same household and on the same premises as the registered owner of such dog; provided, that the registered owner of a pit bull dog may sell or otherwise dispose of a pit bull dog or the offspring of such dog to persons who do not reside within the City. 10. Animals born of pit bull dogs. All offspring born of pit bull dogs registered with the City must be removed from the City within six (6) weeks of the birth of such animal. 11. Irrebuttable presumptions. There shall be an irrebuttable presumption that any dog registered with the City as a pit bull dog or any of those breeds prohibited by this Article is in fact a dog subject to the requirements of this Section. 12. Failure to comply. It shall be unlawful for the owner, keeper or harborer of a pit bull dog registered with the City of Kearney to fail to comply with the requirements and conditions set forth in this Section. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation of this Section shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, failure to comply will result in the revocation of the license of such animal resulting in the immediate removal of the animal from the City. C. Penalty For Violation Of This Section Shall Be Provided In Section 205.160: Penalties. Any person found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. The court shall have the power to order the impoundment, release, removal from the City, return to the City or confinement by an individual of any animal seized, impounded or the subject of a violation charge under Sections 205.130, 205.140 and 205.150 after a preliminary or final hearing on the merits. Nothing herein shall in any way restrict the initial seizure or impoundment pursuant to Sections 205.130, 205.140 and 205.150. Nothing herein confers a right to any preliminary hearing before the court on any issue. The court shall have the power to assess the costs of boarding any dangerous animal boarded by the City upon any conviction and cause said assessment to be paid. (Ord. No. 1050-2006 §1, 8-9-06; Ord. No. 1078-2007 §1, 7-2-07)
[Ord. No. 767-98 §1, 8-3-1998]As used in this Article, the following terms shall have these prescribed meanings:
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERAn officer or agent designated by the City of Kearney to enforce this Article and may include aPolice Officer.
DANGEROUS ANIMALAny animal having evidenced a disposition, propensity or tendency to attack or bite any person orother animal without provocation; or any animal which, without provocation, in a vicious orterrorizing manner approaches any person in apparent attitude of attack upon the streets,sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; or any animal which is wild by nature and of a specieswhich, due to size, vicious nature or other characteristics, constitutes a danger to human life,physical well-being or property; or any animal which has been found to be vicious, dangerous, or adanger or menace to persons or other animals by a court of law of another jurisdiction after ahearing or upon a plea agreement is hereby deemed to be a dangerous animal. For the purposeof this Article, where the official records of the Animal Control Officer or the Police Department ofthis City or any other jurisdiction establish that an animal has bitten any person or other animal onone (1) or more separate occasions without provocation, such evidence shall be prima facieevidence that said animal is a dangerous animal. In making a determination as to whether ananimal is dangerous, elements that may be considered, but are not required to be, areprovocation, location of the event, reason for the attack, whether the animal is acting protectively,whether the animal was tormented or abused, the seriousness of an attack, and previous attacks.
OWNERThe person having the right of property or custody of a dog or animal or who keeps or harbors adog or animal or knowingly permits a dog or animal to remain on or about any premises occupiedby that person.
Section 205.130. Harboring Dangerous Animal.
[Ord. No. 767-98 §5, 8-3-1998]It is illegal to harbor or keep within the City of Kearney an animal that is a "dangerous animal" or toown such an animal and allow it to be kept or harbored within the City of Kearney.
Upon the written complaint of any person that a person owns, or is keeping or harboring, withinthe City a dangerous animal in violation of this Article, the Animal Control Officer or Police Officershall forthwith cause the matter to be investigated; and if, after investigation, the facts indicate theanimal is a dangerous animal, and such person named in the complaint is, in fact, the owner of, oris keeping or harboring, any such dangerous animal in the City, the Animal Control Officer orPolice Officer shall forthwith issue a general ordinance summons for a violation of Section 205.130to such person owning or keeping or harboring said animal and give written notice to such personrequiring such person to safely remove said animal from the City within three (3) days of the dateof said notice.
Notice as herein provided shall not be required where such dangerous animal has caused seriousphysical harm or death to any person or other animal or has escaped and is at large. In such case,the Animal Control Officer shall immediately issue a general ordinance summons to the personwho owns or is keeping or harboring the animal for a violation of Section 205.130 and cause saidanimal to be immediately seized and impounded or killed if seizure or impoundment is not possiblewithout risk of serious physical harm or death to any person. Impoundment may be in any animalshelter so designated by the person in charge of animal control. It is unlawful to fail to remove theanimal within the three (3) day period and said failure shall constitute a violation of this Section.
Section 205.150. Failure To Comply With Notice.
[Ord. No. 767-98 §7, 8-3-1998]
The Animal Control Officer or Police Officer shall forthwith cause to be seized and impounded anydangerous animal where the person owning, keeping or harboring such animal has failed tocomply with the notice given pursuant to Section 205.140 and shall issue to said person a generalordinance summons for a violation of Section 205.140.
Any time a dangerous animal is seized, impounded or killed, a general ordinance summons for theviolation of either Section 205.130 or Section 205.140 shall be issued.
Section 205.160. Penalties.
[Ord. No. 767-98 §8, 8-3-1998]Any person found guilty of violating the provisions of this Article shall be punished by a fine of not morethan five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both suchfine and imprisonment. The court shall have the power to order the impoundment, release, removalfrom the City, return to the City, or confinement by an individual of any animal seized, impounded, orthe subject of a violation charge under Sections 205.130, 205.140 and 205.150 after a preliminary orfinal hearing on the merits. Nothing herein shall in any way restrict the initial seizure or impoundmentpursuant to Sections 205.130, 205.140 and 205.150. Nothing herein confers a right to any preliminaryhearing before the court on any issue. The court shall have the power to assess the costs of boardingany dangerous animal boarded by the City upon any conviction and cause said assessment to be paid.
It shall be unlawful for any person to own or allow to be upon any premises occupied by him/her orunder his/her control any dog of a dangerous, vicious or ferocious disposition without such dogbeing confined to and within the property lines of the premises of such person behind a fence orwithin an enclosure from which it cannot escape or securely fastened to a chain limiting themovement of such dog to an area ten (10) feet within the property lines of the premises of suchperson.
Persons required to confine and control dogs of dangerous, vicious or ferocious disposition shallpost a sign with letters at least two (2) inches high containing the following words: "Beware ofDog" at the place of confinement of such dog as to warn the public of the nature of the animal soconfined.
If a Police Officer shall be notified of a dog of a dangerous, vicious or ferocious disposition andupon investigation shall find such a dog not within a fully enclosed or fenced area from which itcannot escape, or not on a leash or tether of sufficient strength to confine the dog to the yard orpremises of the owner, the dog shall be captured and impounded or killed by a Police Officer.Identification of the dog as the subject of the notification shall be made as is practical under thecircumstances. Before killing said dog, the Police Officer shall first determine if capture andimpoundment of the dog is reasonable. If capture and impoundment of the dog is reasonable, thedog shall be captured and impounded pending resolution of the matter in Municipal Court. Ifcapture of the dog is determined to be unreasonable, a Police Officer shall have full authority to killthe dog. However, the Police Officer shall not put himself/herself in any position of danger of beingattacked. If the Police Officer shall determine the dog to be a dog of dangerous, vicious orferocious disposition and shall find such dog to be fastened to a leash or tether that permits thedog to come within ten (10) feet of the property lines of the premises, the dog shall be capturedand impounded pending resolution of the matter in Municipal Court but the dog shall not be killed.Identification of the dog as one of a dangerous, ferocious or vicious disposition shall include anindependent appraisal of the disposition of the dog by the Police Officer as is practical under thecircumstances.
Persons aggrieved or threatened by a dog of a dangerous, ferocious or vicious disposition may filea written complaint with the Police Department requesting an order declaring the dog to be of adangerous, ferocious or vicious disposition. If an owner of said accused dog can be reasonablylocated, the owner shall be notified in writing by certified mail of said complaint and the date of thehearing. If an owner cannot be reasonably located, notice of the complaint and the date of thehearing shall be given by publication once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaperof general circulation within the City of Smithville. Upon receipt of the complaint, if the MunicipalCourt determines that the dog is of a dangerous, vicious or ferocious disposition as defined by thisChapter, the Municipal Court shall:
Issue an order declaring the dog to be a dog of a dangerous, vicious or ferocious disposition;and
Issue an order requiring that the dog be captured and impounded or killed if capture isunreasonable, if said dog is found not confined to and within the property lines of thepremises of the owner behind a fence or within an enclosure from which it cannot escape, ornot securely fastened to a chain limiting the movements of such dog to an area ten (10) feetwithin the property lines of the premises of such person after the date of the order, exceptthat, if the dog is found securely fastened to a chain which permits the dog to come within ten(10) feet of the property lines of the premises, the dog shall be captured and impounded butnot killed; or
Adopt a plan proposed by the owner and acceptable to the Municipal Court for control orremoval of the dog as a threat or grievance. The court shall withhold further action while saidplan is executed. If the plan is executed, the court may dismiss the complaint; or
If the court shall determine that the subject dog should be immediately destroyed, the courtshall order the dog to be destroyed.
Any dog owner aggrieved by an order of the court may appeal such order pursuant to Chapter536, RSMo.
Police Officers of the City of Smithville have the authority to destroy any vicious dog attacking anyperson or in self-defense while performing their duties in the line of animal control.
Section 235.130. Procedure In Case Of Dog Or Cat Bite.
Pursuant to Section 273.036, RSMo., the owner or possessor of any dog that bites, withoutprovocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property,including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages sufferedby persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or possessor'sknowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors of dogs shall also be strictly liable for anydamage to property or livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that thedamaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by the owner or possessor of thebiting dog shall be reduced by the same percentage that the damaged party's fault contributed tothe incident.
Should any person be bitten by a dog or cat, upon the written complaint to a Police Officer, suchdog or cat immediately shall be placed in the City pound or any reputable animal hospital for aperiod of ten (10) days for observation. If the owner of such dog or cat wishes it to be held in ananimal hospital, he/she shall make request in writing to the officer taking care of such dog or cat,and the officer may deliver the dog or cat to a reputable animal hospital after arrangements for theexpense of caring for and keeping such dog or cat are agreed upon by the owner of the dog or catand the management of the animal hospital. If such dog or cat be placed in an animal hospital andis found to be in normal health after ten (10) days, the owner may redeem such dog or cat bypaying all fees due the animal hospital and all other fees herein provided for. If such dog or cat beplaced in the City pound and is found to be in normal health after ten (10) days, the owner mayredeem such dog or cat after paying required fees. If the owner does not redeem such dog or catafter ten (10) days, it may be transferred to an organization for charitable purposes.
It shall be unlawful for the owner, keeper or person harboring the animal involved in such incidentto release it from his/her custody or to hide or conceal such animal or to take or allow such animalto be taken beyond the limits of the City, until the period of confinement and observation requiredin this Section is completed. The owner or keeper of such an animal involved in an incident shallbe liable for the cost of confinement and observation or confinement other than described in thisSection as a licensed veterinarian finds medically appropriate, providing such animal will becontrolled and observed in accordance with the owner's signed agreement, but only if such dog orcat has a current vaccination for rabies and is duly licensed as provided by this Chapter.Exceptions to such confinement requirement may be granted in the following cases: if the
investigating officer determines that the incident occurred while the animal involved was confinedand legally kept upon the property of the owner; the person injured was upon the property withoutthe express or implied consent of the owner and was not there performing functions of a job; orother circumstances exist which in the judgment of the supervisor create an exceptional situation.
9/12/21, 9:38 AM City of Excelsior Springs, MO Ecode360
The keeping or harboring of dangerous animals other than dogs within the City is herebyprohibited. Other than as to dogs which are regulated by Section 210.250, the Supervisor ofAnimal Control shall have the authority to declare an animal dangerous because of past behavior,violations, or the inherently dangerous nature of the animal as to persons. Such a declaration shallbe grounds for the impoundment and destruction of the animal unless, without danger to thepublic, it can be and is removed from the City within forty-eight (48) hours.
Within any residential area (for purposes of the Section here defined as any area not zoned forcommercial, agricultural or industrial purposes), the keeping or harboring of any poisonous animalor any warm-blooded carnivorous or omnivorous animal (including but not limited to non-humanprimates, raccoons, skunks, foxes, leopards, panthers, tigers and lions, but excluding fowl, dogs,house cats miniature pigs and small rodents of varieties used for laboratory purposes) is herebyprohibited. Non-poisonous snakes shall be kept in locked escape-proof cages except when beinghandled. No snake shall be permitted by the owner, keeper or handler to escape from a cage orwhile being handled.
A dog may be declared dangerous because of any one or more of the following:
Any dog of a cross, ferocious, or dangerous disposition as evidenced by past behavior.
Any dog which is of a species size, vicious nature, or other characteristics, that wouldconstitute a threat to physical well being of human or animal life.
Any dog which is of a species, size, vicious nature or other characteristics that wouldconstitute a danger to public or private property.
Any dog which has the disposition or propensity to attack unprovoked.
Any dog which has without provocation bitten a human being one (1) time.
The following constitutes prima facie evidence of a dangerous dog:
Records of Animal Control or the Police Department show a past history of violations ofSubsection (A) (1 — 4).
Evidence is presented in a Court of competent jurisdiction and a judgement is entered into theCourt record indicating the dog is considered by the Court to be a dangerous dog.
An incident occurs during which a serious injury, and/or death results.
Any dog found to be a dangerous dog under Subsection (A) (1 — 4); or Subsection (B) (1 — 2)shall be required to be controlled under the following standards:
Leash. No person shall permit a dangerous dog to go outside its kennel or pen unless suchdog is securely leashed with a leash no longer than four (4) feet in length.
Confinement. When not on a leash being physically controlled by a person a dangerous dogshall be securely confined in a locked pen or kennel consisting of a structure which hassecure sides and a secure top attached to the sides, and either a secure bottom attached tothe sides or the sides of the pen must be embedded in the ground at least two (2) feet. Suchenclosures shall adhere to all building and zoning regulations of the City. All such enclosuresmust be adequately lighted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
Confinement indoors. No dangerous dog may be kept on a porch, patio, or in any part of ahouse or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition. Inaddition, no such dog may be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open orwhen screen windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the dog from exitingthe structure.
