Prairie Village Ward 4 City Council candidates: The vote on city planning for the Mission Valley site

Today, the candidates for the Ward 4 City Council seat in Prairie Village respond to the second of our five reader-generated questionnaire items:

2.) Facing pressure from neighborhood groups in early February, the City Council voted to stop a planned public input process to develop a comprehensive plan for the Mission Valley Middle School site and surrounding areas. It would have cost $90,000 of taxpayer money. Did the council make the right decision, or should they have proceeded with the public input process?

Tim Pickell:

Citing a heavy workload at his law practice, Pickell was not able to submit an answer to the question prior to yesterday’s 5 p.m. deadline. However, he did send over answers to all the questions later Monday night. Out of fairness to the two candidates who made the deadline, we won’t be posting Pickell’s answer today, but in the interest of making information about his positions available to Ward 4 voters, we will add it and his response to question 1 sometime tomorrow.

UPDATED 02-15: We’ve included Pickell’s response below:

Due to input (pressure!) from a group of well-organized citizens, the City Council made the RIGHT decision in voting NOT to spend $90,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund another “public input” process. It was the only sensible decision when considering the tight economy, as well as the fact the City already has a long-term plan—The Village Vision. The Vision Plan was based on many hours of citizen meetings to gain a clear understanding of what the public hopes future development of Prairie Village would look like. To spend a whopping $90,000 to again ask for public input was a misguided idea.

Had the Council advised the potential developer of the Mission Valley site that any study would be its responsibility, one might have been commissioned. But again, since we have the Village Vision, along with a well established zoning process to properly vet how to best use this property, the right decision (not to spend $90,000 of our tax dollars) was made. And, the public will have ample opportunity to provide input on any development proposals—for FREE!

Dale Beckerman (incumbent):

I think it would have been better to do a comprehensive plan but the votes were not there. A few observations:

1. The Proposal Before the Council Was to Contract for A Planning Process – Not to Re-Zone. The comprehensive planning process would have involved extensive community input, as well as some expert analysis. It would have resulted in recommendations (only) about potential uses for the property.

This is not the job of the developer. It is the public entity’s role. Cities use such plans to help guide decisions on land use requests. The developer is responsible for detailed plans for the development that also address engineering and other issues in a project.

2. Monday’s vote has no direct affect on how the Mission Valley site might be used. RED could sell to a school. If not, RED can still apply to zone it for commercial/retail. Or, RED could apply for a special use permit to build a senior facility. It is just as possible for the City to accept any such proposal as before. A well-done plan amendment would have assisted in good decision-making.

3. The funding source was not the City’s General Fund. It was the City’s Economic Development Fund. That Fund has money the City received from a school sales tax. Conducting the study would not have affected taxes or the funds the City uses for its everyday operations.

The presentations had crowd appeal but little relevance to what the Council was considering. The presentations focused on why the City should not permit RED to develop the parcel. That was not before the Council and may never be. If a request to develop the land comes before the Council, the Council may be less prepared to make a sound decision than it would have been with a plan.

Brooke Morehead:

I attended last week’s council meeting at East. The open and public process was stopped after the City Council voted 5 to 5, with the mayor breaking the tie. It appeared that the Council was confused by the options presented. It was never the intent of the neighborhood group to not allow public input. A tied vote tells me the future of Mission Valley is not settled in any way!
 
I firmly believe that the former Mission Valley School site should remain a school. Dan Lowe, the Red Development representative, stated at the meeting that Red has other purchase options –potentially KC Christian. We know KC Christian has outgrown its present location in the former Ridgeview Elementary building on 79th Street and attracts students from across the metro. By entering the process too soon, the City has only clouded the potential outcome. I believe the Council waded into this situation too hurriedly.
 
Sadly, the outcome of last Monday’s vote leaves the door open for a large senior living facility to be built at the Mission Valley school site. This can easily be accomplished without a zoning change just as what happened to the Somerset School site. I appreciate Mr. Beckerman’s volunteer time, however his one term on the council has proven him to be a developer’s best friend. A scenario where Mission Valley is allowed to become Senior Living and KC Christian moves to a larger facility in OP is a real possibility given the current situation. PV and Ward 4 cannot afford to lose both schools!
 
My commitment to Ward 4 residents is to work to ensure that the former Mission Valley School site remains a school and that KC Christian remains in Prairie Village. I am asking for your support and vote on February 28th — the special primary for Ward 4. Please visit www.brookeforpv.com and get involved.

Tomorrow, the candidates will respond to question 3:

3.) Do you support the idea of finding a dedicated revenue source to fund the city’s Parks Master Plan? If so, what should that funding source be?