Kansas City GO Bond

KC topics that don't fit anywhere else.
flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby flyingember » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:29 pm

SWFan wrote:
DaveKCMO wrote:
grovester wrote:Broadway Bridge for sure.


how would you sell that to the 5th and 6th districts?


A new bridge means it will be easier for them to get to their private planes at the downtown airport. ;-)

not necessarily. a new bridge could move the access point to the airport and make it harder. the current ramps are also really dangerous and I bet modot would love to remove them.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby flyingember » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:53 pm

The Go Bond is going to be tough to sell

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 34806.html

They just promised thousand in higher taxes for most of the city unless you got an abatement. This is right after the very public argument over incentives for multiple projects. This vote is not going to be an easy sell for the city with so many high value properties not paying. It's going to be a pork barrel ballot item to pass or a even stronger overhaul of incentives

This just accented the Jermaine Reed walkout and what that means.

I also would like to see where the funding is coming from for the $80 million no longer being paid on and why the city can't use that bonding capacity without a new tax, or to lower the taxes needed.

Notice how this is yet another article bringing up the airport and streetcar too. This bond is becoming tied tightly to those project delays very quickly.

The city is also crazy muddying the waters on the November rail ballot item. People are going to see the idea that the streetcar vote is delayed and here's rail on the ballot.

I think they also have misread the city. An animal shelter is a great idea, but I don't think the east side will want to pay for it.

Kansas City’s big airport debate is on the back burner.

A streetcar expansion election for Main Street has been postponed.

So what is the City Council up to?

The focus for the rest of this year is likely to be on one of the city’s most formidable challenges. It’s also the never-ending source of griping from residents: inadequate streets, sidewalks, bridges, flood control and public buildings.

“Basic infrastructure has to be paramount,” Mayor Sly James says. “We have to take care of some immediate needs.”

City Manager Troy Schulte agrees the city’s massive deferred maintenance backlog can’t wait any longer. He’s proposing an $800 million bond authorization that voters would decide next spring. It’s believed to be the largest general obligation bond proposal in city history.

“There aren’t any conversations about an airport, about streetcar or light rail or anything like that,” Schulte told an audience of about 60 residents at a recent neighborhood gathering. “What I’m talking about is the very basic infrastructure that we need to continue to operate in the city.”

Schulte and the City Council aren’t pretending they can address the problem in a financially painless way.

“It would require a property tax increase,” Schulte bluntly told the crowd.

Critics say that could make it hard to pass, especially on the East Side where people already struggle financially. And a grass-roots proposal for a different tax is in the works that would be targeted just to East Side improvements rather than citywide ones.

The signature project to build support for the citywide bond package could be a new animal shelter at Swope Park to replace a horribly outdated facility for Kansas City’s four-legged friends. But the bulk of projects would be street and sidewalk fixes all over the city. So, as city spokesman Chris Hernandez said, one slogan for this initiative could be “puppies and pavement.”

James and Schulte said they’re trying to keep the bond financing as affordable as possible, which is why the target dollar amount is about $800 million, not $1 billion or more.

This is a work in progress, and much could change. But as initially conceived, the bonds would be issued in $40 million increments annually over 20 years and paid off with property tax proceeds.

The Finance Department calculates that, for the owner of a $140,000 home and a $15,000 car, the increase in the first year would be $7.50 on a city property tax bill that’s currently about $500. That’s not much more than the price of a McDonald’s Double Quarter Pounder meal and large Coke.

However, the tax increase would compound each year as more bonds are issued, amounting to about $150 more per year for the average homeowner at the end of 20 years.

The election would be April 4, 2017, because, under the vagaries of Missouri law, voter approval for bonds in that election requires a 57 percent supermajority. If the election were held later next year, it would require an even higher majority, 66.7 percent.

The council must approve ballot language in January, so that means hashing out details in the next few months.

“That’s the conversation this fall at City Hall,” Schulte said, citing low interest rates and job creation as other pluses for the program. “There’s no better time like the present to just bring this forward.”

Huge needs

James says he realized Kansas City had a massive deferred maintenance problem when he first took office in 2011. At that time, he proposed a possible $1 billion bond package.

The idea fizzled, in part because the Fitch credit rating agency put the city on a “negative” watch. Kansas City already had a high debt load from guaranteeing several hundred million dollars in bonds for projects like the downtown Power & Light District, various hotels and parking garages, and other economic development ventures.

But the city has continued to pay down debt over the past five years, and its credit rating has improved. In the next decade, Schulte said, more principal should come off the books each year in $80 million increments. Meanwhile, the city would be adding about $40 million per year in general obligation bond debt, which has the best interest rates and can be its own economic development engine.