Signs. A conspicuous notice shall be posted consisting of a notice stating in two (2) inch highprint on a two by three (2x3) feet sign, "Dangerous Dog".
Any dog found to be a dangerous dog under Subsection (A) (5); or Subsection (B) (3) may behumanely killed as directed by a Court of competent jurisdiction if it is found that the dog is toogreat a threat to human or animal life to be released to the owner, keeper, or harborer.
The Animal Control Officer or Police Department may take control of and remove to the AnimalShelter or other facility providing adequate shelter, food, and medical care, any dog that isinvolved in an incident where the owner, harborer, or keeper has been issued a summons for aviolation of any Section of Chapter 210 until such time as the court disposes of the case involvingthe dog(s) in question. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the final disposition of the case, the animalin question must be returned to the owner, harborer, or keeper and any applicable provisions ofChapter 210 shall apply.
The Animal Control Officer or the Police Department may destroy a dangerous dog as a last resortif it is not reasonably possible to catch the dog without injury and/or death to human or animal lifeor damage to public or private property within the City.
It shall be unlawful for any owner, harborer, or keeper to fail to comply with any Subsection of thisSection. Failure to comply may result in the immediate impoundment of the dog(s) in question andrevocation of their license.
Biting Dogs Running At Large. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, keeping or harboringany dog to permit, suffer or allow said dog to run at large within the City; and if said dog causesinjury to a human by biting or scratching while running at large, said owner, keeper or harborershall upon conviction be punished pursuant to this Section and Section 210.400(A).
Penalty Section. Any violation of any parts of this Section shall be punishable pursuant to Section210.400(A).
Section 210.270. Dogs or Other Animals Putting Persons in Fearor Being Maintained as Public Nuisances.
No person shall own, keep or harbor any dog or other animal which by jumping upon orthreatening any person upon a public street or sidewalk shall cause such person to be put in fear
of injury. This Section shall apply to any animal running at large and to any animal while beingwalked on a leash, and the unprovoked attach by an animal on a leash upon any person shallconstitute an assault or battery by the person holding the leash and failing to prevent unprovokedattack by such animal.
It shall be a violation to maintain any animal within the City as a public nuisance as such is definedby the common law of Missouri, the Statutes of Missouri or the ordinances of this City.
Section 210.380. Dangerous Animal Investigation.
[R.O. 2012 §210.400; Ord. No. 87-10-2 §1, 10-5-1987]If any dangerous, fierce, or vicious dog, cat or other animal believed involved in an incident (as theterm "incident" is used in Sections 210.360 and 210.370) cannot be safely captured or prevented fromescaping by usual means, such animal may be slain by a Police Officer or animal control officer if suchis the officer's belief. In all cases where such animal may have exposed a person to rabies and is slainbefore the completion of the observation period stipulated for the species by the City Manager orhis/her designate, it shall be the duty of any person slaying such animal to forthwith deliver or cause tobe delivered all the remains of such animal to the Supervisor of Animal Control. A departure from thisprocedure must be requested of and authorized by the City Manager or his/her designate.
For the purpose of disease or injury control, the Supervisor of Animal Control is hereby empowered toimpound and observe pets in transit through Excelsior Springs, Missouri, at the request of any officialanimal control agency, health officer, or law enforcement agency of another jurisdiction.
Section 210.440. Keeping of Pit Bull Dogs Prohibited.
[R.O. 2012 §210.460(A); Ord. No. 87-10-2 §1, 10-5-1987]It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own or in any way possess within the corporate limits of the City ofExcelsior Springs, Missouri, any Pit Bull dog, provided that Pit Bull dogs residing in the City on October5, 1987 within the City.
ARTICLE 4-2: IMLA MODEL ORDINANCE REGULATING DANGEROUS DOGS Section
4-201 Authorization 4-202 Purpose and Intent 4-203 Definitions
4-204 Determination of Status 4-205 Potentially Dangerous Dogs 4-206 Dangerous Dogs 4-207 Vicious Dogs 4-208 Immediate Impoundment 4-209 Continuation of Dangerous Dog 4-210 Reckless Owner 4-211 Penalties 4-212 Appeals 4-213 Conflicting Ordinances 4-214 Severability
A public safety ordinance providing for
responsible ownership of and licensing and keeping of potentially dangerous dogs, dangerous dogs, and vicious dogs within the corporate limits of the City of _______, authorizing impoundment and disposition of certain dogs, and repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF __________: SECTION 4-201. Authorization.
This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the general police power, the authorities granted to cities and towns by the ____________ State Constitution, and Sections _______ through _________ of the _____________ State Code. SECTION 4-202. Purpose and Intent.
The purposes of this Ordinance are to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of ____________.
SECTION 4-203. Definitions.
When used in this Ordinance, words have their common meaning and in addition the following words, terms, and phrases, and their derivations have the following meaning:
(a) Animal control officer means any person employed or appointed by the City who is authorized to investigate and enforce violations relating to animal control or cruelty under the provision of this Ordinance.
(b) At large means a dog that is not on its owner’s property and not leashed.
(c) Bite injury means any contact between an animal's mouth and teeth and the skin of a bite victim which causes visible trauma, such as a puncture wound, laceration, or other piercing of the skin. (d) Dangerous dog means any dog that has caused a bite injury and is not a vicious dog.
(e) Director means the Director of the
Department of Animal Control. (f) Domestic animal means an animal of a
tamed species commonly kept as pets and includes livestock
(g) Enclosure means a fenced or walled area having a fence or wall height of at least six (6) feet suitable to prevent the entry of young children and suitable to confine a dog.
(h) Impoundment means seizing and confining a dog by any police officer, animal control officer or any other public officer under the provisions of this Ordinance.
(i) Muzzle means a device constructed of strong, soft material or of metal, designed to fasten over the mouth of a dog that prevents the dog from biting any person or other animal and that does not interfere with its respiration.
Dangerous Dogs
2
(j) Potentially dangerous dog means a
dog that while at large: (1) behaves in a manner
that a reasonable person would believe poses a
serious and unjustified imminent threat of
serious physical injury or death to a person or
domestic animal, or (2) causes injury to a
domestic animal.
(k) Provocation means any action or activity, whether intentional or unintentional, which would be reasonably expected to cause a normal dog in similar circumstances to react in a manner similar to that shown by the evidence. (l) Owner means any person, partnership, or corporation having a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors a dog, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her. (m) Sanitary condition means a condition of good order and cleanliness to minimize the possibility of disease transmission. (n) Serious physical injury means disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
(o) Vicious dog means a dog that without provocation or justification bites or attacks a person and causes serious physical injury or death or is declared vicious under this title. SECTION 4-204. Determination of Status. (a) The animal control officer may find and declare a dog potentially dangerous, dangerous, or vicious if the officer has probable cause to believe that the dog falls within the definition of “vicious dog”, “dangerous dog” or “potentially dangerous dog”. The finding must be based upon:
(i) The written complaint of a person who is willing to testify that the
animal has acted in a manner which causes it to fall within the definition of “vicious dog”, “dangerous dog” or “potentially dangerous dog”; or
(ii) Dog bite reports filed with the animal
control officer as required by city ordinance or state law; or
(iii) Actions of the dog witnessed by any
animal control officer or law enforcement officer; or
(iv) Other substantial evidence admissible
in court. (b) The declaration shall be in writing, and shall be served by the animal control officer:
(i) On the owner if known using one of the following methods:
1. Regular mail to the owner’s last
known address, or by certified mail directed to the owner at the owner’s last known address; or
2. Personally; or
3. If the owner cannot be located
by one of the first two methods, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and posting a notice on the property of the owner;
(ii) Where the owner is not known
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
(c) The declaration shall contain the following information:
(i) Name and address of the owner of the dog if known and if not known that fact.
(ii) A description of the dog.
Dangerous Dogs
3
(iii) Whereabouts of the dog.
(iv) Facts upon which the declaration is based.
(v) Restrictions placed upon the dog and
when the owner is not known the intended disposition of the dog.
(vi) Penalties for violation of the
restrictions, including possibility of destruction of the animal and fine and imprisonment of owner.
(vii) Availability of a hearing to contest the
declaration by submitting a written request to the Board of Appeals within fifteen days of receipt of the declaration or if notice is given by publication or posting within 15 days of the earlier of the date the notice first appears in the newspaper or the property is posted.
(d) A dog may be declared dangerous under this section if the dog has within a twelve-month period attacked and killed a domestic animal on more than one occasion. For purposes of this subsection only, a domestic animal does not include any feral animal or does not apply where the attack was upon a domestic animal that was at large or upon a domestic animal that was tormenting or attacking the dog. (e) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous, potentially dangerous or vicious if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, provoking or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented, abused, provoked or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. (f) Notice. When notice is given by regular mail to the owner’s last known address, notice
is effective on the third day after the notice was placed in the mail, postage prepaid, to the owner’s last known address. When notice is given by certified mail, notice is effective when received; provided however, if certified mail delivery has been refused, notice is effective by publication or posting and whenever notice is accomplished by publication or posting the notice is effective and deemed received on the earlier of the day the property is posted or the newspaper is published. SECTION 4-205. Potentially Dangerous Dogs. (a) No person shall maintain a potentially dangerous dog without a license or otherwise in violation of this section. (b) No person owning, harboring or having the care or custody of a potentially dangerous dog shall permit the dog to go at large or leave the owner’s property unless the dog is securely leashed and muzzled. (c) Spaying/Neutering. All owners of potentially dangerous dogs must spay or neuter the dog and provide proof of sterilization to the Director of Animal Control within 14 days of the animal control officer declaring the dog potentially dangerous. (d) In addition to any other penalty for a violation of this section, a court may revoke the authority of a person to keep a potentially dangerous dog within the city.
(e) The owner of a potentially dangerous dog may apply to the Director of Animal Control to have the declaration waived after two (2) years upon meeting the following conditions:
(i) The owner and offending dog has no subsequent violations of this Chapter of the Code; and
(ii) The owner of the dog has complied
with all the provisions of this act for a period of two (2) years; and
Dangerous Dogs
4
(iii) The owner provides proof to the
Director of Animal Control of successful completion of a behavior modification program administered by a Certified Pet Dog Trainer (CPDT), Certified Dog Behavior Consultant (CDBC), or Veterinary Behaviorist, certified through the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB) or equivalent training.
If the Director finds sufficient evidence that the dog owner has complied with all conditions in this subsection, the application shall be forwarded to the Court to rescind the potentially dangerous dog declaration. SECTION 4-206. Dangerous Dogs. (a) No person shall maintain a dangerous dog in violation of this section. (b) Keeping of a Dangerous Dog. Once a dog has been declared dangerous, it shall be kept in a secure enclosure subject to the following requirements:
(i) Leash. No person having charge,
custody, control or possession of a dangerous dog shall allow the dog to exit its enclosure unless such dog is securely attached to a leash not more than four (4) feet in length and walked by a person who is both over the age of eighteen and who has the physical ability to restrain the dog at all times. No owner shall keep or permit a dangerous dog to be kept on a chain, rope or other type of leash outside its enclosure unless a person capable of controlling the dog is in physical control of the leash.
(ii) Muzzle. It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dangerous dog to allow the dog to be outside of its proper enclosure unless it is necessary for the dog to receive veterinary care or exercise. In such cases, the dog shall wear a properly fitted muzzle to prevent it from biting humans or other animals. Such muzzle shall not interfere with the dog’s
breathing or vision.
(iii) Confinement. Except when leashed and muzzled as provided in this Section, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined in a residence or confined in a locked pen or other secure enclosure that is suitable to prevent the entry of children and is designed to prevent the dog from escaping. The enclosure shall include shelter and protection from the elements and shall provide adequate exercise room, light, and ventilation. The enclosed structure shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The structure must have secure sides and a secure top, or all sides must be at least six (6) feet high;
(2) The structure must have a bottom permanently attached to the sides or the sides must be embedded not less than one (1) foot into the ground; and
(3) The structure must be of such material and closed in such a manner that the dog cannot exit the enclosure on its own.
(iv) Indoor Confinement. No dangerous dog shall be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition. In addition, no such dog shall be kept in a house or structure when the windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the dog from exiting the structure.
(v) Signs. All owners, keepers or harborers of dangerous dogs shall display in a prominent place on their premises a sign easily readable by the public using the words “Beware of Dog.”
(vi) Liability Insurance, Surety Bond. Subject to judicial discretion, the owner of a dangerous dog may be required to present to the Department of Animal Control proof that he has procured liability insurance or a surety bond in the amount of not less than one hundred
Dangerous Dogs
5
thousand dollars ($100,000) covering any damage or injury that may be caused by such dangerous dog. The policy shall contain a provision requiring that the City be notified immediately by the agent issuing it if the insurance policy is canceled, terminated or expires. The liability insurance or surety bond shall be obtained prior to the issuing of a permit to keep a dangerous dog. The dog owner shall sign a statement attesting that he shall maintain and not voluntarily cancel the liability insurance policy during the twelve (12) month period for which a permit is sought, unless he ceases to own or keep the dog prior to the expiration date of the permit period.
(vii) Identification Photographs. All
owners, keepers, or harborers of dangerous dogs must within ten (10) days of determination provide to the Animal Control two color photographs of the registered dog clearly showing the color and approximate size of the dog.
(viii) Microchip. All owners, keepers or harborers of dangerous dogs must within ten (10) days of determination microchip the dog and provide microchip information to the Director of Animal Control to register the dog as dangerous.
(ix) Spaying/Neutering. All owners,
keepers or harborers of dangerous dogs must within ten (10) days of determination spay or neuter the dog and provide proof of sterilization to the Director of Animal Control.
