4.1 Ordinance No. 22-11118 De-annexing Chicago AdditionCITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06/13/2022 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: FISCAL APPROVAL:
NO: q
Community and Development Services BY.
ITEM 1 Planning Division FINAL APP VAL:
NO:
DA
Page 1 BY: Dean AndrewBY: S
ITEM: Ordinance No. 22-11118
Public hearing and report on Petition #4418, filed by Tom Pestinger, on behalf of Pestinger Enterprises,
LLC requesting de -annexation of that portion of the Chicago Addition lying west of the relocated Dry
Creek channel.
BACKGROUND:
The Chicago Addition, which covers a large portion of northwest Salina, was platted as an addition to
the city in 1887. In the mid -1930s there were numerous property acquisitions and condemnations in
the northwest corner of the Chicago Addition relating to the construction of the US 81 Highway /
Broadway Boulevard bypass. This project also involved extensive straightening of the meandering
Dry Creek channel. This involved cutting off an oxbow of the Dry Creek channel that formed the west
boundary of the Chicago Addition and the city limits south of North Street. This oxbow area was
included in the property purchased by the Petitioner in 2017. ( A supplemental Background Report is
attached to this report which provides a chronology of efforts to establish a private shooting range on
the property as well as consideration of acquisition of the site for the Police Department Training
Facility which was ultimately built on Yost Drive).
Nature of Current Request
Mr. Pestinger has filed a companion petition to his right-of-way vacation petition (#4417) requesting
that the portion of his property between the original Dry Creek channel and relocated Dry Creek
channel be removed from the city limits. The Chicago Addition was annexed in 1887 with the city
limit line being Dry Creek channel. K.S.A. 12-757 requires cities to publish annually a boundary
resolution when they have excluded or added property to the city during the course of the year. In
1958 a boundary resolution was drafted which placed the boundary in the center of the new Dry
Creek channel but staff has determined that the City Commission never took any formal action to
exclude this oxbow area from the city or change the original city limit boundary. An annexation or de -
annexation ordinance must be approved to change the city limit boundary. Based on the annexation
of the Chicago Addition into the city, it appears that the city limit line still follows the original Dry
Creek channel and includes about half the building Mr. Pestinger is in the process of selling. The
attached de -annexation ordinance would relocate the city limit line to the center of the relocated Dry
Creek channel which is consistent with the city limit line north of North Street.
The petitioner, Tom Pestinger, is in the process of selling an existing 16,000 sq. ft pre-engineered
metal building that was constructed in 2017 along with the surrounding 5.04 acre tract of land it
occupies. This building was constructed as a storage building which has a restroom served by a
private well and septic system. The well is not approved as a source of public drinking supply and
provides non -potable water only. Nor does the well provide any fire protection for the building. Mr.
Pestinger believes that having the historic city limit line passing through the middle of the middle of
the building creates jurisdictional confusion and that the city limit boundary needs to be cleaned up
by moving it back to the center line of the relocated Dry Creek channel. The alternative is to annex
the entire 5.04 acre parcel in to the city and that is not what Mr. Pestinger's petition is requesting.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
ITEM
NO:
Page 2
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
DATE TIME
06/13/2022 4:00 P.M.
FISCAL APPROVAL:
Community and Development Services
Planning Division
BY: Dean Andrew
M
NAL APPROVAL:
F -.W
Since the de -annexation petition was filed there have been additional developments. The City's
Development Review Team (DRT) met with a prospective purchaser/ user of the building and part of
the discussion centered on connection to City utilities, specifically a 12 inch water line in West North
Street. Options discussed were annexation, or a request for an Outside the City Water and Sanitary
Sewer Service Agreement and Fire Service Contract as an alternative to annexation.
City Commission's Role and Responsibility
The purpose of the June, 13, 2022 public hearing is to provide notice to potentially affected property
owners and provide an opportunity for them to be heard on the matter. In this case, Mr. Pestinger owns
all the land west of the relocated Dry Creek channel. Now that there is a potential purchaser/ user of
the building that may need City utilities and services, consideration of this de -annexation request has
changed from a boundary line adjustment to include discussion of the City's policies relating to utility
extensions and interlocal cooperation with Saline County relating to development on the fringe of the
community.
Required Findings
In addition to considering emergency response and fire safety and the future development pattern of
the city, under K.S.A. 12-505, the City Commission must find that no private rights will be injured or
endangered by the proposed de -annexation and that the general public will suffer no loss or
inconvenience if this property is de -annexed from the city.