Right now, Kansas City spends money in relatively paltry amounts on many infrastructure projects, because dollars are spread thin among so many needs. So it can take forever to complete big projects. The Blue River channel project, just completed, took 50 years. The Turkey Creek tunnel restoration project has already taken years and still needs $15 million more. Brookside flood control is a $30 million problem.

“It delays things because we do it $1 million at a time,” Schulte said.

The council may also ask next April to renew the city’s 1-cent sales tax for infrastructure, set to expire in 2018. That sales tax raises about $70 million per year, but it too is spread thin among too many projects. If the bond money could pay for big-impact projects, Schulte suggested, the sales tax dollars could provide a consistent, sustainable funding source for basic maintenance.

Without this extra money, Kansas City will just keep falling farther and farther behind on crucial repairs, said Public Works director Sherri McIntyre. She points out that, according to a recent pavement analysis, only 55 percent of the city’s roads were rated in good to fair condition, while 45 percent were rated poor or worse.

Currently, the city spends about $10 million per year resurfacing about 170 miles of roadway. But with 6,600 lane miles of roads, Kansas City should spend $40 million or more per year to fix 600 miles per year, she said.

Among possible street projects:

▪ Wornall Road from 79th Street to 47th Street, which should be fully rebuilt.

▪ Blue River Road, which is sliding into the Blue River in several locations.

▪ Holmes Road in south Kansas City.

▪ Two-lane Northland roads that need widening like North Brighton from Pleasant Valley Road to 76th Street, and Parvin Road.

Schulte also hopes to use bond money to fix crumbling sidewalks in low-income neighborhoods, where costs exceed what residents can afford. But both Schulte and James acknowledge a challenge with that strategy.

Until now, Kansas City has required homeowners to pay for sidewalk upgrades with their own money, which can be $5,000 or more, although financed over 15 years. What do city officials tell people who have paid for their own sidewalks and now have to pay a property tax increase for other people’s sidewalks?

“Unfortunately, this is an issue of the collective good,” Schulte said, pointing out that property values in affluent areas can support a homeowner’s $5,000 sidewalk investment, but not in depressed areas. “From an urban revitalization standpoint ... I think curbs and sidewalks are the best way to do it.”

Neighborhood reaction

Council members believe voters will support the plan, since citizen satisfaction surveys every year give top priority to streets.

“The issue I hear about probably more than any other is infrastructure,” said 6th District Councilman Kevin McManus. “I would put it up with public safety and economic development as things that people care about.”

But longtime South Kansas City neighborhood leader Carol Winterowd reminded the council that some significant development projects are tax abated, meaning owners pay little or no property tax into city coffers. If this involves a property tax increase, she said, everyone should pay a fair share.

The Finance Department is gathering data on how much property is abated but does not yet have that information.

The Rev. Sam Mann, spokesman for the Urban Summit, which advocates for the East Side, said his group is working on its own ballot proposal for next spring: a one-eighth-cent sales tax that would raise money specifically to benefit the Prospect Corridor from Ninth Street to Gregory Boulevard. He said the group wants something more targeted than a citywide general obligation bond package.

“It’s going to be a hard sell, because it’s too general,” Mann said of the bond proposal.

But 5th District Councilwoman Alissia Canady, who represents part of east and south Kansas City, thinks residents will see its job creation and economic benefits.

“This council will be reviewing that information to make sure it makes sense and it is fair,” she said. “Fair is not going to be allocated by council district but based upon the needs, making sure our infrastructure is addressed and making sure we’re doing that wisely.”

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:41 am

"I also would like to see where the funding is coming from for the $80 million no longer being paid on and why the city can't use that bonding capacity without a new tax, or to lower the taxes needed."

Not sure if it is a different line or is included in the amount for in KCMO tax rate but in the past residents approved a bond issue for X amount of money to be paid for with a tax increase for debt services. When that bonding is retired the bonding capacity goes away with it. That is why many times there is a new election to approve the new bond issue and the wording utilized goes something like "No tax increase". Government entities have had no-fee increase bond elections and all that means is usually the currently approve tax source to fund the new bonds. If not done then as the bonding authorized by the previous election the tax rate would go down.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby flyingember » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:28 am

That's why I want more info, because the city implied the amount paid via property taxes was going up and never explained if it is just replacing these taxes or replacing them and then some.