(x) Sale or Transfer of Ownership Prohibited. Sale - No person shall sell, barter or in any other way dispose of a dangerous dog registered with the City to any person within the city unless the recipient person resides permanently in the same household and on the same premises as the owner of such dog, provided that the owner of a dangerous dog may sell or otherwise dispose of a registered dog to persons who do not reside within the city. Owner must disclose dog’s status as a
dangerous dog to anyone to whom the owner transfers custody or care of the dog.
(xi) Notification of Escape. The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall notify the Department of Animal Control immediately if such dog escapes from its enclosure or restraint and is at large. Such immediate notification shall also be required if the dog bites or attacks a person or domestic animal.
(xii) Failure to Comply. It shall be a separate offense to fail to comply with the restrictions in this section. Any dog found to be in violation of this Section shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment pursuant to 4-208. In addition, failure to comply with the requirements and conditions set forth in this Ordinance shall result in the revocation of the dog’s license and the permit providing for the keeping of such dog. (c) A dangerous dog owner may apply to the Director of Animal Control to have the declaration waived after three (3) years upon meeting the following conditions:
(i) The owner and offending dog has no subsequent violations of this Chapter of the Code; and
(ii) The owner of the dog has complied
with all the provisions of this act for a period of three (3) years; and
(iii) The owner provides proof to the
Director of Animal Control of successful completion of a behavior modification program administered by a Certified Pet Dog Trainer (CPDT), Certified Dog Behavior Consultant (CDBC), or Veterinary Behaviorist, certified through the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB) or equivalent training.
If the Director finds sufficient evidence that the dog has complied with all conditions in this subsection, and has sufficient evidence that the
Dangerous Dogs
6
dog’s behavior has changed, the application shall be forwarded to the Court to rescind the dangerous dog declaration. SECTION 4-207. Vicious Dogs. It shall be unlawful to keep, possess, or harbor a vicious dog within the city limits. (a) The provisions of this article shall not apply to a police dog being used to assist one or more Law Enforcement Officers acting in an official capacity (b) The Director of Animal Control may order a dog euthanized that has been declared vicious. (c) The owner of a dog that the Director declares to be vicious may appeal that determination to the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the declaration. If an appeal is timely filed, the order to destroy the animal is suspended pending the final determination of the Board except when the Director declares that public health and safety require the immediate destruction of the animal as in the case of rabies. (d) The owner of a vicious dog shall be liable for and shall pay all costs associated with impoundment, removal, or euthanasia of said animal. The owner shall pay any other associated costs incurred. SECTION 4-208. Immediate Impoundment. (a) A dog suspected of being dangerous or vicious may be immediately impounded when the Director of Animal Control or the Director’s designee determines such immediate impoundment is necessary for the protection of public health or safety. (b) If the owner of the dog impounded under subsection (a) of this section is not reasonably ascertainable at the time of impoundment, the Director shall immediately notify the owner by mail sent to the owner’s last known address postage prepaid which upon the passage of
three days be deemed complete or by personal service within five (5) business days after the dog’s impoundment. (c) The notice of impoundment shall inform the owner of the dog that the owner may request, in writing, a hearing to contest the impoundment. Upon receipt of the notice of impoundment either through personal service or by mail (receipt is complete three days after mailing to the last known address of owner postage prepaid), the owner has 5 business days to request a hearing by serving on the Director of Animal Control a written request for the hearing. (d) Upon request by the owner of the dog for a hearing under subsection (c), a hearing must be held within ten (10) business days after receipt of the request. Notice of the date, time and location of the hearing shall be provided by regular mail to the dog owner requesting the hearing. The impoundment hearing shall determine if the dog poses a risk to public health and safety [insert here the appropriate standard: preponderance of the evidence; clear and convincing evidence; or beyond a reasonable doubt] or if the dog could be released. If the trier of fact determines the dog does not pose a risk to public health and safety, the dog shall be immediately released back to the owner pending further proceedings either administrative or judicial. (e) The owner must pay all of the cost of the impoundment and upon request must post sufficient funds to cover the anticipated costs for continued impoundment. In the alternative, the owner may propose a suitable facility where the dog could be contained and maintained at the sole cost of the owner and upon approval of the Director the dog may be impounded at that facility under the terms and conditions set by the director. Failure to post funds sufficient to pay for the costs of impoundment constitutes a waiver of any rights the owner may have to a hearing under this Section. (f) If the owner timely appeals an impoundment
Dangerous Dogs
7
or seizure, the owner may also seek review of the Director’s determination of boarding costs by filing an appeal with the Board of Appeals within 5 days after the Director issues a demand for prepayment. The Board or a designee, must review the Director’s decision within 2 business days after receiving the appeal. The owner must provide the Board with information sufficient to show that requiring prepayment of boarding costs would be a serious financial hardship on the owner. The Board may ask the owner to provide additional information at an informal hearing conducted in person or by telephone. The Director must not require the owner to prepay any boarding costs pending the Board’s decision. The Board may make any decision the Director could have made such as requiring the owner to prepay boarding costs retroactive to the initial boarding date of the animal, posting a bond, or placing the animal in a suitable facility at the owner’s sole expense. The owner may ask the Board to review the Director’s decision regarding prepayment of boarding costs as part of its review of the underlying appeal. (g) If the owner is successful in appealing the decision to impound the dog, the Director must refund to the owner any costs paid for the impoundment. SECTION 4-209. Continuation of Dangerous Dog Declaration.
Any dog that has been declared dangerous or vicious by any agency or department of this City, another municipality, county, or state shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. The person owning or having custody of any dog designated as potentially dangerous or dangerous by any municipality, county, or state government shall notify the Department of Animal Control of the dog’s address and conditions of maintenance within ten (10) days of moving the animal into the City of _________. The restrictions and conditions of maintenance of any dog declared dangerous by this City, another municipality, county, or state shall remain in force while the dog remains in
the City. No dog declared a potentially dangerous, dangerous, or vicious dog by any other designation agency or department of another municipality, county, or state based solely on size, breed, mix of breeds, or appearance shall be subject to this Section. SECTION 4-210. Reckless Dog Owner. (a) Any person convicted of:
(i) a violation of the City of ____ Code of Ordinances Chapter on Animals three (3) or more times in a 24 (twenty-four) month period; or
(ii) a violation of this Article two (2) or
more times in any five-year period, shall be declared a reckless dog owner.
(b) The Director of Animal Control shall issue a notification of the declaration of Reckless Dog Owner to the person with the following:
(i) name and address of the person subject to the declaration, and;
(ii) the description, violation, and
conviction that led to the declaration, and;
(iii) the name, description, and license
number of all dogs subject to the effects of the declaration, and:
(iv) instructions on appealing the
declaration to the Board of Appeals. (c) Once declared a reckless dog owner, the city licenses of all dogs owned by the person shall be revoked, and the person shall not own, keep, possess, or harbor a dog for a period of 5 (five) full years from the date of the declaration. (d) A person declared to be a reckless dog owner may apply to the Director of Animal Control to have the declaration waived after two (2) years upon meeting the following
Dangerous Dogs
8
conditions:
(i) The person has no subsequent violations of this Chapter of the Code; and
(ii) The person has complied with all the
provisions of this act for a period of two (2) years; and
(iii) The person provides proof to the
Director of Animal Control of successful completion of a program designed to improve the person’s understanding of dog ownership responsibilities and based upon an interview with the Director of Animal Control establishes that understanding.
If the Director finds sufficient evidence that the person has complied with all conditions in this subsection, the Director may rescind the reckless owner declaration subject to conditions that can help to ensure no future violations. If the Director declines to remove the declaration, the person aggrieved may appeal to the Board of Appeals within 30 days of that decision. Upon appeal, the person must provide clear and convincing proof that ownership of a dog in the future will be handled responsibly and not in violation of any law or ordinance. SECTION 4-211. Penalties. (a) Any person violating this Article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00, by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed 180 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [Note: In some jurisdictions this may be labelled a civil fine, in others a misdemeanor and in others the jurisdiction may choose to make violations both a civil offense as well as a criminal offense. See optional provisions below.] (b) Upon conviction of a violation of this Article, the court may order abatement of the violation
and order restitution be paid to any person injured as a result of the violation up to the maximum amount allowed by law. SECTION 4-212. Appeals. (a) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Animal Control to declare a dog potentially dangerous, dangerous or vicious, or to declare a person a reckless dog owner, or to impound a dog, or to have a dog euthanized may appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals within 30 days of the decision unless a different period is provided under this Title. A person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Appeals may appeal that decision to the courts in accordance with and pursuant to state law and the rules of court. (b) If the Director of Animal Control orders a dog to be euthanized for public health or safety reasons other than for rabies, the owner may immediately appeal that decision to the courts and upon a showing of good cause the court may suspend the order to euthanize the dog until the appeal is finally resolved. SECTION 4-213. Conflicting Ordinances. All other ordinances of the City of __________ that conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4-214. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance, but they shall remain in effect; it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall remain in effect notwithstanding the validity of any part
Dangerous Dogs - Editor's Commentary
9
DANGEROUS DOGS: EDITOR'S COMMENTARY I. Introduction
This IMLA Model Ordinance is intended to assist local government attorneys involved in drafting legislation aimed at regulating, but not prohibiting, the ownership and care of dogs that are viewed as either a nuisance or dogs that pose an extraordinary risk of danger to persons and property if not properly controlled. Because it is aspirational, it may contain provisions that are difficult if not impossible to implement within certain jurisdictions. Therefore, the drafters encourage any attorney using this ordinance for reference to also check applicable local and state laws.
In preparing this Model and its accompanying commentary we consulted numerous sources,
including sample ordinances that IMLA has received from several member cities and counties. Language and provisions included in the IMLA Model were borrowed from ordinances and statutes reviewed from the States of Idaho and Illinois; Roeland Park, Kansas: Skokie, Illinois; South Bend, Indiana; Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia. II. Drafting Overview
There are several general guidelines to keep in mind when drafting an ordinance to regulate or prohibit the keeping of dangerous or vicious dogs:
Define what is meant by a “potentially dangerous”, “vicious” or “dangerous” dog, depending on what categories you choose to use.
Establish procedures by which a dog comes to be classified as such.
Establish the actions/hearings that satisfy the due process clause that a pet owner may take to
contest the designation of his or her dog.
State the burden of proof in the ordinance. If there are criminal penalties, the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt for each element.
Specify the actions that a dog owner must take if the dog is finally declared dangerous at the end
of an administrative hearing or court proceeding.
Describe the penalties that the local government will impose if the dog owner does not comply with the established requirements.
Consider a registration and mapping of dangerous or vicious dogs in your city.
III. The Police Power to Regulate Dangerous Dogs
Property rights in dogs are of an imperfect or qualified nature. As a rule, governmental bodies may be powerless to enact a general ban on the ownership of dogs.1 At the same time, however, it is well established that ordinances regulating the keeping of animals within the jurisdictional limits of a particular
1 See In re Ackerman, 6 Cal. App. 5, 13 (1907).
Dangerous Dogs - Editor's Commentary
10
local governmental entity are a valid exercise of the police power delegated from the state provided that the ordinance is reasonable. In Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrolton R.R., the constitutionality of a New Orleans ordinance requiring pet owners to obtain license tags for their dogs and a Louisiana state statute requiring all dogs to be registered was contested.2 In upholding both the state law and city ordinance, the United States Supreme Court concluded that dogs are subject to the full force of the police power and may be destroyed or otherwise regulated in whatever manner the legislature deems reasonable for the protection of citizens.3
Many state courts have since held that a legislative body has broad police powers to control all dogs as means of guarding against public nuisances that endanger people, such as those posed by vicious dogs. Typical of such cases is Thiele v. Denver, in which the Colorado Supreme Court stated unequivocally that a dog, like all other property, is held by its owner subject to the inherent police power of the state and cannot be used or held in such way as to injure others or their property.4 In King v. Arlington County, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a county law making it illegal to keep a dog known to be vicious or which has evidenced a disposition to attack human beings was a valid exercise of the county’s police power.5 However, evidence considered in evaluating “known propensity” for dangerousness is generally contested, so it is more effective to list specific behaviors over general terms.6 More recently, courts have held that although in the eyes of the law, dogs are property, they are much more than an “inanimate object like, say, a toaster.”7 To justify the state's assertion of its authority on behalf of the public, it must appear that the interests of the public require such interference. Also, the means chosen must be reasonably necessary to accomplish the government’s purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. IV. Breed-Specific/Discriminatory Regulations
Because local governments enjoy such broad discretion when regulating the keeping of dogs, ordinances aimed at dangerous dogs and their owners that apply to all breeds usually do not raise questions about whether a city or county has overstepped its legal bounds. More controversial, however, is the use of breed descriptions to automatically characterize a dog as vicious or dangerous or in some other way restrict ownership of that breed. Nowhere is this more common than in legislation pertaining to alleged pit bull terrier dogs. At least twenty-one states currently prohibit breed discriminatory measures.8 Note that the 2005 version of this model ordinance contains breed-specific language that has subsequently been removed. Rather than attempt to regulate certain specific breeds, the current 2018 ordinance contains a strong general vicious dog category which is broadly applicable to all dangerous and vicious dogs. Unlike general vicious dog ordinances, breed-specific/discriminatory laws are not
2 See Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrolton R.R., 166 U.S. 698 (1897) 3 See Id. at 704. 4 See Thiele v. Denver, 312 P.2d 786, 789 (Colo. 1957) 5 See King v. Arlington County, 81 S.E.2d 587, 589 (Va. 1954) 6 See e.g. State v. Hanson, No. 90,372 (Kan. 2004). 7 See Lira v. Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc. (No. 14,0964) (Tex. 2016) (regarding the transfer of ownership of a stray dog from a municipality to a dog rescue). 8 For a list of states banning this type of legislation, please see BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY, Anti-Breed-Specific Legislation By State https://bestfriends.org/resources/anti-breed-specific-legislation-state (last accessed Aug. 1, 2018).
automatically accepted as valid and have faced numerous court challenges from both dog owners and breed or humane organizations.9 The challenges that such laws face are usually based on allegations of overinclusiveness, underinclusiveness, vagueness, violating equal protection, and lacking a rational basis.
The vast majority of local governments have addressed public safety by passing comprehensive breed neutral vicious dog ordinances that apply to dogs of all breeds.10 These ordinances focus on the behavior of the owner and the behavior of the dog. Like other animal control ordinances, comprehensive breed-neutral ordinances are usually considered legitimate exercises of the local police power and are much less controversial than attempting to correctly identify and regulate an entire breed, especially if criminal penalties are involved and the municipality must prove the dog to be of the alleged breed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, keep in mind that even in cities with breed specific/discriminatory prohibitions, there must always be exceptions for service dogs under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The United States Department of Justice states in its guidance that it “does not believe it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks.”11
A. Commentary from Best Friends Animal Society on Breed-Specific Legislation:
Thirty years ago, municipalities used breed specific/discriminatory ordinances in an attempt to regulate dangerous dogs based on faulty media reports not backed by science. Today, dog behavior has been scientifically studied and reported in peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Ordinances that attempt to target specific breeds have shown to be ineffective at enhancing public safety, expensive to enforce, and an interference with dog owner’s property rights.12 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against ordinances targeting breeds of dogs, and the American Bar Association House of Delegates passed a resolution in 2012 urging local governments to repeal breed specific ordinances and enact comprehensive breed neutral dangerous dog ordinances with due process protections for dog owners.
“Resolved, that the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous
9 See e.g. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Nelson v. Town of New Llano, No. 2:14-cv-00803 (W.D. LA May 26, 2014); Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Nelson v. Town of New Llano, No. 2:14-cv-00803 (W.D. LA May 26, 2014); Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Nelson v. Town of New Llano, No. 2:14-cv-00803 (W.D. LA May 26, 2014); Schreiner v. City of Clay, No. CV2013-903036.00, (Ala.Cir.Ct. Sept. 14, 2014) 10 See ANIMAL FARM FOUNDATION, INC., Breed Specific Legislation Map, https://animalfarmfoundation.org/community-advocates/bsl-map/ (last visited Aug. 20, 2018). 11 28 C.F.R. § 35.136 Supp. 81 (2010); see also Sak v. City of Aurelia, Iowa, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1033 (ND Iowa 2011) 12 See e.g. City of Topeka, Proposed Ordinance on Animal Cruelty and Dangerous Dogs, https://www.pitbullinfo.org/uploads/7/8/9/7/7897520/topeka_kansas_against_bsl.pdf (last visited Aug. 20, 2018); PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Report of the Vicious Animal Legislation Task Force (2003); PRINCE
GEORGE’S COUNTY, Report of the Vicious Animal Legislation Task Force: Appendices (2003)
dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed-discriminatory or breed-specific provisions.”
Breed specific/discriminatory ordinances make the presumption that behavioral traits are
dominated by genetics, not by environment, even though there is no clear scientific basis for this presumption. Repeated studies using animal welfare professionals including veterinarians and municipal animal control officers have shown that visual breed identification of dogs is highly unreliable when compared to the actual genetic breed ancestry of the dog.13 V. Due Process Challenges The most common constitutional challenge to a dangerous dog ordinance is procedural due process. Many drafters make the mistake of not allowing for a fair hearing before declaring a dog dangerous.14 A defendant requires notice and fair opportunity to be heard.15
The imposition of restrictions on dog ownership creates a meaningful interference with the owner’s possessory interest in that property, such that it acts as a constitutional deprivation of property. The restrictions act to effectively limit the ability of the owner to engage in previously allowed activities, such as letting the dog run off-leash, playing ball without a muzzle on one’s own property, and these restrictions often apply for the life time of the dog. (IMLA’s model ordinance allows for an application to appeal the lifetime regulations).
As personal property, a dog owner has a constitutionally protected property right in his dog
which may not be deprived except in accordance with due process of law. “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”16 The determination of what due process protections apply requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest.17 Regarding the private interest affected, a Washington court has held that “the private interest involved is the owner’s interest in keeping their pets…is greater than a mere economic interest, for pets are not fungible. So, the private interest at stake is great.”18
13 See Victoria L. Voith, Shelter Medicine: A Comparison of Visual and DNA Identification of Breeds of Dogs; Kimberly L. Olson, Pit Bull Identification in Animal Shelters, University of Florida, 2012; Kathleen C. Croy, et al., What kind or [sic] dog is that? Accuracy of dog breed assessment by canine stakeholders, Abstract online; and Victoria L. Voith, et al., Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability, 3 Am. J. of Sociological Research 17 (2013)
14 See County of Pasco v. Riehl, 635 So.2d 17 (1994) 15 See Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 US 413, 424-425 (1915) 16 See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) 17 See Id. at 335 18 See Rhoades v. City of Battleground, 115 Wash.App. 752, 766 (2003)
Dangerous Dogs - Editor's Commentary
13
Dangerous dog ordinances can have civil or criminal components. Most state statutes establish
the burden of proof for the municipality as either a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence if the penalty is civil, and beyond a reasonable doubt if the penalty is criminal.19 The court in City of Pierre v. Blackwell, held that because the City of Pierre’s ordinance had a criminal penalty for keeping a dangerous dog, the City needed to prove the dangerousness of the dog beyond a reasonable doubt.20 Moreover, because the court relied solely on the animal control officer’s decision as to the dangerousness of the dog, and there was no independent assessment of the evidence presented by both sides, procedural due process was not satisfied.
VIII. Reference Materials Additional information on animal control and regulating dangerous dogs may be obtained by contacting:
American Bar Association, Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice Section, Animal Law Committee: https://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=IL201050
American Veterinary Medical Association: https://www.avma.org National Animal Care and Control Association: http://www.nacanet.org/ National Canine Research Council: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/
American Bar Association Resolution 100, Aug. 6-7, 2012, available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/mental_physical_disability/Resolution_100.authcheckdam.pdf
IX. Optional Provisions
A. Guard Dog Provisions
This section is provided as an option as some may believe the jurisdiction should allow owners to use their dogs as security even though the dogs are potentially dangerous or dangerous. Although we do not endorse it, this option provides some suggested language if the local jurisdiction prefers to use it:
[Optional*] Guard dogs. The owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog may apply to the Director to put the dog into service as a guard dog. The owner must describe in a written application how the dogs will be used and how the use may differ from any condition required for maintaining a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog. The Director must review the application and either approve the proposed use and terms of use, deny the use or terms of use and may issue an order authorizing the use under terms established by the Director.
B. Alternative Penalty Provisions
19 See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970)
20 See City of Pierre v. Blackwell, 635 N.W.2d 581 (SCt. S.D. 2001) * We do not endorse this view
This section offers options for different penalty provisions:
[Optional] Civil Penalties. (a) Any person violating this Article is guilty of a civil violation and must pay a fine of $500.00. (b) If a court finds that a person has violated this Article, in addition to any fine imposed the court may order abatement of the violation and order restitution be paid to any person injured as a result of the violation up to the maximum amount allowed by law. [Optional] Criminal Penalties. (a) A violation of this Article is a misdemeanor punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment of up to six months in jail or both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) Upon conviction for a violation of this Article, the court in addition to any penalty imposed, may order abatement of the violation and order restitution be paid to any person injured as a result of the violation up to the maximum amount allowed by law.
Jim, Deer Valley seeks to record the Cottonwood Creek 4th Plat final plat, in the next week or so. A section of the 8' wide Nation Road sidewalk trail has not yet been constructed, while they wait for PCEC to install apower crossing in the area of the sidewalk/trail. Deer Valley has authorized Kearney Trust to issue a performance guarantee, in the form of a letter of credit, in theamount of $22,560.00 This amount is 120% of the cost of construction. Approval would allow the Cottonwood Creek 4th Plat to be recorded after receipt of a street maintenance bond and as-built plans, which are expected in the next couple of days. Staff recommends Board approval of the performance guarantee, which is allowed per as Section 410.075.
-- David Pavlich Community Development Director City of Kearney, Missouri 100 East Washington Kearney MO 64060 phone: 816-903-4731
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:23 PM Kurt Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: Hey Jim, With how many people we are trying to invite and have at an event like this I would advise that we have all threelocations able to serve alcohol including lions park. We can adjust the map to take off the 33 portions so people don'tdo that. The way we want to advertise the event as well is that they have to finish their drink in the area they currentlyare at. That way we avoid people carrying drinks down the sidewalks. If we want to have an event that is going to have3,000+ people and with the capability of honestly having thousands of more, I think we should be overprepared with theareas we can serve alcohol. If we submitted another map with changes removing 33 would that suffice? On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jim Eldridge <[email protected]> wrote:
The boundary is quite large and has an extensive length of State Highway 33, for which our Ordinance will notnecessarily cover--certainly we don't want to be closing Highway 33.Wonder if the 1st year, we keep it on Washington between 33 and Prospect and include Old Church Plaza--thatwould eliminate the need for crosswalks. Know that's not what you want to hear--Lion's Park would simply be a children's event area, maybe. Jim Eldridge, City Administrator/ClerkCity of Kearney, Missouri816.903.4729 direct
Good morning, Please see the attached map that explains the boundaries of our Oktoberfest event. Our main portion of the eventthat is happening in the area in the picture will be from 10 am - 10 pm. Businesses that are participating in this event are Diddy's BBQ, D'Creamery, Gino's, and Fatboys. We also plan onhaving beer vendors like you would see in a beer garden on Washington street, along with in Lions Park. The bulkof these activities that involve alcohol are going to be from 2 pm - 10 pm Events and activities planned for Oktoberfest include:Live music, themed activities (Keg toss, brat eating contest, etc.), Kid's carnival, car show, contests, and more. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks! On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jim Eldridge <[email protected]> wrote:
Kurt, Eric and Ryan: Here is the Ordinance for OctoberFest--we will need an application from you that showsthe boundaries (which can be an email stating the beginning and ending times and nature of the event--withexplanations of participating businesses. I suggest we keep with the shorter hours that we have had at ourJesse James Park events. Jim Eldridge, City Administrator/ClerkCity of Kearney, Missouri816.903.4729 [email protected] ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:37 PM Subject: To: <[email protected]> ------------------- TASKalfa 6002i [00:17:c8:4b:98:e5] -------------------
ORDINANCE FIXING THE RATE OF TAX LEVY ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI FOR THE YEAR 2021 PURSUANT TO
STATE STATUTE R.S.MO. 67.110
Whereas, pursuant to State Statute R.S.Mo. 67.110, a public hearing was held at which citizens were given the opportunity to be heard relative to the proposed property tax rate levies, and Whereas, after said hearing, the Board of Aldermen determined to set the tax rate levies for the year 2021 set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY
KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Kearney will require the following tax rates to be levied and collected on all taxable property within the City of Kearney, Missouri, for the year 2021:
$.5041 General Revenue $.0500 General Obligation Bonds
$.5541 Total Levy
Section 2. This tax shall be levied and collected pursuant to an agreement with the Clay County Collector and Clay County Commission as approved by Resolution 17-2021.
Section 3. Pursuant to State Statute R.S.Mo. 94.200, interest in the amount of 1.5 % per month shall be added to delinquent tax bills, not to exceed a total amount of 18% per annum. Penalties shall be assessed in the manner and amount consistent with the policies of the Clay County Collector and with State Statutes.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
PASSED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF KEARNEY, THIS ___ DAY OF ________, 2021.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Randy Pogue, Mayor ATTEST:
_______________________________ Jim Eldridge, City Clerk Y:\Property Taxes\2021 Property Taxes\taxlevyord2021.docx
jim
Typewriter
6A
jim
Oval
MEMORANDUMSeptember 13, 2021
TO: 09-024-0008 City of Kearney
RE: Setting of 2021 Property Tax Rates
The following are the tax rate computational forms that have been reviewed. Please follow the steps below to complete the process of setting your 2021 Property Tax Rate(s).
1. Lines G - BB on the Summary Page should be completed to show the actual tax rate(s) to levy.
2. Please sign and date the Summary Page.
3. Please submit the finalized tax rate forms ready for certification to the County Clerk of each county that your political subdivision resides in. The County Clerk must also sign the Summary Page and indicate the proposed tax rate to be entered on the tax books before submitting rate(s) to the State Auditor's Office for final review and certification.
If the attached pro forma calculation differs from the questionnaire submitted for review, please review the following line items for the reason(s) for the difference.
Form A, Line 2b - New Construction & Improvements - Personal Property
Section 137.073.4, RSMo, states that the aggregate increase in valuation of personal property for the current year over that of the previous year is the equivalent of the new construction and improvements factor for personal property.
Form A, Line 5 - Prior Year Assessed Valuation
If the 2021 questionnaire has a different amount on Form A, Line 5 than was previously submitted, we had to revise the 2020 calculation for this change. The revised 2020 tax rate ceiling is listed on the 2021 Summary Page, Line A. A copy of the revised 2020 calculation is available on your menu screen; please keep this form for your files.
(SCHOOL DISTRICTS ONLY) Form A, Line 14
We revised the information the school district submitted on Line 14 to the amount computed by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).
If you have any questions about the enclosed forms, please contact the local government section at (573-751-4213.)
For Political Subdivision Use in Calculating
its Tax Rate
A. Prior year tax rate ceiling as defined in Chapter 137, RSMo, revised if the prior year data changed or a voluntary reduction was taken in a non-reassessment year (Prior year Summary Page, Line F minus Line H in odd numbered year orprior year Summary Page, Line F in even numbered year) 0.5515
B. Current year rate computed pursuant to Article X, Section 22, of the Missouri Constitution and Section 137.073, RSMo, if no voter approved increase (Form A, Line 18) 0.5041
C. Amount of rate increase authorized by voters for current year if same purpose. (Form B, Line 7)
D. Rate to compare to maximum authorized levy to determine tax rate ceiling (Line B if no election, otherwise Line C) 0.5041
E. Maximum authorized levy the most recent voter approved rate 0.8300
F. Current year tax rate ceiling maximum legal rate to comply with Missouri laws Political subdivisions tax rate (Lower of Line D or E) 0.5041
G1. Less required sales tax reduction taken from tax rate ceiling (Line F), if applicable
G2. Less 20% required reduction 1st class charter county political subdivision NOT submitting an estimatednon-binding tax rate to the county(ies) taken from tax rate ceiling (Line F)
H. Less voluntary reduction by political subdivision taken from the tax rate ceiling (Line F)WARNING: A voluntary reduction taken in an even numbered year will lower the tax rate ceiling for the following year.
I. Plus allowable recoupment rate added to tax rate ceiling (Line F) If applicable, attach Form G or H.
J. Tax rate to be levied (Line F - Line G1 - Line G2 - Line H + Line I)
AA. Rate to be levied for debt service, if applicable (Form C, Line 10)
BB. Additional special purpose rate authorized by voters after the prior year tax rates were set. (Form B, Line 7 if a different purpose)
CertificationI, the undersigned, (Office) of (Political Subdivision)
levying a rate in (County(ies)) do hereby certify that the data set forth above and on the
accompanying forms is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Please complete Line G through BB, sign this form, and return to the county clerk(s) for final certification.
(Date) (Signature) (Print Name) (Telephone)
Proposed rate to be entered on tax books by county clerk
based on certification from the political subdivision: Lines J AA BB
Section 137.073.7 RSMo, states that no tax rate shall be extended on the tax rolls by the county clerk unless the political subdivision has complied with the foregoing provisions of this section.
(Date) (County Clerk's Signature) (County) (Telephone)
The information to complete the Summary Page is available from prior year forms, computed on the attached forms, or computed on this page. Information on this page takes into consideration any voluntary reduction(s) taken in previous even numbered year(s). If in an even numbered year, the political subdivision wishes to no longer use the lowered tax rate ceiling to calculate its tax rate, it can hold a public hearing and pass a resolution, a policy statement, or an ordinance justifying its action prior to setting and certifying its tax rate. The information in the Informational Data, at the end of these forms, provides the rate that would be allowed had there been no previous voluntary reduction(s) taken in an even numbered year(s).
(Form Revised 04-2021) Summary Page
Summary Page
City of Kearney 09-024-0008 General Revenue
Name of Political Subdivision Political Subdivision Code Purpose of Levy
For Political Subdivisions Other Than School Districts Levying a Single Rate on All Property
9/13/2021PRO FORMA - STATE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED
The final version of this form MUST be sent to the county clerk.
(2021)
jim
Typewriter
-0-
jim
Typewriter
-0-
jim
Typewriter
-0-
jim
Typewriter
-0-
jim
Typewriter
0.5041
jim
Typewriter
0.0500
jim
Typewriter
Jim Eldridge, City Clerk
jim
Typewriter
the City of Kearney, Missouri
jim
Typewriter
Clay
jim
Typewriter
9-21-2021
jim
Typewriter
Jim Eldridge
jim
Typewriter
(816) 628-4142
1. (2021) Current year assessed valuation
Include the current state and locally assessed valuation obtained from the county clerk, county assessor, or comparable office finalized by the local board of equalization.
(a) 185,171,404 + (b) 39,220,297 = 224,391,701
(Real Estate) (Personal Property) (Total)
2. Assessed valuation of new construction & improvements
2(a) - Obtained from the county clerk or county assessor
2(b) - increase in personal property, use the formula listed under Line 2(b)
(a) 3,410,690 + (b) 2,592,804 = 6,003,494
(Real Estate) Line 1(b) - 3(b) - 5(b) + 6(b) + 7(b)If Line 2b is negative, enter zero
(Total)
3. Assessed value of newly added territoryobtained from the county clerk or county assessor
(a) 40 + (b) 0 = 40
(Real Estate) (Personal Property) (Total)
4. Adjusted current year assessed valuation(Line 1 total - Line 2 total - Line 3 total) 218,388,167
5. (2020) Prior year assessed valuation
Include prior year state and locally assessed valuation obtained from the county clerk, county assessor, or comparable office finalized by the local board of equalization.
NOTE: If this is different than the amount on the prior year Form A, Line 1, then revise the prior year tax rate form to recalculate the prior year tax rate ceiling. Enter the revised prior year tax rate ceiling on this year's Summary Page, Line A.
(a) 160,235,731 + (b) 36,627,493 = 196,863,224
(Real Estate) (Personal Property) (Total)
6. Assessed value of newly separated territoryobtained from the county clerk or county assessor
(a) 0 + (b) 0 = 0
(Real Estate) (Personal Property) (Total)
7. Assessed value of property locally assessed in prior year, but state assessed in current yearobtained from the county clerk or county assessor
(a) 0 + (b) 0 = 0
(Real Estate) (Personal Property) (Total)
8. Adjusted prior year assessed valuation(Line 5 total - Line 6 total - Line 7 total) 196,863,224
Form A, Page 1 of 2(Form Revised 12-2017)
Computation of reassessment growth and rate for compliance with Article X, Section 22, and Section 137.073, RSMo.
Form A
City of Kearney 09-024-0008 General Revenue
Name of Political Subdivision Political Subdivision Code Purpose of Levy
For Political Subdivisions Other Than School Districts Levying a Single Rate on All Property
9/13/2021PRO FORMA - STATE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED
The final version of this form MUST be sent to the county clerk.
(2021)
Information on this page takes into consideration any voluntary reduction(s) taken in previous even numbered year(s). If in an even numbered year, the political subdivision wishes to no longer use the lowered tax rate ceiling to calculate its tax rate, it can hold a public hearing and pass a resolution, a policy statement, or an ordinance justifying its action prior to setting and certifying its tax rate. The information in the Informational Data, at the end of these forms, provides the rate that would be allowed had there been no previous voluntary reduction(s) taken in an even numbered year(s).
For Political Subdivision Use in Calculating its Tax
Rate
9. Percentage increase in adjusted valuation of existing property in the current year over the prior year's assessed valuation(Line 4 - Line 8 / Line 8 x 100) 10.9340%
10. Increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI) certified by the State Tax Commission 1.4000%
11. Adjusted prior year assessed valuation (Line 8) 196,863,224
12. (2020) Tax rate ceiling from prior year
(Summary Page, Line A) 0.5515
13. Maximum prior year adjusted revenue from property that existed in both years (Line 11 x Line 12 / 100) 1,085,701
14. Permitted reassessment revenue growth The percentage entered on Line 14 should be the lower of the actual growth (Line 9), the CPI (Line 10) or 5%.A negative figure on Line 9 is treated as a 0 for Line 14 purposes. Do not enter less than 0 or more than 5%. 1.4000%
15. Additional revenue permitted (Line 13 x Line 14) 15,200
16. Total revenue permitted in current year * from property that existed in both years ( Line 13 + Line 15) 1,100,901
17. Adjusted current year assessed valuation (Line 4) 218,388,167
18. Maximum tax rate permitted by Article X, Section 22, and Section 137.073, RSMo(Line 16 / Line 17 x 100)Round a fraction to the nearest one/one hundreth of a cent.Enter this rate on the Summary Page, Line B 0.5041
* To compute the total property tax revenues billed for the current year (including revenues from all new construction and improvements and annexed property), multiply Line 1 by the rate on Line 18 and divide by 100. The property tax revenues billed would be used in estimating budgeted revenues.
Form A, Page 2 of 2(Form Revised 12-2017)
Computation of reassessment growth and rate for compliance with Article X, Section 22, and Section 137.073, RSMo.
Form A
City of Kearney 09-024-0008 General Revenue
Name of Political Subdivision Political Subdivision Code Purpose of Levy
For Political Subdivisions Other Than School Districts Levying a Single Rate on All Property
9/13/2021PRO FORMA - STATE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED
The final version of this form MUST be sent to the county clerk.
(2021)
The tax rate for debt service will be considered valid if, after making the payment(s) for which the tax was levied, the bonds remain outstanding, and the debt fund reserves do not exceed the following year's payments.
Since the property taxes are levied and collected on a calendar year basis (January - December), it is recommended that this levy be computed using calendar year data.
1. Total current year assessed valuation obtained from the county clerk or county assessor(Form A, Line 1 total) 224,391,701
2. Amount required to pay debt service requirements during the next calendar year(i.e. Assuming the current year is year 1, use January - December year 2 payments to complete the year 1 Form C) Include the principal and interest payments due on outstanding general obligation bond issues plus anticipated fees of any transfer agent or paying agent due during the next calendar year.
2,187,106
3. Estimated costs of collection and anticipated delinquencies (i.e. collector fees & commissions & assessment fund withholdings) Experience in prior years is the best guide for estimating uncollectible taxes. It is usually 2% to 10% of Line 2 above. 5,000
4. Reasonable reserve up to one year's payment(i.e. Assuming the current year is year 1, use January - December year 3 payments to complete the year 1 Form C) It is important that the debt service fund have sufficient reserves to prevent any default on the bonds.
Include payments for the year following the next calendar year, accounted for on Line 2. 2,187,106
5. Total required for debt service (Line 2 + Line 3 + Line 4) 4,379,212
6. Anticipated balance at end of current calendar yearShow the anticipated bank or fund balance at December 31st of this year (this will equal the current balance minus the amount of any principal or interest due before December 31st plus any estimated investment earning due before December 31st). Do not add the anticipated collections of this tax into this amount. 2,393,370
7. Property tax revenue required for debt service (Line 5 - Line 6)Line 6 is subtracted from Line 5 because the debt service fund is only allowed to have the payments required for the next calendar year (Line 2) and the reasonable reserve of the following year's payment (Line 4). Any current balance in the fund is already available to meet these requirements so it is deducted from the total revenues required for debt service purposes. 1,985,842
8. Computation of debt service tax rate (Line 7 / Line 1 x 100)Round a fraction to the nearest one/one hundredth of a cent. 0.8850
9. Less voluntary reduction by political subdivision
10. Actual rate to be levied for debt service purposes * (Line 8 - Line 9)Enter this rate on Line AA of the Summary Page.
* The tax rate levied may be lower than the rate computed as long as adequate funds are available to service the debt requirements.
Form C(Form Revised 12-2017)
Debt Service Calculation for General Obligation Bonds Paid for with Property Taxes
Form C
City of Kearney 09-024-0008 Debt Service
Name of Political Subdivision Political Subdivision Code Purpose of Levy
For Political Subdivisions Other Than School Districts Levying a Single Rate on All Property
9/13/2021PRO FORMA - STATE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED
The final version of this form MUST be sent to the county clerk.
(2021)
jim
Typewriter
0.8350
jim
Typewriter
0.0500
Informational Summary PageA. Prior year tax rate ceiling (Prior year Informational Summary Page, Line F) 0.7301
B. Current year rate computed (Informational Form A, Line 18 below) 0.6674
C. Amount of increase authorized by voters for current year (Informational Form B, Line 7 below)
D. Rate to compare to maximum authorized levy (Line B if no election, otherwise Line C) 0.6674
E. Maximum authorized levy most recent voter approved rate 0.8300
F. Tax rate ceiling if no voluntary reductions were taken in a prior even numbered year (Lower of Line D or E) 0.6674
Informational Form B6. Prior year tax rate ceiling to apply voter approved increase to
(Informational Summary Page, Line A if increase to an existing rate, otherwise 0)
7. Voter approved increased tax rate to adjust(If an "increase of/by" ballot, Form B, Line 5a + Line 6, if an "increase to" ballot, Form B, Line 5b)
Based on Prior Year Tax Rate
Ceiling as if No Voluntary
Reductions were Taken
Informational Form A9. Percentage increase in adjusted valuation (Form A, Line 4 - Line 8 / Line 8 x 100) 10.9340%
10. Increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI) certified by the State Tax Commission 1.4000%
11. Adjusted prior year assessed valuation (Form A, Line 8) 196,863,224
12. (2020) Tax rate ceiling from prior year (Informational Summary Page, Line A from above) 0.7301
13. Maximum prior year adjusted revenue from property that existed in both years (Line 11 x Line 12 / 100) 1,437,298
14. Permitted reassessment revenue growthThe percentage entered on Line 14 should be the lower of the actual growth (Line 9), the CPI (Line 10), or 5%.A negative figure on Line 9 is treated as a 0 for Line 14 purposes. Do not enter less than 0, nor more than 5%. 1.4000%
15. Additional reassessment revenue permitted (Line 13 x Line 14) 20,122
16. Total revenue permitted in current year from property that existed in both years (Line 13 + Line 15) 1,457,420
17. Adjusted current year assessed valuation (Form A, Line 4) 218,388,167
18. Maximum tax rate permitted by Article X, Section 22, and Section 137.073, RSMo, if no voluntary reduction was taken (Line 16 / Line 17 x 100) 0.6674
This page shows the information that would have been on the line items for the Summary Page, Form A, and/or Form B had no voluntary reduction(s) been taken in prior even numbered year(s). The information on this page should not be used in the current year unless the taxing authority wishes to reverse any voluntary reduction(s) taken in prior even numbered year(s) and follows the following steps in an even numbered year.
Step 1 The governing body should hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution, a policy statement, or an ordinance justifying its action prior to setting and certifying its tax rate.
Step 2 Submit a copy of the resolution, policy statement, or ordinance to the State Auditor's Office for review.
Informational Data(Form Revised 04-2021)
Informational Data
City of Kearney 09-024-0008 General Revenue
Name of Political Subdivision Political Subdivision Code Purpose of Levy
For Political Subdivisions Other Than School Districts Levying a Single Rate on All Property
9/13/2021PRO FORMA - STATE AUDITOR'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED
(2021)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to State Statute R.S.Mo. 67.110, a public hearing will be held at Monday, 6:30 P.M., September 20, 2020 (this is a postponement of the hearing originally scheduled in August) at Kearney City Hall, 100 East Washington, at which citizens may be heard on the property tax rates proposed to be set by the City of Kearney, Missouri, a political subdivision. The meeting may also be attended via ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/623570901 Meeting ID: 623
570 901 A normal house phone can connect by dialing, +1 312 626 6799 and entering the Meeting ID: 623 570 901 The tax rates shall be set to produce the revenues for the fiscal year budget beginning April 1, 2021 based on the current assessed valuation. The result is multiplied by 100 so the tax rate will be expressed in cents per $100 valuation. After the public hearing, the Board shall consider a proposed ordinance adopting the proposed tax rates presented herein. A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at City Hall.
Assessed Valuation Current Tax Year Previous Tax Year
(By Categories) 2021 2020
Real Estate $190,730,081. $164,378,421.
Personal Property 36,915,145. 36,627,493.
Total $229,645,145. $201,005,914.
Less TIF* Valuation ($5,872,830.) ($4,142,690.)
ADJUSTED TOTAL $223,772,396. $196,863,224.
*TIF Valuation is the amount of assessed valuation on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects undertaken by the City of Kearney for the Shoppes at Kearney Project. Payments in lieu of taxes will be based on the valuation and will be collected to reimburse the Shoppes developer, for approved TIF expenses on a ‘pay as you go’ basis.
Amount of
Property Tax
Proposed
FUND
Revenues
Generated for
2021
Tax Rates for
2021(per $100) Tax Rates for
2020(per $100)
General Fund $1,129,156. .5046 .5515
General Obligation Bonds 111,886. .0500 .0500
TOTAL--------- $1,241,042. .5546 .6015 The tax rate proposed for 2021 is based on the most recent assessed valuation figures provided by the County Clerk.
Jim Eldridge Administrator/Clerk Y:\Property Taxes\2021 Property Taxes\taxlevy2021.doc
Y:\Community Development\P&Z\Staff Reports\2021\PZ-2021-18 - Greenfield development plan for new pond Tract A- memo to BOA 2021-09-20.docx Page 1 of 1
Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: David Pavlich, Community Development Director Date: September 20, 2021 Re: Greenfield Amended Development Plan for Tract A Pond (Public Hearing)
GJM Development, represented by Jerry Syler, proposes to install a new pond on Tract A in Meadows at Greenfield, located north of Old Trail Run between Prairie Creek Drive and the villas along Greenfield Point. A plan amendment is needed to add the pond to the development plan. The Board tabled this public hearing and application from the August 16 meeting, allowing a recommendation to be received from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The pond was proposed as a way to improve the operation of the existing lower pond, across from the neighborhood pool. Dirt from the pond excavation would be used as fill in Phase 7 of Greenfield. The developer also sees the pond as a way to improve conditions for some of the downstream houses near Old Trail Run. The engineering plans and stormwater report were reviewed by the City engineer. The city engineer supports installation of the proposed pond, if approved by the City, and issued a review letter prior to the P&Z meeting with the following review comment:
1. We understand that Pond 3A has not been approved by the City as of this date. Our approval is conditional on City approval. Proposed Pond 3 will reduce maximum water surface elevations and peak flow post development discharge rates from existing detention basin Pond 2, therefore we support the addition of Pond 3A to the development.
At their September 15, 2021 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission, by a 6-0 vote, recommended that the proposed pond be denied. If approved by the BOA, the following conditions should apply:
1. Approval of plans/report by the City engineer; 2. Development of the project in compliance with all city codes, conditions,
requirements, plans and payments of fees and taxes. A public hearing is scheduled.
City of Kearney
jim
Typewriter
6B
jim
Oval
BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GREENFIELD AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOCATED IN A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, BY ADDING A POND ON GREENWAY TRACT A WHEREAS, the current developer of Greenfield proposes to make changes to the approved preliminary plat by adding a pond to greenway Tract A and the Greenfield development is located within a Planned zoning district requiring plan changes to be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Aldermen; WHEREAS, on August 5 & 12, 2021, public notices were posted in the Courier-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in Kearney, and public notices were mailed to property owners within 185’ of the proposed pond area; WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, the Planning & Zoning Commission of Kearney, Missouri, held a public hearing relative to a request to amend the approved Greenfield preliminary plat allowing a pond on greenway Tract A, and at a subsequent meeting on September 13, recommended against approval by a unanimous vote of 6-0, with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021, the Board of Aldermen tabled said application to September 20, 2021, allowing for a recommendation to be received from the Planning & Zoning Commission, and held a public hearing relative to said change, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Greenfield Preliminary Plat is hereby amended to allow a pond on Tract A, as submitted, with the following conditions:
1. Approval of plans/report by the City engineer; 2. Development of the project in compliance with all city codes, conditions, requirements,
plans and payments of fees and taxes.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage by the Board of Aldermen and approval by the Mayor. ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN, CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.
APPROVED:
Randy Pogue, Mayor
ATTEST: Jim Eldridge, City Clerk ATTEST A TRUE AND CERTIFIED COPY: Jim Eldridge, City Administrator/Clerk Y:\wp\Ordinances\ord ____-2021 - Greenfield Development Plan - Greenway Tract A pond 3A.doc
Y:\Community Development\P&Z\Staff Reports\2021\PZ-2021-18 - Greenfield development plan for new pond Tract A- memo to PZ 2021-09-13.docx Page 1 of 1
Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: David Pavlich, Community Development Director Date: September 13, 2021 Re: Greenfield Amended Development Plan for Tract A Pond
GJM Development, represented by owner Jerry Syler, proposes to install a new pond (pond 3A) on Tract A in Meadows at Greenfield, located north of Old Trail Run between Prairie Creek Drive and the villas along Greenfield Point. This application was introduced and a public hearing was held at the August P&Z meeting, but was tabled to tonight’s meeting. The P&Z Commission sought comment from the City engineer prior to making a recommendation. Engineering site disturbance plan sheets related to the proposed pond are attached. The engineering plans and stormwater report were reviewed by the City engineer. The city engineer supports installation of the proposed pond, if approved by the P&Z, per the following review comments:
1. We understand that Pond 3A has not been approved by t0he City as of this date. Our approval is conditional on City approval. Proposed Pond 3 will reduce maximum water surface elevations and peak flow post development discharge rates from existing detention basin Pond 2, therefore we support the addition of Pond 3A to the development.
2. Ensure a toe wall is installed at end section(s). We note this detail is provided on the street and storm sewer plan set. This can be addressed during construction.
3. Correct the Stormwater Detention Facility Storage Volume table on Sheet C309 to either label the cumulative volume (ac-ft) as incremental volume (ac-ft) or change the values in that column to cumulative volumes. This can be addressed with as-built record drawings.
Staff did not recommend approval, but if the Commission were to approve the proposed plan amendment, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Approval of plans/report by the City engineer; 2. Development of the project in compliance with all city codes, conditions,
requirements, plans and payments of fees and taxes. This application is scheduled for public hearing and consideration by the Board of Aldermen at their September 20 meeting.
City of Kearney
September 9, 2021 Mr. David Pavlich Community Development Director City of Kearney, MO 100 East Washington Kearney, MO 64060
Dear Mr. Pavlich:
Lamp Rynearson has completed the third review of the street and storm sewer plans, stormwater study, and site disturbance plans dated September 2, 2021, and the second review of the water main plans dated September 2, 2021 for Meadows at Greenfield 7th Plat. The plans and study were prepared by Olsson. After review, we recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
Street and Storm Sewer Plans: (no comments, recommend approval)
Stormwater Study: (no comments, recommend approval)
Site Disturbance Plans:
1. We understand that Pond 3A has not been approved by the City as of this date. Our approval is conditional on City approval. Proposed Pond 3 will reduce maximum water surface elevations and peak flow post development discharge rates from existing detention basin Pond 2, therefore we support the addition of Pond 3A to the development.
2. Ensure a toe wall is installed at end section(s). We note this detail is provided on the street and storm sewer plan set. This can be addressed during construction.
3. Correct the Stormwater Detention Facility Storage Volume table on Sheet C309 to either label the cumulative volume (ac-ft) as incremental volume (ac-ft) or change the values in that column to cumulative volumes. This can be addressed with as-built record drawings.
Water Main Plans: (no comments, recommend approval)
September 9, 2021 Meadows at Greenfield 7th Plat City of Kearney Page 2 of 2
You may contact me with any questions, or if you need additional information.
L:\Engineering\0321002 Kearney MO 2021 On Call Servcies\DOCUMENTS\Plan Reviews\Meadows at Greenfield 7\0321002 - Meadows at Greenfield 7th Plat Review - 09.09.2021.docx
Case Number: PZ-2021-18 August 9, 2021
REQUEST: GREENFIELD – AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN A PLANNED DISTRICT FOR PROPOSED POND ON TRACT A
APPLICANT: Jerry Syler AGENT: Julie E. Sellers GJM Development Olsson Engineering 204 East Kansas Street 1301 Burlington Street, Suite 100 Liberty, MO 64068 North Kansas City, MO 64116 Phone: 816-564-3621 Phone: 816-442-6044 GENERAL GJM Development, represented by owner Jerry Syler, is working on revisions DESCRIPTION: to the engineering plans for Meadows at Greenfield 7th Plat, located at the south
end of Foxtail Drive, along the Fishing River Trail. As part of the plan review comments, the city engineer recommended modifications to the lower Greenfield pond located by the neighborhood pool, so that it could operate more effectively. Drainage from that lower pond travels east, under 33 Highway, then through River Meadows open space and into the Fishing River.
As part of their plans resubmittal, the developer’s engineer identified a different
option. They propose to install a new pond upstream of that lower pond. This new pond would be located north of Old Trail Run, between the Prairie Creek Drive and the villas along Greenfield Point, per the attached location map.
The proposed pond is not included in the approved 2005 “P” District Plan,
requiring review of a plan amendment. The 2005 plan includes the existing lower pond and another proposed pond directly south of the neighborhood pool.
In 2016, the development plan was amended for the pond constructed in Phase 3.
The Phase 3 pond was constructed to address upstream drainage from new housing construction in Phase 3 and part of the new villas area along Greenfield Point.
Because Phase 7 drainage does not have a direct impact on this part of the
subdivision, there does not appear to be a benefit experienced by a majority of the surrounding neighborhood if this new pond in installed.
ZONING The property is zoned R-P-1 - Low Density Residential Planned District. FUTURE LAND The Future Land Use Map designates the area for single-family residential USE MAP: development. SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE: AREA ZONING CURRENT USE LAND USE North R-P-1 single-family residential single-family residential East R-P-1 single-family residential single-family residential South R-P-1 single-family residential single-family residential West R-P-1 single-family residential single-family residential
FLOOD No portion of the project area lies within the 100-year floodplain, per FIRM INFORMATION: map number 29047C00151E, dated August 3, 2015. CORPS OF The applicant’s previous engineer for earlier phases indicated a Corps permit is ENGINEERS: not required for this drainageway and it does not show up as a “blue line” creek
of the USGS maps. COVENANTS & Covenants & restrictions for Greenfield have been filed with the Recorder of RESTRICTIONS: Deeds office. The restrictions include language regarding ownership and
maintenance of common ground and open space. PUBLIC NOTICE: A notice was posted in the Kearney Courier on August 5 and 12, 2021. Letters
were sent to property owners adjacent within approximately 185 feet of and downstream of the proposed pond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed plan amendment for a
new pond on Tract A, Meadows at Greenfield. If the Commission were to approve such a plan amendment, staff recommends
the following conditions: 1. Approval of plans/report by the City engineer; 2. Development of the project in compliance with all city codes, conditions,
requirements, plans and payments of fees and taxes.
Y:\Community Development\P&Z\Staff Reports\2021\PZ-2021-19 - Kearney Salt Storage Bldg - CUP - memo to BOA 2021-09-20.docx Page 1 of 1
Memo To: Jim Eldridge, Mayor & Board of Aldermen
From: David Pavlich, Community Development Director
Date: September 20, 2021
Re: Kearney Salt Storage Building - Conditional Use Permit (Public Hearing) & Site Plan
Kearney Public Works proposes to construct a 3,200 sf salt storage building at 502 East 19th
Street adjacent to the east side of the existing public works building and west of the recycle center driveway. A copy of the site plan is attached. This application was introduced and a public hearing was held at the August P&Z meeting, but was tabled to September 13. The Planning & Zoning requested a landscape plan and comment regarding relocation of the proposed building further northwest. Donnie Smith, Utilities & Streets Director, has commented that moving the building further to the north would prevent future expansion of the public works garage building. That building can only be expanded to the east, as going west encroaches on floodplain and the trail. The city engineer further comments that moving it further north will add costs associated with additional fill material needed for construction and a longer access drive. The attached landscape plan is included as part of the site plan. The landscape plan identifies proposed trees and shrubs along the west side of the recycle center driveway. Staff may recommend the fir trees be replaced with a different type of evergreen tree that is more suited to our area. At their August 10 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended by a unanimous 6-0 vote that the Board of Aldermen approve the conditional use permit and site plan (with landscape plan) by the City of Kearney allowing a salt storage facility at 502 East 19th Street, with the following conditions:
1. Submit of revised drawings, if necessary, prior to the Board of Aldermen meeting; 2. Submit of a building permit application prior to construction; 3. Develop of the project in compliance with all codes, conditions, requirements, plans
and payments of fees and taxes. A public hearing has been scheduled and an ordinance is attached for consideration.