Staff believes the following findings can be made in this case:
1. Due and legal notice of the Public Hearing has been given by publication as required by law.
2. The public will suffer no loss or inconvenience by the removal of this property from the city limits.
3. No private rights will be injured or endangered because de -annexation would only result in the
straightening of the city limit boundary.
The remainder of the Petitioner's property is outside the city limits and does not receive City
services. (this is currently the case but this finding may not be able to be made in regard to the
future use of the property)
5. The public interest is promoted by the de -annexation because the City would no longer have
law enforcement and code enforcement responsibility for this area.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
ITEM
NO:
Page 3
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06/13/2022 4:00 P.M.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Community and Development Services
Planning Division
BY: Dean Andrew
FISCAL APPROVAL:
BY:
FINAL APPROVAL:
There will be no fiscal impact on the City if this property is de -annexed. The City has not been providing
any utilities or services to this property. Any fiscal impact would be in the future should the property
fully develop in which case the property would not be subject to City sales tax or the City's property tax
mil levy if it were fully de -annexed.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff has identified the following alternatives for the Commission's consideration.
If the City Commission agrees that no private rights will be injured by the proposed de -
annexation and that the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience if this parcel of land is de -
annexed, the Commission could approve Ordinance No. 22-11118 removing this proeprty from
the city limits of Salina.
The City Commission could postpone consideration of Petition No. 4418 and further continue
the public hearing to a future meeting date if it believes additional information is needed from
staff or the petitioner. This would allow staff to provide the Commission with additional
information about Comprehensive Plan policies, City initiated annexations and the City's use of
Fire Service Contracts.
3. The City Commission could deny Petition No. 4418 if the Commission finds it is not in the public
interest to de -annex this property from the city. If this option were chosen, the property would
continue to be straddled by the city limit line unless the City Commission directs staff to pursue
the unilateral annexation of the property. There is also a possiblity that the prospective buyer
may wish to voluntary annex the property in order to receive City utilities and services.
Enclosures: Petition
Exhibits
Background Report
Ordinance No. 22-11118
cc: Tom Pestinger, Pestinger Enterprises
PETITION NUMBER
TO: THE GOVERNING BODY
City of Salina, Kansas
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
I I �
We, the undersigned, being residents and property owners in the City of Salina, Kansas,
do hereby petition your honorable body for:
ation of that portion of the Chicago Addition to the City of Salina lying west of the
Dry Creek channel.
Respectfully Submitted By:
Tom Pestinger (Pestinger Enterprises, LLC)
Telephone Number: 785-826-0399 Email Address: tom@pestingerheating.com
5/1/22, 2:46 PM
12-504. Petition for vacation of site or addition, street or alley or for exclusion of land;
deannexation of land or vacation of public reservation by city; notice; hearing. (a) The owner of: (1)
Any townsite or part of a townsite; (2) any addition or part of an addition to any city; or (3) the lands
adjoining on both sides of any street, alley or public reservation such as, but not limited to public
easements, dedicated building setback lines, access control, or a part thereof, in any city that desires to
have any townsite or part thereof, any addition or part thereof, or public easements, building setback
lines, access control or part thereof vacated, or that desires to exclude any fanning lands or unplatted
tracts, or any addition or part of an addition from the boundaries of the city, shall petition the governing
body of such city and request a public hearing on the issues. The governing body shall give notice of such
request by publication in the official city newspaper and shall designate whether the hearing will be
conducted by the governing body or the planning commission. The notice shall be published at least one
time at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The notice shall state that a petition has been filed in the office
of the city clerk requesting such vacation or exclusion, or both, describing the property fully. The notice
shall specify whether the hearing is to be held before the governing body or the planning commission. All
interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the petition.
(b) Any city may initiate the deannexation of land from the city by following the notice and public
hearing process established in subsection (a). The hearing shall be held before the city governing body.
(c) A city may initiate the vacation of any public reservation by following the notice and public
hearing process established in subsection (a). The hearing shall be held before the city governing body.
History: R.S. 1923, § 12-504; L. 1963, ch. 72, § 1; L. 1967, ch. 82, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 65, § 3; L.
1997, ch. 147, § 1; L. 2021, ch. 44, § 3; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
L. 1862, ch. 108, §§ 1, 5; G.S. 1868, ch. 108, p. 1071, § 1; L. 1877, ch. 190, §§ 1, 3; L. 1891, ch. 245, §§ 1, 3; L. 1897, ch.