A lot of people aren't going to think this tax replaces anything.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:38 am

Debt is debt. The bonds being retired are probably revenue bonds, like for airport, water, and sewer projects. Those revenues can't be redirected to general city projects. Therefore the tax increase.
Depending on the wording of each individual tax abatement agreement the city could, if it wanted to, word the ballot language to include this exempt property. Something it should do.

shaffe
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby shaffe » Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:43 am

Since when did the city fix sidewalks? They just made me shoulder $6k in curb and sidewalk repairs for concrete that was less than 20 years old - and still haven't fixed the wastewater inlet part of my property that continues to crumble.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:28 pm

Raymore fixes the sidewalks, not the property owners. They are, afterall, mandated by the city and in the city's easement. Always thought that was odd for KCMO to require the property owner to bear the cost.

mykn
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby mykn » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:18 pm

Has it always been this way, or did kcmo maintain the sidewalks at one point. Thank god they don't make us maintain the roads in front of our house.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby flyingember » Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:28 pm

shaffe wrote: and still haven't fixed the wastewater inlet part of my property that continues to crumble.

I got one replaced within a month from it being damaged. I pointed out the intake was dangerous for the kids who walk in the street, since the neighborhood doesn't have any sidewalks.

If it's a sanitary system line or a combined system line on the city's side that's bad and start calling your council rep's office. Probably an EPA violation to not fix that quickly. If it's on your side, you imply it's on your property, you get to pay to fix it.

If it's a stormwater inlet on the dirt side they can take some time to get to since it doesn't harm anyone if rain sits around.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12162
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby FangKC » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:37 am

shaffe wrote:Since when did the city fix sidewalks? They just made me shoulder $6k in curb and sidewalk repairs for concrete that was less than 20 years old - and still haven't fixed the wastewater inlet part of my property that continues to crumble.


The sidewalk issue is really an unfair situation. There are many neighborhoods in Kansas City where there are properties that don't have sidewalks at all, and others where there are sidewalks on one side of the street, but not the other. So some homeowners are put in the position of having to pay to maintain and repair a sidewalk, while their neighbor directly across the street doesn't have that responsibility, or ever has to worry about it.

The inequity comes from one property owner being forced to maintain a form of public infrastructure, while his neighbor is not required to bear that expense.

Let's say you live on one of these blocks. If you are living in a house--in an older neighborhood, only valued at around $50,000, you can get hit with a $5,000 sidewalk repair that your neighborhood across the street, who doesn't have a sidewalk, doesn't have to bear. If you are low-income, or on a fixed income, this can be an overwhelming expense. There are many residents who don't have that much in savings, to even fix the sidewalk. They could be living month-to-month on their Social Security check, or paycheck-to-paycheck.

There are also situations where the requirement is applied very unfairly. On some blocks in older neighborhoods, the City might own several properties that have abandoned houses, or cleared lots, where the sidewalks are in really bad shape. Yet, if you are a homeowner on this block, and have a sidewalk needing repair, you are required to spend a significant amount to fix your sidewalk, while the City parcels--adjacent to your property--go unfixed.

The other issue here is that there are many neighborhoods in the City that don't have any sidewalks. These homeowners aren't required to install a sidewalk, yet homeowners in older neighborhoods that have crumbling sidewalks are required to bear the cost of fixing them--and many aren't in the financial position to do it.

The issue here is why do some property owners get away with never having sidewalk expenses, while other residents in other parts of the City do?

In older parts of the City, the expense can be even greater is you have the misfortune of owning a house on a corner lot, with sidewalks on two sides of the property, so a corner lot house might have a expense of $10,000 to repair the sidewalk.

The other issue, where I've never had this question answered, is this: can a property owner, facing an expensive sidewalk repair, simply just remove the sidewalk completely and not replace it? There are many neighborhoods (like in the Northland) that aren't required to have a sidewalk. So why couldn't someone living in the central city just remove their damaged sidewalk entirely, and not have that responsibility in the future?

Here are examples of this situation along Gladstone Boulevard--and a block south--in the Old Northeast.

http://tinyurl.com/gluyxgn

Here is another example. At this intersection, some property owners have to maintain sidewalks, while directly across the street, that homeowner has no sidewalk to maintain. There is no rhyme-nor-reason to why some property owners on the same block have sidewalks, and others don't.

Take a look around this intersection:

http://tinyurl.com/ju8mchv

It would seem to me that this issue could be challenged in court. Why is a property owner burdened with the expense of repairing a sidewalk on one corner, while the property owner directly across the intersection isn't required to have any sidewalks? Can a property owner remove his sidewalks completely to avoid the expense, if the property owner on the other side of the street isn't legally required to have a sidewalk at all?

Image

Image

Image

The other issue here is the situation where the City is bearing the expense of replacing sidewalks completely in some older neighborhoods, yet if you live in another part of the City, and have a sidewalk that needs replacing, the City is requiring you to pay to fix it? Where is the equity there?