City of Kearney
jim
Typewriter
6C
jim
Oval
Y:\wp\Ordinances\ord ____-2021 - Salt Storage Building CUP.docx
BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 502 EAST 19TH STREET ALLOWING A PUBLIC FACILITY (SALT STORAGE BUILDING) IN AN R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, On February 25 and March 4, 2021, a public notice was posted in the Courier-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in Kearney, and public notices were mailed to property owners within 185’ of the subject property;
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, the Planning & Zoning Commission of Kearney, Missouri, held a public hearing, and subsequently on September 13, 2021, by a unanimous vote of 6-0, recommended approval, with conditions, of a request for a conditional use permit, made by the City of Kearney to allow construction of a public facility (salt storage building) zoned R-1 – Low-Density Residential District at 502 East 19th Street; and
WHEREAS, On September 20, 2021, the Board of Aldermen of Kearney, Missouri, held a public hearing relative to said conditional use permit request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A Conditional Use Permit is granted allowing a public facility (salt storage building) in an R-1 – Low-Density Residential District at 502 East 19th Street, per the attached site plan & landscape plan with the following conditions:
1. Submit revised drawings, if necessary, prior to the Board of Aldermen meeting; 2. Submit a building permit application prior to construction; 3. Develop the project in compliance with all codes, conditions, requirements, plans and payments
of fees and taxes. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect, after its passage by the Board of Aldermen and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN, CITY OF KEARNEY, MISSOURI, THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: Randy Pogue, Mayor Jim Eldridge, City Clerk ATTEST A TRUE AND CERTIFIED COPY: Jim Eldridge, City Administrator/Clerk
jim
Typewriter
6A
jim
Oval
Y:\Community Development\P&Z\Staff Reports\2021\PZ-2021-19 - Kearney Salt Storage Bldg - CUP - memo to PZ 2021-09-13.docx Page 1 of 1
Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: David Pavlich, Community Development Director
Date: September 13, 2021
Re: Kearney Salt Storage Building - Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan
Kearney Public Works proposes to construct a 3,200 sf salt storage building at 502 East 19th Street. This application was introduced and a public hearing was held at the August P&Z meeting, but was tabled to tonight’s meeting. The Planning & Zoning requested a landscape plan and comment regarding relocation of the proposed building further northwest. Donnie Smith, Utilities & Streets Director, commented that moving the building further to the north, adjacent to the northern Public Works garage, would prevent any future expansion of the garage building. That building can only be widened to the east, as going west encroaches on floodplain and the trail. The City engineer was authorized to prepare a landscape plan for this project. The landscape plan was not ready prior to publishing the agenda packet. Staff hopes to have the landscape plan in time for the meeting. Staff recommends approval of request for conditional use permit and site plan by the City of Kearney allowing a salt storage facility at 502 East 19th Street, per the updated plan that includes a landscape plan, with the following conditions:
1. Submit of revised drawings, if necessary, prior to the Board of Aldermen meeting; 2. Submit of a building permit application prior to construction; 3. Develop of the project in compliance with all codes, conditions, requirements,
plans and payments of fees and taxes This application is scheduled for public hearing and consideration by the Board of Aldermen at their September 20 meeting.
City of Kearney
Case Number: PZ-2021-19 August 9, 2021
REQUEST: CITY OF KEARNEY – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALT STORAGE BUILDING AT 19TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY
APPLICANT: Public Works Department AGENT: City of Kearney 502 East 19th Street Kearney, MO 64060 816-628-4142
GENERAL Kearney Public Works proposes to construct a 3,200 sf salt storage building at DESCRIPTION: 502 East 19th Street. The Public Works Department already stores salt on the
property and uses this location as a home base to load/unload trucks. Salt storage capabilities are limited. A new building will allow the department to store more salt and be better prepared for winter weather events.
The proposed salt building includes a 4’ concrete wall with a white tension fabric
covering over an arched steel frame, similar to many other salt storage structures. Overall height will be 31’ tall, which will allow a backhoe/loader to pile and scoop salt inside. Vehicle and person doors will face south. Sample pictures are attached.
The Public Works driveway access will be extended to the front of the new
building. Existing chain link security fencing will be extended around the improvements. Two light poles will also be installed along the new driveway in front of the building.
Improvements will be located in the middle of the property, well within setback
requirements, to the west of the recycle center drive, adjacent to the east side of the existing public works building, and north of the existing driveway. The building will be approximately 85 feet west of the recycling center drive, 120 feet from the east property line, over 250 feet from the closest house to the east, and over 350 feet from the closest house to the northeast.
The finished floor of the building sits approximately 11 feet below the recycle
center drive, and 13 feet below the ground elevation at property line. The lower 1/3 of the building will not be visible from Stonelake Drive.
The Stonelake HOA submitted the attached comment letter requesting “..an
“abundance of screening including trees and shrubs…”. The city will install additional landscaping to the east of the proposed building, although a specific landscape plan has not been prepared. At the time the agenda was prepared, staff had not been contacted by any nearby homeowners.
Copies of the site plan exhibits are attached. ZONING The property is currently zoned R-1 – Low Density Residential District. The
property has been used by Public Works more than 30 years. The site was also the location of the previous sanitary sewer plant.
FUTURE LAND The Future Land Use Map designates the property as a public facility USE MAP: SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE: AREA ZONING CURRENT USE LAND USE North R-1 single-family residential single-family residential East R-1 single-family residential single-family residential South R-1 single-family residential single-family residential West R-1 & R-3 elementary school and 4-plexes multi-family, public facility
FLOOD Floodplain is located along the west side of the public works property, per INFORMATION: FEMA floodplain map No. 29047C0151E, dated August 3, 2015. The project is
not located within an area of floodplain. IMPACT ON This property was formerly the city’s sanitary sewer treatment plant. The NEIGHBORHOOD: property has been used by public works for more than 30 years. PUBLIC NOTICE: A public notice was posted in the Courier-Tribune on July 29 and August 5,
2021, with letters sent to property owners within 185 feet of the property. ACCESS: The public works property has an existing entrance on Stonelake Drive. Upon
entering the property, the driveway split – right leads to the recycle center and brush dropoff and the left accesses public works. A new driveway access will branch off the from the public works drive. No additional access from Stonelake Drive is proposed.
DRAINAGE: The City Engineer commented the site is adjacent to a major floodplain. There is
nothing between the salt barn and the floodplain that will be benefited by on-site stormwater detention; therefore, detention should not be required.
SITE LIGHTING: Exterior lighting includes installation of two light poles along the east side of the
new drive improvements, as shown on the site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of request for conditional use permit by the City of Kearney allowing a salt storage facility at 502 East 19th Street, with the following conditions:
1. Submit of revised drawings, if necessary, prior to the Board of Aldermen meeting;
2. Submit of a building permit application prior to construction; 3. Develop of the project in compliance with all codes, conditions, requirements,
plans and payments of fees and taxes
This application will be forwarded to the Board of Aldermen for consideration.
PLANT SCHEDULE
EVERGREEN / ORNAMENTAL / DECIDUOUS TREES
SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS
SURFACE RESTORATION SCHEDULE
2 3
1
5RC
QE2
PM1
AB3
AC3
AC3
PM4
MP1
QE2
AC3
PM4
MP1
AC1
QE1
5RC
13RC
AB1
MP2
AC1
PM1
QE1
PM1
The proposed salt barn (dome) appears to be a worthy project by the City.
Our concern is adequate screening with trees and shrubs.
The dome at over thirty feet in height and sixty-four feet in length will appear approximately 15 to 20 feet above the level of the road to the recycling/compost area. At sixty-four feet in length it is also longer than the street facing width of many homes in the Stonelake Subdivision.
The existing chain link fence on the east side of the existing building is on an elevation of 800 and is barely visible to the east of the site. The new chain link fence to be built in connection with the salt barn will be on an elevation of between 804 and 807 and partially visible to the east of the site.
We would ask for an abundance of screening including trees and shrubs to buffer the view of the salt barn and the new chain link fence from the east.
I have received and read your email you provided to the board.
Have a wonderful day.
Mayor Pogue
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 6:18 PM Cathy Heuermann <[email protected]> wrote: Hello All - I'm respectfully writing to each of you to ask that you very carefully consider lifting the Breed Specific Legislation for anydog in Kearney. I worked for about 15 years in dog rescue for both miniature pinschers and boxers and saw my share ofdogs with aggression issues. The issues stemmed mainly from abusive or neglectful homes and spans across any breedyou could think of. This was when I lived in Plano, TX and the rescue Legacy Boxer Rescue was responsible for hundredsof dogs rescued each year. I personally fostered over the years 12 boxers, 1 at a time - one of which I adopted and sadlylost her last year to cancer. Our volunteers attended tons of events with their boxers and their personal dogs, which wereoften pit bulls. I met tons of pit bulls over the years and never met one that was aggressive. I'm however well aware thatthere are aggressive pit bulls as is true in every other breed. This legislation hurts our city. When I was planning for mymove to be closer to one of my kids and his wife and children, I was shocked that I would be moving to a city with this typeof descrimination and did consider not moving to Kearney, but my family is here. Could we consider enacting a fair andreasonable aggressive dog act instead? We would have to be very careful about this as well to make sure that whateverthe dog is accused of can be proven. Sadly, one of my 12 fosters was not aggressive to me at all - but he unfortunatelychose to bite the husband of one of our volunteers who watched him while I vacationed and the decision of the board forLegacy Boxer Rescue was to euthanize him. We also had this issue with a few of the min pins over the years again due toabuse and generally just bad dog parents. This has become long, so I will end it there. Thank you so much for yourconsideration! Sincerely,-- Cathy Heuermann214.794.9130 “Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society'spunishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
I have received and read your email. I’ll share with the rest of the board. Have a great day.
Mayor Randy Pogue
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:07 PM Amber Skaar <[email protected]> wrote: Mayor Pogue I am writing to you today to talk about the breed ban in Kearney. I support to have this ban lifted. I haveowned a pit mix in the past and would like to someday be able to choose a dog based on personality rather then “breed”. Please consider lifting this ban. I know there is lots of interest in the community that would like to see this ban lifted. Thankyou for your time. Amber Skaar. Sent from my iPhone
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Elena Derrell <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Subject: Please reconsider Kearney's ban on pit bull type dogs To: <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Pogue,
I implore you to please end the breed-specific law regarding dogs in Kearney. In August, we moved from Kearney to North Kansas City because of this law. We had moved to Kearney due to a new job in Kansas City. We moved here from San Diego County. We had to leave our beloved pit bull/mixed breed dog, Wubba, with my parents due to breed-specific laws in Kearney (the safe town where we were able to quickly find a fenced-yard house to rent that allowed large dogs). Leaving Wubba just broke my heart. Thankfully, my parents could care for him. Our other dog, that did move with us, is a worse behaved big black lab/mixed dog, Rudy. Rudy is allowed in Kearney, though he's worse to take on walks and not good around other dogs--especially the loose dogs. Despite weeks of one-on-one intensive professional training, Rudy is still far from an ideal pet. Yet, he is our male dog who is allowed in Kearney.
We missed Wubba. We wanted to have him back. Therefore, in August we bought a house in North Kansas City in order to no longer live in a town that discriminates against others based on their appearance. Now, we can have Wubba back. Unfortunately, Kearney lost a good family of solid citizens.
My parents prefered, and requested, to keep the pit bull mix because Wubba is calm, easygoing, and easy to care for without the bad behaviors of jumping the fence and chewing up things that the other dog, Rudy, displays.
This is just one example from one family of why banning dogs based on their appearance makes no sense. I know that many beloved family pets end up in shelters because they're not allowed in certain towns or people cannot rent or get insurance if they have a pit bull looking dog. Please consider these facts:
More than 70% of dog bite cases involve unneutered males97% of fatal dog bites in 2006 were from dogs not neutered or spayed78 % of dogs involved in fatal attacks in the same year were from dogs who were not kept as pets, but were used for: guarding, to make owners look tough, breeding, or fighting. 84% of these dogs were abused or neglected, or inhumanely controlled and containedThis is from the Replace Denver BSL Facts and Data https://replacedenverbsl.org/bsl-facts-data/ They also have write-ups on multiple municipalities who researched facts prior to reversing their BSL. None of the cities or towns regretted their decision.
formerly resided at 707 E 15TH ST, KEARNEY, MO 64060-7529
jim
Typewriter
M-4
jim
Oval
In addressing safety concerns, Kearney can have breed-neutral laws including enforced leash laws, and graduated fines for owners of problem dogs. As responsible dog owners, and dog lovers, my family wants safety for everyone. And we don’t want more families to select other towns to buy houses in or to give up their family pets because of Kearney’s breed specific legislation.
Our dogs are rescue dogs. Both Wubba and Rudy were rescued from high kill shelters.
Thank you for both serving Kearney and thinking this through, logically. Please do the right thing.
Thanks for the email. I have received and will share with the board.
Mayor Pogue
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:42 AM Jeanette Santucci <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Mr. Pogue, I am writing this email to make my voice heard on the Breed Ban we have in our town. I would love to see this ban goneand one put in place on aggressive dogs, not just a specific breed. I have been involved with animal rescue and foster thenoften but can't do many as most end up being pit mix breeds. I have family that have these breeds and they are the biggestbabies. They cuddle and just want to play & be next to someone that loves them. I have aggressive dogs in myneighborhood and they aren't bully breeds. But no one will do anything about them. I would love to get my disabled daughter a service dog but a great deal of them are of a bully breed pit mix. If the breed ban is lifted and an aggressive ban put in place we would be able to save more dogs in the rescue world. I amalso in favor of licensing fees (yearly) if you don't spay or neuter your animal. Things of this nature could bring in extrarevenue for our city. Thank you,Jeanette Santucci [email protected]
APPENDIX A…………………… ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA
APPENDIX B ………………….. SAMPLED SUSPECT MATERIALS
APPENDIX C ……………………. LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS
ASESTOS SURVEY
Project Location: 103 S Clark Street, Kearney MO 64060
CAS Project No: 21-8522. Report Date: 9/16/2021
1.0 INTRODUCTION Construction and Abatement Services, Inc. (CAS) conducted an asbestos survey of the
building located at 103 S Clark Street, Kearney MO 64060 . The survey was conducted
on 9/16/2021, by an AHERA accredited asbestos inspector in general accordance with
CAS Proposal No. 21-8522. Interior and exterior building components were surveyed,
and homogeneous areas of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were visually
identified and documented. Although reasonable effort was made to survey accessible
suspect materials, additional suspect but un-sampled materials could be located in
walls, in voids, or in other concealed areas.
Suspect ACM samples were collected in general accordance with the sampling protocols
outlined in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 763, Subpart E, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act (AHERA). Samples were delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis
by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM).
1.1 Project Objective We understand this asbestos survey was requested to the planned demolition or
renovation of the on-site building(s) to satisfy requirements of the USEPA 40 CFR Part
61, Subpart M the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).
