Month: May 2016

UG agenda Thursday night includes public hearings on industrial revenue bonds, TIF and community improvement district

Public hearings are among many planning and zoning items on Thursday’s Unified Government Commission meeting agenda.

The UG will consider a sign code amendment, a public hearing on industrial revenue bonds for a building in an industrial park in Fairfax; a public hearing on establishing a downtown self-supported municipal improvement district; a public hearing on a tax-increment financing plan and development agreement for Rainbow Village; a public hearing on a Rainbow Village community improvement district.

The UG Commission is scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. Thursday, May 26, at the Commission Chambers, lobby level, City Hall, 701 N. 7th St., Kansas City, Kan.

Besides the 7 p.m. meeting, there is a 5 p.m. special meeting scheduled for a presentation by K-State Research and Extension, followed by the 2016-2021 capital maintenance and improvements budget. The 5 p.m. meeting is on the fifth floor of City Hall.

Items on the UG’s 7 p.m. agenda include:
• 6925 Riverview – Change of zone from single family and planned light industrial districts to planned light industrial district for an industrial park, Seefried Properties.
• 2500 W. 43rd Ave. – Change of zone from single family district to planned limited business district for an existing office building, Koenig Build and Restoration.
• 1316 Armstrong Ave. – Special use permit for a child development center, Carter-Rowe Child Development Center.
• 11101 Hubbard Road – Home occupation special use permit for firearm sales, Mark Gambrill, MT&G.
• 1327 Minnesota Ave. – Renewal of special use permit for a parking lot, Luke Kush.
• 864 Splitlog Ave. – Special use permit for an electronic sign, Faye Thicklin, Greater Pentecostal Temple.
• 5252 Speaker Road – Special use permit and servicing facility for the trucks associated with the business, David Watkins.
• 9800 State Ave. – Vacation of right-of-way. Vacating land that was formerly occupied by roads before they were realigned, at France Family Drive and 98th.
• 334 and 333 S. 9th St. – Vacation of alley between two addresses, Debra Sandoval.
• 6925 Riverview Ave. – Master Plan amendment from low density residential to business park, Seefried Properties.
• Sign code amendment—After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2015, communities have been examining their sign codes to comply. The new sign code updates and rewrites the code.
• 7600 State Ave. – An ordinance vacating utility easements.
• 3717 Cambridge St. – An ordinance vacating right-of-way.
• 37th Street between Eaton and Cambridge – An ordinance vacating the north 20 feet of 37th between Eaton and Cambridge.
• Eaton, 36th to 38th street – An ordinance vacating a portion of Eaton Ave., 36th to 38th street.
• Cambridge, between 38th and 39th – An ordinance vacating the west 30 feet of Cambridge Avenue between 38th and 39th street.
• 10922 Parallel Parkway – An ordinance rezoning property from planned nonretail business district to planned general business district. Plaza at the Speedway.
• 3846 N. 60th St. – A special use permit to keep six horses, 10 goats and 15 chickens. Recommended for denial by Planning Commission.
• 16 N. James St. – Revocation of special use permit for a drinking establishment with live entertainment and a special use permit for parking at 2, 4 and 12 N. James St. for the business at 16 N. James St. Recommended for revocation of special use permit.
• Public hearing to consider a resolution of intent to issue $55 million in industrial revenue bonds and a payment in lieu of taxes structure for the NorthPoint Development proposal for Building 2, Central Industrial Park, in Fairfax.
• Public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing a self-supported municipal improvement district. The Downtown Improvement District.
• Public hearing to consider adoption of the TIF project plan and development agreement for Rainbow Village District, on the northwest corner of 34th Street and Rainbow Boulevard. Rainbow Legacy Investors LLC is proposing the construction of an 89-bed hotel and related site improvements.
• Public hearing to consider creation of the Rainbow Village Community Improvement District, a 4-acre parcel at the northwest corner of 34th Street and Rainbow Boulevard, as part of the hotel project proposed for this existing redevelopment district.
Land Bank applications:
• 2811 S. 37th
• 2605 N. 11th
• 1504 New Jersey
• 1716 N. 25th
• 1602 S. 11th
• 1610 S. 11th
• 1618 S. 11th
• 1624 S. 11th
• 1630 S. 11th
• 1629 S. Bethany
• 6918 Sloan
• 407 Cleveland Ave.
• Transfers from Land Bank:
• 1950 N. 11th St. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1934 N. 12th St. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1929 N. 13th St. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1937 N. 13th St. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1939 N. 13th ST. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1927 N. Bethany to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1124 Garfield Ave. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1138 Garfield Ave. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1200 Garfield Ave. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1137 Garfield Ave. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1140 Garfield Ave. to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
• 1139 Troup to Mt. Carmel Church of God in Christ
Transfers to Land Bank:
• 303 properties listed on agenda attachment
• One of these addresses is 4601 State Ave., Indian Springs Marketplace, which is currently undergoing demolition.
• Another address on the list is 1841 Village West Parkway.

To see the agenda, visit www.wycokck.org.

KCK police discuss creation of nonprofit foundation

The creation of a Kansas City, Kan., Police Department Foundation is under discussion.

Police Chief Terry Zeigler told the Unified Government Public Works and Safety Committee meeting Monday night that as they look at ways to fund some of the needs of the Police Department, they are exploring the idea of a nonprofit Police Department Foundation.

He mentioned a driving range to practice emergency operation of vehicles, an indoor police shooting range, and funding for juvenile programs as potential goals that could be funded by the foundation.

He said although the foundation is under discussion, the department hadn’t yet filed the paperwork for the 501c3 designation.

The UG committee unanimously supported the idea of a police foundation. There were some different ideas expressed on how to go about it.

In order to receive any money from the Hollywood Casino and Schlitterbahn funds available to the community, they would have to form a 501c3 nonprofit under the UG Commission’s current rules for the program, UG Administrator Doug Bach pointed out.

The committee discussed making an exception to that rule.

Commissioner Angela Markley said that once the department’s nonprofit application is on file, it will technically be a 501c3, even though there may be a waiting period involved.

Zeigler said the persons to be named to the board of the foundation would be fund raisers who would seek funding for various projects. For example, they might hold a golf tournament to raise funds, he said. These projects he mentioned would cost in the millions, he added. Allocations from the casino funds might be used as “seed money” to start the foundation.

Commissioner Markley recommended adding the Police Department Foundation to the list of potential recipients of the Hollywood Casino-Schlitterbahn funds. That way, individual commissioners, who were not all present at the committee meeting, could designate how much of the funds they wanted to go to the foundation.

The UG will probably bring this item before the full commission for a vote in June, according to officials.

Traffic support unit relocation

In another discussion Monday night, Chief Zeigler said the Police Department has been looking at moving the Traffic Support Unit.

The unit would be moved from Sunset Plaza at 60th and Leavenworth Road to a small retail area that formerly housed a real estate office at 81st and Leavenworth Road.

Chief Zeigler said he was trying to get the traffic support unit to a better facility. The move is not final at this time.

Chicken limit

The popularity of raising chickens at home for personal consumption of eggs has sparked a proposed change in the animal ordinance. In another discussion Monday night, changes to the animal code and planning and zoning code to allow chickens were discussed.

Attorney Jennifer Myers described the changes to the code. The animal services unit would handle the applications, and it could revoke the permits if there was not compliance with the code, she said. There could be no outstanding code violations on the property of the applicants, she added. Also, the residents would have to maintain standards for health and cleanliness.

The code would require chickens to be at least 25 feet from neighbors’ property, and 10 feet from the property line of the lot. They would have to be in an enclosed space and would not be allowed to run or fly at large. There could be a maximum number of one chicken per 500 square feet, she added. Myers asked the committee to set a maximum number of chickens per location.

Those persons who applied for a permit for six chickens or fewer would go to the animal services unit for approval, instead of going through the planning and zoning process, under one change to the code. They would be handled administratively. Persons would no longer have to pay the $75 special use permit fee.

People who wanted more than six chickens at a location would have to go through planning and zoning for a special use permit, she said. Those whose residential lots were too small would have to ask for a special use permit, also.

Only hens, not roosters, would be allowed under the ordinance changes, according to Myers. The changes do not apply to land already zoned agricultural.

The committee voted unanimously for the changes, setting the number of chickens allowed at six. A UG community survey recently found that most people would support one to six chickens, not more.

This issue is expected to go to the planning and zoning commission in June, followed by the full UG Commission, possibly in late June, according to UG officials.

Proposed KanCare network changes draw skepticism

by Andy Marso, KHI News Service

– See more at: http://www.khi.org/news/article/proposed-kancare-network-changes-draw-skepticism#sthash.E6PiSKRp.dpuf
A proposal to reimburse some KanCare providers at a higher level based on patient outcomes drew skepticism from a crowd of hundreds who gathered Tuesday afternoon in a Topeka hotel ballroom.

Tuesday’s public meeting was the first in a series that state officials are hosting as they prepare to renew their federal application for KanCare, the state’s $3 billion managed care program that privatized all Medicaid services under three insurance companies in 2013.

Similar gatherings were scheduled Wednesday in Kansas City, Kan., and Wichita and Thursday in Pittsburg and Hays.

Several of the providers, consumers and caregivers who attended the Tuesday afternoon meeting complained about a lack of specifics on changes the state intends to make in the next round of five-year contracts.

But one change that was outlined — allowing the insurance companies to designate preferred providers and pay them more — drew concerns about providers who don’t make the preferred lists dropping out of the system.

Susan Mosier, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said the state was merely seeking feedback on the idea and that any changes would “maintain network adequacy.”

Kevin Siek, who works with Kansans with disabilities for the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, said the state already has fallen short on that front.

“Choices are already too limited,” Siek said.

He said he knows of only one home health agency in Shawnee County that accepts Medicaid.

Sean Gatewood, a former Democratic legislator who represents a coalition of Medicaid providers called the KanCare Advocates Network, asked how the preferred provider networks would be funded given the recently announced 4 percent cuts to Medicaid.

“How are you going to maintain network adequacy without additional money flowing into the system?” Gatewood said. “We have a shrinking network as it is.”

Open-ended conversation

Others voiced concerns about increased bureaucracy since the state switched from a traditional fee-for-service Medicaid model to KanCare, which covers mostly people with disabilities and lower-income children and pregnant women.

They also complained that state officials had not provided enough details about their intended changes for the next round of KanCare contracts for them to share relevant feedback.

“Based on what you’ve presented so far, it doesn’t say specifically what’s going to change,” said Katherine Gallagher of McLouth, who is caring for three grandchildren on KanCare.

The crowd applauded her critique.

Mosier said the state wanted to keep the conversation open-ended.

“The reason why we don’t have the details for you is it really is about getting your input before putting pencil to paper and actually creating that application,” she said.

Mosier said the initial meetings are only the start of the process and stakeholders will have opportunities to weigh in on more detailed plans later.

The KanCare companies, she said, have provided almost $15 million in “value-added” services not previously covered under Medicaid, like weight-loss surgery and adult dental care, while simultaneously slowing the cost growth of Medicaid through care coordination.

Caseload concerns

The next round of KanCare will focus on honing that coordination and moving toward payments based on health outcomes rather than the fee-for-service model.

But there were concerns from providers and KanCare consumers in the audience that the care coordinators for the three companies — Amerigroup, Sunflower State Health Plan (a Centene subsidiary) and UnitedHealthcare — already are struggling under heavy turnover amid large caseloads.

“Care coordinators should be more involved,” said Kelly Smith, a Kansan with a disability. “My care coordinator does nothing for me.”

Smith and Brad Linnenkamp, who also has a disability, questioned whether an outcomes-based payment model would be applicable for Kansans who have permanent conditions.

The costs of their long-term support services are largely fixed, they said.

Providers said they were concerned about the difficulty of recouping start-up costs in an outcomes-based model and asked how such a model would account for patients who fail to take responsibility for their outcomes, such as diabetics who snack on sugary candy.

The moderator for Tuesday’s event was Amy Delamaide of Wichita State University’s Community Engagement Institute.

She tried to steer the conversation toward a set of predetermined questions about the state’s priorities for the next round of KanCare. But that discussion was overwhelmed at times by complaints about the current system, like delays in processing Medicaid eligibility, long hold times on the KanCare Clearinghouse helpline and the recent reimbursement cuts.

“I’m hearing some real flexibility on which question we’re answering,” Delamaide said at one point.

The nonprofit KHI News Service is an editorially independent initiative of the Kansas Health Institute and a partner in the Heartland Health Monitor reporting collaboration. All stories and photos may be republished at no cost with proper attribution and a link back to KHI.org when a story is reposted online.

– See more at http://www.khi.org/news/article/proposed-kancare-network-changes-draw-skepticism#sthash.E6PiSKRp.dpuf