Granted, I realize that in many neighborhoods where the City is paying to replace the sidewalks, the residents are too poor to bear the expense. I understand that. However, there are also situations in other parts of the City where an individual homeowner if forced by the City to fix their sidewalk, and they might be just as poor.

This is an example of a inequity, or double standard.

That is why I think the City should be responsible for sidewalks as part of infrastructure of the street.

The other issue is the unfair situation of some neighborhoods having sidewalks and others having none at all. If you are going to require property owners in one part of the city to have a functional and safe sidewalk, then all property owners in the City should be required to have a sidewalk.

My block recently had some type of utility update. They dug up the strip of grass between the street and the sidewalk along one side of the entire block. In some places they dug pretty deep--adjacent to the sidewalk, and when they were done, they filled the hole in. That dirt is now disturbed and will settle over time. Since the holes they dug were up against the existing sidewalk--disturbing the long-settled dirt will create situations where after settling, the sidewalks might start to shift and become uneven. Is the homeowner now responsible for fixing their sidewalk after this utility work caused the problem?

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10611
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby mean » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:37 pm

Is there anything stopping a homeowner from just pulling up the concrete and putting down sod? I mean, aside from the possible expense.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:09 pm

The City.

User avatar
smh
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2677
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby smh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:56 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote:The City.


Would not notice for decades.

droopy
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:59 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby droopy » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:15 pm

smh wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote:The City.


Would not notice for decades.


Depends on the neighbors

User avatar
smh
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2677
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby smh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:46 pm

droopy wrote:
smh wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote:The City.


Would not notice for decades.


Depends on the neighbors


Good point.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby pash » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:31 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:26 am

At some point in the late 60's/early 70's the city passed an ordinance that required new home construction to install sidewalks on one side of the street. Before then no sidewalks were required in residential areas. West of Holmes on 106th Street some homes were permitted before the ordinance with into effect and there are no sidewalks in front of those homes. Other homes on the same block were permitted after the ordinance went into effect and sidewalks were built in front of those homes.