1.2 Reliance This report is for the exclusive use of City of Kearney MO for the project being
discussed. Reliance by any other party on this report is prohibited without written
authorization of CAS and City of Kearney MO. Reliance on this report by City of Kearney
MO and all authorized parties will be subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations
stated in the proposal, this report, and CAS’s Agreement for Services. The limitations of
liability defined in CAS’s Agreement for Services is the aggregate limit of CAS’s liability to
City of Kearney MO.
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION 103 S Clark Street is a single-single story 704 Square Foot single-family residence built
on a crawlspace foundation in 1935. The home has 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. The
exterior of the home has wood siding and asphalt-based roofing materials. The interior
has plaster and drywall with various surfacing textures and flooring materials
throughout. Heating and cooling was updated from the original wood burning stove off
of the kitchen area to a forced air system in the attic utilizing flex-duct to direct airflow.
3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES The survey was conducted by Jory Swim, #11323, an AHERA accredited asbestos
inspector. A copy of Jory Swim’s asbestos inspector accreditation is attached an
Appendix. The survey was conducted in general accordance with the sample collection
protocols established in USEPA 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E, Section 763.86, AHERA. A
summary of survey activities is provided below.
3.1 Visual Assessment Survey activities were initiated with visual observation of the interior and exterior of the
building to identify homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A homogeneous area (HA)
consists of building materials that appear similar throughout in terms of color and
texture with consideration given to the date of application. Interior assessment was
conducted in visually accessible areas of the building proposed for demolition.
3.2 Physical Assessment A physical assessment of each HA of suspect ACM was conducted to assess the friability
and condition of the materials. A friable material is defined by the USEPA as a material
which can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry.
Friability was assessed by physically touching suspect materials.
3.3 Sample Collection Based on results of the visual observation, bulk samples of suspect ACM were collected
in general accordance with USEPA AHERA sampling protocols. Samples of suspect
materials were collected from randomly selected locations in each homogeneous area.
Bulk samples were collected using wet methods as applicable to reduce the potential
for fiber release. Samples were placed in sealable containers and labeled with unique
sample numbers using an indelible marker. The selection of sample locations and
frequency of sampling were based on CAS’s observations and the assumption that like
materials in the same area are homogeneous in content.
CAS collected 11 layered bulk samples from 1 homogeneous areas of suspect ACM.
3.4 Sample Analysis Bulk samples were submitted under chain of custody to SanAir Technologies
Laboratory, Inc. for analysis by PLM with dispersion staining techniques per USEPA
methodology 600/R-93/116. The percentage of asbestos, where applicable, was
determined by microscopic visual estimation.
4.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP) [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart M]. Asbestos NESHAP states that “the owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity and prior to the commencement of the demolition or renovation will thoroughly inspect the affected facility or part of the facility where the demolition or renovation operation will occur for the presence of asbestos.” The asbestos NESHAP regulation classifies material subject to demolition or renovation
as either RACM, Category I non-friable ACM, or Category II non-friable ACM. RACM
includes all friable ACM (pre-disturbance), along with Category I non-friable ACM that
becomes friable (during disturbance), and Category I non-friable ACM subject to
sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, or Category II non-friable ACM with a high
probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by forces expected
to act on the material during disturbance. Category I nonfriable ACM are exclusively
asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, and asphalt roofing
products that contain more than 1% asbestos. Category II non-friable ACM are all other
non-friable materials (other than Category I non-friable ACM) that contain more than
1% asbestos. Category II non-friable ACM generally includes (but is not limited to)
cementitious material such as: cement pipes, cement siding, cement panels, glazing,
mortar, and grouts.
The United States Occupational Safety and Heal Administration (OSHA) asbestos
standard for construction (29 CFR 1926.1101) regulates workplace exposure to
asbestos. The OSHA standard requires that employee exposure to airborne asbestos
must not exceed 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) as an eight-hour time
weighted average (TWA) and not exceed 1.0 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (1.0 f/cc)
over a 30-minute time period known as an excursion limit (EL). The TWA and EL are
known as USOSHA’s asbestos permissible exposure limits (PELs). The OSHA standard
classifies construction and maintenance activities which could disturb ACM and
specifies work practices and precautions which employers must follow when engaging
in each class of regulated work.
In Missouri, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control
Program has been given the authority to enforce the NESHAP regulation.
103 S Clark Street, Kearney MO 64060
5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following asbestos containing materials were identified as a result of laboratory
analysis and presumed materials to be asbestos containing:
Material Description Homogenous Area
Approx. Quantity
Category * Friable / Non-friable
Floor Sheeting under Wood 20% Chrysotile (FS-4)
Kitchen 150 SF CAT I F
*Category I nonfriable ACM means asbestos -containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor
coverings, and asphalt roofing products containing more than 1% asbestos.
*Category II nonfriable ACM means any material excluding Category I nonfriable ACM
containing more than 1% asbestos that when dry cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to power by hand pressure.
The above listed Category I non-friable ACM that is damaged or could be damaged to
the extent that it could be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder when dry,
making it friable, must be removed prior to any activities (renovation and/or
demolition) that may disturb this material in accordance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations. The above listed RACM must be removed by a state licensed
abatement contractor prior to any activities (renovation and/or demolition) that may
disturb this material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
A summary of the classification, condition and approximate quantity and locations of
identified Suspect ACM is presented in Appendix B. Laboratory analytical reports are
included in Appendix A.
6.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS CAS performed sampling and made reasonable efforts to access suspect materials
within known areas with restricted access (e.g., crawl spaces); however, confined
spaces or areas which may pose a health or safety risk to CAS personnel were not
sampled. Sampling did not include suspect materials which could not be safely reached
with available ladders/man-lifts. This asbestos survey was conducted in a manner
consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale. The results,
findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are based on
conditions observed during our survey of the building. The information contained in this
report is relevant to the date on which this survey was performed and should not be
relied upon to represent conditions at a later date. This report has been prepared on
behalf of and exclusively for use by City of Kearney MO for specific application to their
project as discussed. This report is not a bidding document. Contractors or consultants
reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation
or remediation deemed necessary, quantities are approximate, and the user of this
report should field verify. CAS does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies,
laboratories, or other third parties supplying information which may have been used in
the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made.
Construction and Abatement Services, Inc. can provide the Client with a proposal for
asbestos abatement upon request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jory Swim
Operations Manager
Construction and Abatement Services, Inc.
Analysis Report prepared forConstruction & Abatement Services, Inc.
Report Date: 9/16/2021
Project Name: 103 S Clark, Kearney
Project #: 218522
SanAir ID#: 21049356
Page 1 of 6
Dear Jory Swim,
We at SanAir would like to thank you for the work you recently submitted. The 9 sample(s) were received on Wednesday, September 15, 2021 via FedEx. The final report(s) is enclosed for the following sample(s): C-1, TXT-2, TXT-3, FS-4, FS-5, CTX-6, PL-7, D-8, D/KD-9.
These results only pertain to this job and should not be used in the interpretation of any other job. This report is only complete in its entirety. Refer to the listing below of the pages included in a complete final report.
D/KD-9 / 21049356-009Knockdown Texture On Drywall - Lvg, Drywall
GreyNon-Fibrous
Homogeneous
5% Cellulose 95% Other None Detected
Analyst:
Analysis Date: 9/16/2021 Date: 9/16/2021
Approved Signatory:
1551 Oakbridge Dr. Suite B, Powhatan, VA 23139 | 804.897.1177 | Fax: 804.897.0070 | www.SanAir.com | [email protected]
218522Project Number:P.O. Number:
Project Name: 103 S Clark, Kearney Collected Date: 9/14/2021
Received Date: 9/15/2021 10:15:00 AM
9/16/2021 11:12:04 AM
21049356SanAir ID Number
FINAL REPORT
Construction & Abatement Services, Inc.Name:Address: 301 SE Douglas Suite 201
Lees Summit, MO 64063
816-524-3233Phone:
Page 4 of 6
Disclaimer
This report is the sole property of the client named on the SanAir Technologies Laboratory chain-of-custody (COC). Results in the report are confidential information intended only for the use by the customer listed on the COC. Neither results nor reports will be discussed with or released to any third party without our client's written permission. The final report shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval of the laboratory to assure that parts of the report are not taken out of context. The information provided in this report applies only to the samples submitted and is relevant only for the date, time, and location of sampling. The accuracy of theresults is dependent upon the client’s sampling procedure and information provided to the laboratory by the client. SanAir assumes no responsibility for the sampling procedure and will provide evaluation reports based solely on the sample(s) in the condition in which they arrived at the laboratory and information provided by the client on the COC, such as: project number, project name, collection dates, po number, special instructions, samples collected by, sample numbers, sample identifications, sample type, selected analysis type, flow rate, total volume or area, and start stop times that may affect the validity of the results in this report. Samples were received in good condition unless otherwise noted on the report. SanAir assumes no responsibility or liability for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. This report does not constitute and shall not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any other U.S. governmental agencies and may not be certified by every local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.
Samples are held for a period of 60 days. Fibers smaller than 5 microns cannot be seen with this method due to scope limitations.
For NY state samples, method EPA 600/M4-82-020 is performed.
NYELAP Disclaimer:Polarized- light microscopy is not consistently reliable in detecting asbestos in floor covering and similar non-friable organically bound materials. Quantitative transmission electron microscopy is currently the only method that can be used to determine if this material can be considered or treated as non-asbestos containing.
Asbestos Certifications NVLAP lab code 200870-0City of Philadelphia: ALL-460 PA Department of Environmental Protection Number: 68-05397 California License Number: 2915 Colorado License Number: AL-23143 Connecticut License Number: PH-0105 Massachusetts License Number: AA000222 Maine License Number: LB-0075, LA-0084New York ELAP lab ID: 11983 Rhode Island License Number: PCM00126, PLM00126, TEM00126 Texas Department of State Health Services License Number: 300440 Commonwealth of Virginia 3333000323 Washington State License Number: C989 West Virginia License Number: LT000616Vermont License: AL166318 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality: 212253, Cert 05088
Revision Date: 8/14/2020
Page 1 of 1Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
September 16, 2021 Proposal #: 21-8522
Job Name: Asbestos @ 103 S Clark St, Kearney MO
Construction and Abatement Services Inc. shall remove all identified asbestos containing building materials prior to demolition.
All work shall be performed in strict compliance with all Federal, State, and Local regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement including: Notifications if required, work area preparation, worker protection, and disposal. Construction and Abatement Services, Inc. shall not be responsible for minor paint damage incurred as a result of isolation procedures unless stated above. Construction & Abatement Services, Inc. operates under Missouri Department of Natural Resources Contractor’s License #22-07-0621. This proposal is subject to change and may be withdrawn if not accepted within 30 days of the above date. Payment terms are due on receipt. Payments over 30 days are subject to 1.5 % (18% APR). Lump Sum Cost: $2,100.00 Sincerely,
Jory Swim Operations Manager
Accepted Date
Kearney
100 East Washington
Kearney, MO 64060
Phone: (816)-903-4736 Fax: (816)-628-4543
Permits & Valuation of New Single Family Residential Construction
07/27/2021 through 09/01/2021
Run Date: 9/3/2021 12:26:41 PM
Date Permit # Builder/Owner Lot # Address Living Non-Living Total Valuation
08/02/2021 KE-21-07-0018-P Rock Residential/BrianKeeth
12 2144 Crooked Creek Dr 3293 1688 4981 $400,000.00
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
.Kansas City RegionalOffice500 NE Colbern RoadLee's Summit, MO, 64086
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluatethe information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of myknowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
eSignature.Michael Fort
Submission Date.September 7, 2021
User Phone Number.(816)628-6689
.Kearney WWTP2601 S Glenside RdKEARNEY, MO, Clay
State of MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
.Kansas City RegionalOffice500 NE Colbern RoadLee's Summit, MO, 64086
jim
Typewriter
R-4
jim
Oval
09/15/2021 22:49 |City of Kearney |P 18067jeld |YTD BUDGET COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR |glreport
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL Debt Service 4,595,981.90 1,060,529.41 742,122.39 0.23
56 Inter-Fund Transfers__________________________________________________10106 56104 Transf to Park Cap Improv 60,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010106 56105 Transfer to Park Fund 384,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 0.0010106 56108 Transf to Wireless Cap Imp 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013113 56105 Transfer to General Fund 1,491,838.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013113 56106 Transfer EATS to TIF 114,000.00 50,800.46 43,967.94 44.5618315 56106 Transfer EATS to TIF 55,600.00 25,400.23 21,983.98 45.6819315 56104 Trans to 2015 G.O. DebtFd 670,000.00 279,166.65 267,500.00 41.6719315 56106 Transfer EATS to TIF 55,600.00 25,400.23 21,983.98 45.68
09/15/2021 22:49 |City of Kearney |P 98067jeld |YTD BUDGET COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR |glreport
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20423 56100 Transfer to W&S Sinking 871,532.00 363,138.35 384,916.65 41.6725425 56105 Transfer to W&S Sinking 75,418.00 31,424.15 15,920.00 41.6781310 56106 Transfer EATS to Shoppes TIF 202,500.00 78,117.86 71,108.99 38.58
TOTAL Inter-Fund Transfers 4,090,488.00 853,447.93 1,027,381.54 0.21
58 Misc. Expenses__________________________________________________10105 58010 Goodwill 1,200.00 364.04 101.00 30.3410105 58100 Other Expenses 0.00 147.85 0.00 100.0010211 58010 Holiday Service Banquet 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.0017315 58010 Day In the Park 9,000.00 2,500.00 0.00 27.7817315 58100 Other Expenses 0.00 0.00 136.90 0.0066106 58150 COVID MISC EXPENSE 0.00 500.41 0.00 100.0066106 58210 Intergovernmental Aid 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.0066110 58200 Small Business Grant Program 0.00 0.00 131,250.00 0.00
TOTAL Misc. Expenses 11,200.00 3,512.30 181,487.90 0.31
GRAND TOTAL 7,318,418.15 -456,667.03 -1,586,065.38 -0.06
** END OF REPORT - Generated by James Eldridge **
09/15/2021 22:49 |City of Kearney |P 108067jeld |YTD BUDGET COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR |glreport
REVISED Thru Period Thru Period ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