267; §§ 1 to 3; L. 1905, ch. 519, § l; Revised, 1923.
1/1
5/16/22, 2:26 PM
12-505. Same; proceedings on petition. (a) (1) Upon the presentation of the petition to the
governing body of the city or planning commission, the governing body or planning commission shall
proceed to hear the petition, as provided in the notice. On the day of the hearing, the governing body or
planning commission shall hear testimony on the propriety of granting the petition. If the planning
commission holds the hearing, the commission shall make a recommendation regarding the vacation and
submit such recommendation to the governing body in the same manner provided by K.S.A. 12-752, and
amendments thereto, for the submission and approval of recommendations regarding plats.
(2) If the governing body or planning commission determines from the proofs and evidence
presented that legal notice has been given by publication as required, that no private rights will be injured
or endangered by such vacation or exclusion, that the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby
and that in justice to the petitioner or petitioners the request of the petitioner ought to be granted, the
governing body shall enact an ordinance containing the order that such vacation or exclusion, or both, be
made. Any order approving a vacation of plat, street, alleys, easements or a public reservation shall
provide for the reservation to the city and the owners of any lesser property rights for public utilities,
rights -of -ways and easements for public service facilities originally held in such plat, street, alley,
easement or public reservation then in existence and use.
(3) The petition shall not be granted if a written objection is filed with the city clerk, at the time of or
before the hearing, by any owner or adjoining owner who would be a proper party to the petition but has
not joined therein. When only a portion of a street, alley or public reservation is proposed to be vacated,
the petition shall not be granted if a written objection is filed with the clerk of the governing body by any
owner of lands that adjoin the portion to be vacated.
(b) Any lands excluded pursuant to this section shall be listed for future taxation as though the lands
had never been a part of such city. The city clerk shall certify a copy of such ordinance containing the
order to the register of deeds of the county in which such property is located. The register of deeds shall
record in the deed records of the county at the expense of the petitioner or petitioners, and the register of
deeds shall also write on the margin of the recorded plat of such townsite or addition, the words "canceled
by order" or "canceled in part by order," as the case may be, giving reference thereon to the page and
book of records where the ordinance containing the order is recorded in the register's office.
History: L. 1905, ch. 519, § 2; R.S. 1923, § 12-505; L. 1967, ch. 82, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 65, § 4; L.
1997, ch. 147, § 2; L. 2021, ch. 44, § 4; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
L. 1862, ch. 108, §§ 2, 3, 5; G.S. 1868, ch. 108, p. 1072, §§ 2, 3; L. 1877, ch. 190, §§ 2, 4; L. 1891, ch. 245, § 2; L. 1897, ch.
267, §§ 2, 4.
1/1
0 60 120 240 360 480
Feet
i
191 9di7711-ldz
�J
0 .79-' / 7DO
I J
W
+"JI
UT \
Q ; 1S woSd�6�S�
\ V
1
7S
-. -r •� v •. or = ar es .s os or -r ar
N
N-a-l-d\d�-
\ V
1
7S
-. -r •� v •. or = ar es .s os or -r ar
N-a-l-d\d�-
•M
�
x, , '� r a t
\ V
1
7S
-. -r •� v •. or = ar es .s os or -r ar
J
4
V
i
a
•M
�
x, , '� r a t
Z
►�/ �°
+
sr rr•+. >rr �
0 J t
�
� \ �-.—�.1' 1A/sl
T'
I
J
� O
J
4
V
i
a
Attachment
Background Report
Pestinger Property
BACKGROUND REPORT
In the spring of 2017, City staff was approached by Shelly Bigham and her husband Mick
who had a plan to construct a brand new 15,000 sq. ft. state of the art indoor gun range to
include a pro shop, snack bar and training center on a 5.04 acre unplatted tractjust outside
the city limits on Old Highway 40. The subject property was owned by Pestinger
Enterprises, LLC and the Bighams planned to lease the property.
The Bighams met with the City of Salina Development Review Team (DRT) on April 5,
2017 to discuss their development plans. Two items that were discussed were that indoor
shooting ranges were not presently an allowed use within the city of Salina and the need
for potable water and fire protection. The Bighams indicated that the wells on the property
were contaminated and they expressed a desire to connect to the City's water system. In
2013, the West Grand — West North Street water line loop was completed and there is a 12
inch public water line that runs along the north edge of the proposed gun range site so a
public water supply was potentially available to serve the site. Annexation and an Outside
the City Water Agreement were discussed as options at the DRT meeting. As that time it
was anticipated that an onsite septic system would be installed. The closest available
sewer line is on North Street about 250 ft. east of Broadway Boulevard.