Sec. 64-243. - Duty of abutting owner to keep sidewalk, curbing and guttering in good repair; special assessments authorized.
(a)
No owner of any house, building, lot or premises shall permit or allow the sidewalk, curbing, drive approach or guttering in front or alongside of such house, building, lot or premises to be or remain out of repair or suffer or allow the same to be or remain above or below the established grade.
(b)
No owner of any house, building, lot or premises shall permit or allow any cellar door, grating or stairway located on a sidewalk in front or alongside of such house, building, lot or premises to be or remain out of repair or suffer or allow the same to be or remain above or below the established grade.
(c)
It shall be the duty of the director of public works to see that the requirements of this section are fully complied with, by the owner of such house, building, lot or premises, or by any person who may hereafter do any grading, or perform any other public work upon any of the streets of the city where such sidewalk, curbing, drive approach, guttering, cellar door, grating or stairway may at the time be located. The word repair as used in this section shall be deemed to mean and embrace whatever is necessary for the preservation of such sidewalk, curbing, drive approach, guttering, cellar door, grating or stairway, and to render the sidewalk, curbing, drive approach, guttering, cellar door, grating or stairway safe and convenient for the public.
(d)
When, in the opinion of the director of public works, any sidewalk (including any cellar door, grating or stairway existing in such sidewalk), curbing, drive approach or guttering on any part of any street or public highway is out of repair, the director may cause the same to be reconstructed or put in good substantial repair. The costs thereof may be assessed as provided herein, unless otherwise modified by ordinance approving a project whose costs are subject to special assessment:
(1)
The director of public works shall cause a notice to be sent by United States mail, directed to the apparent owner of the real estate in front of which the said reconstruction or repair is to be made, as said ownership or taxpayer is shown on the real estate records of the city, which notice shall require the reconstruction or repair to be made within 30 days of the notice unless an alternative time is designated by ordinance. The requirement of notice is directory and not mandatory.
(2)
After the expiration of the 30 days, or such alternative time designated by ordinance, the director of public works may cause the reconstruction or repair to be made through city forces or by contract if the owner has not complied with the notice or completed the repair or reconstruction to the city's established standards for sidewalks, curbing, drive approaches and guttering work. The work may be done as separate projects for each location or as a project combining several separate locations.
(3)
After the work is completed at a single location or at several locations combined in one project, the director of public works shall cause the cost to be determined, and for this purpose may base the same on unit costs for a project involving work in front of several parcels of land. The director of public works shall thereafter determine whether a portion or all of the final cost of said improvements is to be paid by public funds, local or otherwise. If so, the director of public works shall determine the balance of the costs, if any, of such repairs or replacement and this amount shall serve as the basis of any special assessment.
(4)
The balance of the costs, if any, subject to special assessment shall be assessed and charged according to the front-foot rule, which shall be held to mean that the required sum shall be assessed and charged against the several lots, tracts and parcels fronting or abutting upon the side of the street on which the work was done in proportion and ratably to the frontage or abutment thereon of such respective lots, tracts and parcels. In levying special assessments against corner lots, tracts and parcels, such shall be charged for the work done on both fronts and on the outside corners.
(5)
The director of public works shall certify to the director of finance the cost of the work done in front of and adjacent to each parcel of land fronting or abutting on the side of the street on which the work was done, giving a description of each parcel of land so charged with sufficient accuracy to identify the same, and the amount of the special assessment against the same.
(6)
The special assessments issued under this article shall be paid as provided in section 2-1721 of this Code of Ordinances.
(7)
Special assessments provided for herein shall constitute liens upon the real estate and when delinquent shall be subject to collection in the same manner as provided for under state law, City Charter, and the Code of Ordinances.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.99; Ord. No. 080459, § 1, 5-22-08; Ord. No. 130937, § 10, 12-19-13)
Sec. 64-244. - Issuance of permit for construction or repair.
The director of public works is hereby authorized to issue special permits, upon request, to owners of private property to construct, repair or reconstruct sidewalks, at their own expense, under the same terms and conditions as are provided in section 64-4, except as provided in section 64-245.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.100)
Cross reference— Construction or repair by property owner of facilities in adjacent right-of-way, § 64-4.
Sec. 64-245. - Application for permit for construction and repair.
Whenever any property owner desires to build a sidewalk conforming to the general specifications for sidewalks approved by the director of public works, he shall apply to the director for a permit to build such sidewalk, stating the character of sidewalk to be laid and the location thereof; provided that the director of public works shall issue no such permit to any property owner or other person for the building of any sidewalk within the limits defined in any contract which has been awarded by the director for such improvement, but in all such cases the contractor to whom the work of building the sidewalk has been awarded by the city under such contract shall build the sidewalk the entire length thereof as defined in the contract.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.101)
Sec. 64-246. - Removal of ice or snow.
It shall be the duty of all persons owning or occupying any real property, fronting upon any street, boulevard or highway, to remove from the sidewalks in front or alongside of such property all ice and snow within a reasonable time after cessation of a storm depositing such ice or snow. The provisions of chapter 62, article III, pertaining to littering, and penalties for violations thereof, shall be applicable to violations of this section.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.104)
Cross reference— Littering, § 62-81 et seq.
Sec. 64-247. - Railings along sidewalk.
(a)
Every owner and occupant of any house, building, lot or premises, in front or alongside of or adjoining which there is any sidewalk (and, in case of several persons occupying the same house or building, then the one occupying the first floor next to the sidewalk), shall cause to be erected and maintained and kept in good repair a good, substantial and sufficient railing or barrier on either side or both sides of such sidewalk where the sidewalk is, in the opinion of the director of public works, three feet or more above the level of the street or adjoining lot.
(b)
Such railing or barrier shall be at least 2½ feet high, of good material, and shall be securely attached and fastened to such sidewalk with good and sufficient props and stays, and the work provided in this section to be done is hereby declared to be repairs of any such sidewalk, curbing or guttering.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.105)
Sec. 64-248. - Pushing wheelbarrow or handcart on sidewalk.
No person shall trundle or cause to be trundled any wheelbarrow or handcart in or upon any sidewalk.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.106)
Cross reference— Placing wheelbarrow on parks or boulevards, § 50-123.
Sec. 64-249. - Roof water not to run over sidewalk.
Every owner or occupant of any house or other building shall cause the pipes conducting the water from the eaves or roof of such house or other building to be so constructed as to prevent the spread of water over the sidewalk.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.107)
Sec. 64-250. - Washing windows or cleaning sidewalk in front of business houses.
The washing or the cleaning of the outside of windows, doors, show windows or display windows of all business houses, and the sweeping or washing of the sidewalk in front of such business houses, is hereby prohibited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
(Code of Gen. Ords. 1967, § 30.108)

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10611
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby mean » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:34 am

Good to see our city leaders tackling the big problem of sidewalk wheelbarrow trundling. Must have been a key issue of 1967.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 15620
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby DaveKCMO » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:01 pm

lots of good tweets from today's business session:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Kansas City GO Bond

Postby lock+load » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:15 am

Not sure the elimination of sidewalk special assessments is going to be a selling point to all of those who have already paid to replace sidewalks on their streets.


Return to “General Kansas City”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests