Belton council appoints three new park board members after heated debate over timing and process

The Belton City Council on Aug. 12 approved a resolution appointing Nicholas Anderson, Shannon Locke and Blake Walbrink to the Municipal Park Board, following more than an hour of public comment and council discussion about the timing and motives for changing board membership.

The appointment resolution passed by roll call vote, with seven council members voting to approve and two voting no. Council members McCallum, Johnson, Lawson, Bridal, Thompson, White and Mayor Larkie voted in favor; Council members Richardson and Davidson voted against the appointments.

The debate centered on whether the mayor and council had followed the city charter’s June 1 timeline for appointing board members. City Attorney Patrick told the council the charter deadline is “directory and not mandatory,” citing case law and explaining there is no stated penalty for missing the date. Patrick said courts treat such timelines as intended to promote orderly conduct of business, not as an absolute bar to appointment.

Several residents urged the council to keep current park board members. Mary Cummings, who identified herself as a Belton resident and cited Belton Code of Ordinances section 17-40, asked how an appointee who applied after June 23 could be eligible and said the resolution “would remove committed members without cause and weaken the link between the community and its parks.” Mike Miller, another resident, said the park board and staff are “incredible” and warned that putting parks under direct city control could slow emergency responses and strip local oversight.

Council discussion included requests for clarity about past practices. The mayor provided a historical summary of park-board activity over 28½ years, saying there were about 50 reappointments, 31 new appointments and 32 appointments after resignations during that span. Several council members said they felt the change was driven by council consensus rather than the mayor alone. Others said they were concerned about the perception of retaliation for board members who had opposed council positions on past land decisions.

The appointments are effective immediately under the terms of the resolution. The council did not adopt any separate ordinance changing park-board authority; council members and staff repeatedly noted the appointments follow the existing appointment process—mayoral appointment with council advice and consent. Speakers on both sides urged more communication and suggested council members attend park board meetings to improve relations.

The council concluded the matter with the appointments and moved on to other agenda items.

Ending: The replacement of three park board positions prompted public testimony, legal explanation from the city attorney and a 7–2 vote to install the new appointees. Council members and residents said they want clearer processes and better communication going forward.