In the fall of 2017, the Director of Utilities received a written request from Shelly Bigham
requesting that the City of Salina provide water service to the proposed facility to be built
on the Pestinger property located on Old Highway 40 in Saline County. As justification for
their request, Ms. Bigham pointed to the fact that the wells on the property had been tested
and showed signs of contamination. The Bighams were also concerned that an indoor
shooting range would be an allowed use under Saline County's Zoning Regulations but not
under the City's Zoning Ordinance at that time.
These types of requests for City utilities that do not include annexation have generally been
addressed through Outside the City Water and Sanitary SewerAgreements with Consents
to Future Annexation. The most recent of those was a 2015 agreement that allowed the
Webster Conference Center to connect to the City's sewer system due to health concerns
about a failing septic system. Staff's research shows that three other properties along the
west side of Old Highway 40 adjacent to the city limits have Outside the City Water
Agreements — Walco in 1985, Farmers and Ranchers in 1998 and Mid Kansas
Underground in 2009. The City's long time policy has been to require properties served by
City utilities to be annexed, except for industrial uses. The agreements approved in 1985,
1998 and 2009 fell within the industrial exception.
City staff brought Shelly Bigham's request to the City Commission on October 2, 2017
asking that the Commission provide staff with preliminary policy direction on responding to
her request. Staff reported that no cost recovery mechanism had been decided on or put in
place for the North Street water line extension project so staff was not able to calculate
what this property's share of the cost of that line would be. Staff also pointed out the need
for a survey and accurate legal description of the property in order to calculate the hook up
BACKGROUND REPORT
Page 2
fee that would be charged and to finalize a connection agreement and consent to
annexation agreement. Following discussion and questions, the City Commission voted 5-0
to direct staff to prepare and finalize an Outside the City Water Connection Agreement and
Consent to Future Annexation with Pestinger Enterprises and Michael and Shelly Bigham
dba Centerfire Range and Training Center.
Following the October 2 meeting, staff received a survey and legal description of the
property and determined that a connection fee was the preferred method for recovering the
costs associated with constructing the North Street water line extension.
The draft Outside the City Water Connection Agreement prepared by staff would have
allowed the future business on this property to connect to the City's North Street water line
but would not require that they connect to the line if they are not required to do so by the
State Fire Marshal or some other entity. A connection to the line would require the payment
of a "connection fee' to the City as determined by the Director of Utilities.
At its November 6, 2017 meeting the Salina City Commission approved a zoning text
amendment that added indoor shooting ranges to the list of conditional uses allowed in the
C-3 (Shopping Center) district, the C-5 (Service Commercial) district, the C-6 (Heavy
Commercial) district, the C-7 (Highway Commercial) district, the 1-2 (Light Industrial) district
and the 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) district. Prior to this action indoor shooting ranges were not a
listed use in the Salina Zoning Ordinance. However, at that same November 6th meeting,
Shelly Bigham informed the City Commission that the Centerfire Range was no longer
interested in connecting to the City's water system and planned to rely on well water
instead, essentially withdrawing Centerfire's request.
On December 11, 2017, the Saline County Planning and Zoning Director signed off on a
building permit for a metal building at 1097 West Old Highway 40 that was to house the
Centerfire shooting range. Tom Pestinger was the property and building owner and
Centerfire was to be the tenant. After construction began, the Bigham's determined they
had not sold enough shooting range memberships and they abandoned the project leaving
an unoccupied metal building and a septic system on the site.
In 2018, Tom Pestinger approached the City with an offer to sell the undeveloped portion
of this 5.04 acre parcel (essentially the north half) to serve as the location of a new Police
Department Training Facility and Shooting Range. This would be an alternate location for
the facility originally proposed to be located on Yost Drive. As noted, the City's policy has
been to not allow the extension of City utilities to serve residential, commercial and
institutional uses outside the city limits and to deny permission to connect to existing
utilities unless the connecting property is annexed into the city.
Therefore, Mr. Pestinger filed an application to annex this 5.04 acre tract into the city to
allow the property to connect to the City water system for domestic use and fire protection.
Upon annexation, this property would also receive City police and fire protection. Although
the property owner did not request a change in zoning classification from Industrial, this
application was referred to the Planning Commission to determine the most appropriate
BACKGROUND REPORT
Page 3
land use and zoning classification for the property if it were annexed and to make a
recommendation as to the advisability of annexing the property.
Availability of City Water and Sewer Service
There is a 12 inch public water line that runs along the north edge of this 5.04 acre tract
that is capable of providing domestic water and fire protection to both building sites. There
is no public sanitary sewer service west of Broadway Boulevard and the closest available
public sewer is 250 ft. west of Broadway on North Street. Mr. Pestinger proposed retaining
his septic system for the existing building and the City proposed a design for a private
sewer lift station and force main to connect the Police Department Training Facility to the
City's sewer system.
Availability of Other Utilities
The Pestinger property is currently served by both Westar Energy and Kansas Gas.
Because this property lies within Westar's certificated territory, there would be no franchise
or service territory issues associated with annexation of this property.
Because the subject property is not located within a rural water district, there were no
service territory issues associated with Mr. Pestinger's annexation request.
Drainage
The majority of this property will drain east to the old Dry Creek cutoff channel.
Street Access and Improvements
The proposed shooting range site had frontage on and would have had access to Old
Highway 40, a former US highway, which is a paved County road but a road that does not
meet current City street standards. Because there is dedicated public right-of-way for Old
Highway 40, the roadway would have also needed to be annexed and would have become
the responsibility of the city if this annexation request is approved.
Land Use and Zoning Classification
This property is currently zoned IH (Industrial) in Saline County and the owner is requesting
that it retain its Industrial zoning classification if their property is annexed.
Under Kansas law, when a county property is annexed into a city, the property retains its
zoning classification and any accompanying land use restrictions until the annexing city
changes the zoning. Colonial Investment Co. v. City of Leawood (1982). If the Citytakes no
affirmative zoning action this property would come into the city zoned 1-2 (Light Industrial).
Staff concurs that 1-2 is the most appropriate zoning classification for this property at this
point in time and indoor shooting ranges are a listed conditional use in the 1-2 zoning
district.
BACKGROUND REPORT
Page 4
Conformance of Annexation Request with Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is shown as being located within the City's Urban Service Area on the
Urban Service Area map and as part of a future Employment (Industrial) area on the
Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently
zoned IH (Heavy Industrial) in the county. Based upon the current Saline County zoning of
IH (Industrial Heavy), it is likely that if the property on Old Highway 40 were annexed it
would come into the city zoned 1-2.
Comprehensive Plan - Policies
Page 2-33 of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following recommendations regarding
utility extensions:
"In general, utility extensions should occur in an orderly, efficient manner where a
need exists or development is proposed or will be encouraged by the City to meet
an economic development goal or implement the vision of this plan. Thus,
infrastructure should be provided just in time to support development, occur in a
contiguous manner adjacent to existing services and facilities and support these
developments that embrace the vision and goals of the community.
Infrastructure should not be used to support leapfrog development nor should it
facilitate scattered or disorganized development. Development that is proposed at
the outer edges of the growth areas should wait until development and
infrastructure has reached that area... As growth occurs within identified growth
areas, it should be served by infrastructure systems that are efficient and
adequately sized...
Additionally, infrastructure will be provided to contiguous uses that are within the
city of Salina or in the process of being annexed into the city. In no case shall
municipal infrastructure be extended to support development that is not within the
city limits at the time of development. Extension of infrastructure to serve
development outside the city, or not willing to become part of the city, is not an
effective use of resources for the future of the community."
Page 2-41 of the Comprehensive Plan contains additional recommendations regarding
annexation:
Figure 2-6: Urban Service Area Planning Map shows some of the initial areas
identified for annexation based on their proximity to the city limits and availability of
infrastructure. Future community growth through annexation should adhere to the
recommendations and policies for growth and infrastructure provision previously
discussed to provide growth patterns that are an efficient use of public resources.
These recommendations / policies include:
Direct new growth to the edges of the existing city limits within identified growth
areas, avoid leapfrog development;
• Continue to grow outward within identified growth areas;
BACKGROUND REPORT
Page 5
Extend infrastructure to serve growth areas that are immediately contiguous to
the community, existing development and existing infrastructure; and
Do not provide services or extend infrastructure to development outside the city
that has not been annexed or is (not) willing to consent to annex.
The City Commission ultimately decided not to pursue this site as a location for the Police
Training Facility. The facility was built at the south end of Yost Drive as originally planned.
As a result, Mr. Pestinger withdrew his applications to annex and plat the property and his
request to connect to the City's water distribution system. His site in only served by a
private well and septic system.
Sesus •eur e e
Tot,,9 X I
of, XA&H P[0 )Sam L60II
aaluao 2ucuts.iy 2? a2usg a.n;aalu
S
a0 s IsII
I OtG9 sesuex 'euiles
06 ?ii P[0 osaM G601II I I II
aaaua� 8uiuieay a.9ue� oil Illa�
,a!r Y lu
W
3 '1
ii
4F.r
y� iPr7"�i
U; -t
0
INTERSTATES
ROAD NETWORK
EXISTING RAILROAD
PROPOSED RAILROAD
RIVERS
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN LEVEE
_ CITY LIMITS
FUTURE ANNEXATION
AREAS
COMMERCIAL
EMPLOYMENT
URBAN RESIDENTIAL I
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
PARKS & RECREATION
CONSERVATION
URBAN SERVICE AREA
(Summary published in The Salina Journal on June _, 2022.)
(Published on the City of Salina's website from June _ to June , 2022.)
ORDINANCE NUMBER 22-11118
AN ORDINANCE ORDERING THE EXCLUSION (DEANNEXATION) OF CERTAIN LAND
IN THE CHICAGO ADDITION FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY IN
CONFORMITY WITH K.S.A. 12-504 AND 12-505.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Body of the City of Salina, Kansas:
Section 1. Petition and Public Hearing. A petition has been filed with the City Clerk by Tom
Pestinger requesting the exclusion (deannexation) of certain lots in Block 6 of Chicago Addition to the
City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, from the boundaries of the City, legally described as:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 6 and Park No. 1 and Park No. 2, all in the Chicago Addition to
the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas and the vacated right-of-way for Logan avenue
located west of the relocated channel of Dry Creek abutting Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 and
Park No. 1 and Park No. 2 and a north -south alley abutting Lots 1 and 3, Block 6, and
Park No. 2 all in the Chicago Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas. (the
"Property").
A notice of a public hearing on the petition was published in The Salina Journal, the official city
newspaper, on May 23, 2022. A public hearing on the petition was held by the Governing Body on June
13, 2022.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The Governing Body determines from the evidence
presented:
(A)Due and legal notice of the public hearing was given by publication as required by law.
(B) No private rights will be injured or endangered by the exclusion because de -annexation
would only result in the straightening of the city limit boundary.
(C) The public will suffer no loss or inconvenience by the exclusion (deannexation of this
property from the city limits.
(D)In justice to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner ought to be granted because the
remainder of the petitioner's property is outside of the city limits.
(E) The public interest is promoted by the exclusion (de -annexation) because the City would no
longer have law enforcement and code enforcement responsibility for this area.
Section 3. Order of Exclusion (Deannexation). The Property as described in Section 1 is
ordered excluded (deannexed) from the boundaries of the City of Salina.
Section 4. Recording and Notation on Plat. As required by K.S.A. 12-505, the City Clerk
shall certify a copy of this ordinance to the office of the Saline County Register of Deeds for the purpose
of recording this ordinance in relation to the Property and writing on the margin of the recorded plat of
Chicago Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, the words "canceled in part by order,"
giving reference thereon to the page and book of records where're the ordinance containing the order is
recorded in the office of the Saline County Register of Deeds.
Section 5. Effective Upon Adoption and Publication by Summary. This ordinance shall be
in full force and effect from and after its adoption and publication once in the official city newspaper by
the following summary:
Ordinance No. 22-11118 Summary
On June 13, 2022 the City of Salina, Kansas, passed Ordinance No. 22-11118. The ordinance excludes
(deannexes) from the boundaries of the City of Salina that portion of Chicago Addition to the City of
Salina, Kansas located west of the relocated channel for Dry Creek. A complete copy of the ordinance is
available at www.salina-ks. eov or in the office of the city clerk, 300 W. Ash Street, free of charge. This
summary is certified by the city attorney.
Introduced: June 13, 2022
Passed: June 27, 2022
Trent W. Davis, M.D., Mayor
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
JoVonna A. Rutherford, City Clerk
The publication summary set forth above is certified this day of June, 2022.
Greg A. Bengtson, City Attorney