Planning Body Organization
','.'~", '.
-I
i
~
'1
PLANNING BODY ORGANIZATION STUDY
ï
.,;
- SALI NA-SAL I NE COUNTY, KAr~SAS
.,
j
"
..
'\
¡
..
1
j
J
¡¡
1
J
Presented To:
'1
.
1
J
SALINE COUNTY COMMISSION
SALINA CITY COMMISSION
-;¡
'1
¡i
March 22,1971
.,
;
"
!'
,I
"
ï
:;
'"
"
BUCHER & \HLLIS
Consulting Engineers, Planners & Architects
Salina,
Kansas
~ U Π[R
~
W ll)
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS. ARCHITECTS
~
ì
60S W. NORTH ST., SALlNA.KANSAS 67401' 913/02:7-3603
6163 TtlE PASEO, KANSAS CITY. MO.64110' eIG/36~1-269G
PARTNERS
ASSOCIATES
,
,
j
L
JAMES' 0, BUCHER
SHELBY K. WILLIS
KAY C, BLOOM
SAL.INA, KANSAS
G. HAROLD LAMfERS
ROBERT R. MYERS
LYLE E. LIGHTrOOT
March 22,1971
Saline County Co~~ission
and
Salina City Cørnmission
City-County Building
Salina, Kansas 67401
Re:
Planning Body Organization
Study
Dear Sirs:
\
,
It is our pleasure to present the findings of the brief
organization study to expose the advantages and detriments of the
several permissive methods to organize city and county planning
bodies. ,The comments offered as to regional or joint planning
commissions for city and county are dependent upon the degree of
cooperative understanding which exists between the city and the
county. There does not appear to be a single instance now, future
or past, where actions taken in either the city or the county
cannot but benefit the other. Therefore, objectively, the goals
and intents of the city should be the sa~e as that of the county
and vice versa. This condition provides a sound basis of a gov-
erning body partnership that is needed to permit planning to be
most efficient and effective.
It is our earnest hope that this study can serve t:o further
approach this desirable goal.
Very Sincerely Yours,
JD:3 : psm
Enclosure
BUCHER & ~nLI,IS
,/---'1 ./. '-J. ,,-) -
" /L/ -- ) ./
U':--rJ'¡'Î'1".-~ /...:- :'~ ./-(>(~;:.':--/L-~-
,James D. Bucher
, I
!j
SUMHARY
This exploratory study of planning structure to adequately
serve Salina and Saline County produced the following findings
and comments:
1.
There is a wide choice of operational vrocedures under
existing state authorizing statutes.
2.
Ther~ is a sharp need for more effective cooperation in
plannjng.
3.
One planning staff for Salina and the 3-mile area and/or
entire County is needed and is efficient to perform plan-
ning and regulatory controls.
4.
A Regional Planning Commission having jurisdiction for
the entire County appears to be advantageous, providing
desirable partnership cooperation can be achieved.
5.
Present zoning, subdivision regulations, sanitary codes and
zoning maps are not coordinated and are inadequate to
withstand-legal court test.
6.
Existing and future land use plans for City, 3-mile area,
and balance of County are inadequate.
7.
There is a sharp need for a 5-year committed planning pro-
gram proposed by Planning Body and approved by City and
County governing bodies.
--i-
. PRELDlINARY REPORT
ORGANIZATION STUDY OF PLANNING AGENCIES
Saline County and Salina, Kansas
l-1arch,197l
BUCHER & WILLIS
We submit the findings herein given in accordance with the
agreement dated 11/10/70 between Saline County, Salina and Bucher
& Willis as consultants which stipulated the following services
be performed:
Organizational Exploration
The Consultant will explore and display the several methods
permitted by the Kansas Statutes and describe the experiences of
seVeral agencies now operating in the various methods. These ex-
periences will be related to the Salina-Saline County conditions.
The history of creation of the present planning commission and
boards and the installation of zoning and subdivision will be
furnished from City and County records by the City and the County;
and there conditions will be compare~ to current statutory author-
ities and practices. The status of comprehensive planning as
necessary to pass the customary legal screen will be reviewed
and reported. The City Attorney and the County Attorney will
perform legal reviews and render an opinion on the above.
The Consultant will offer the several organizational procedures,
give the advantages and disadvantages of each and will suggest a
procedure that appears most likely to produce effective planning.
The findings of, this study will be prep~red in twenty (20) copies,
and the Consultant shall attend not to exceed four (4) meetings
with the City-County bodies.
HISTORY - Salina Planning Commission.
The Salina City Planning Commission was established March 2,
1925 by Ordinance No. 3083 enacted by Mayor J.S. Hargett, and the
C°rrt.'11ission ,,¡as organized on Hay 1, 1925. The Salina City Planning
Commission was composed of 7 members, all resident within the
City of Salina. The Salina City Planning Commission was reformed
under KSA 12-701, as per paragraph 21-101, 1960 Salina Code, to a
9-member commission of which 7 shall reside in the City and 2 shall
reside in the 3-mile area surrounding Salina.
.,1-
\
¡
\
i
f
i
i '
I'
I
!
I
Î
Formal planning reports were prepared to 4ate as follows:
Plan ~eports:
Salina Planning Report - Hare & Hare ---------------
Salina Planning Report - Wilson & Co. --------------
Salina Off-Street Parking Report - Buch2r & willis -
Guide for Growth - City Planning Department --------
Salin~ Comprehensive Plan - Wilson & Co. -----------
Salina Ttansportation Plan - Wilson & Co. ----------
Salin~ Water System Study - Bucher & Willis --------
Salina Park Study - Bucher & Willis ----------------
Salina Water Study - Wilson & Co. ------------------
Salina Community Rene\.¡al Plan - Bucher & Willis ----
1951
1955
1961
1961
1965
1965
1967
1967
1968
1970
Zoning Regulations:
Ordinance #3188 -- 11-23-1925
Revisions - Ords. #3576, 3632, 3829,3834,3863,4102,
4357, 4606, 4671, 4750, 4763, 4771, 4984,5186 and 5549
Ordinance #6613 -- 3-20-1962
Revisions - Ords. #6782, 6845, 6877,7034 and 8030 (to
11-20-1970)
Subdivision Regulations:
Ordinance #6751 -- 12-2-1963
Certificate of Occupancy:
Ordinance #6613 3-20-1962
Building Permits:
Ordinance #2993 -- 6- 7-1924
Ordinance #6199 -- 12-30-1957
Ordinance #6613 -- J-20-1962
The City of Salina created the.position of City Planner, and
this position has been held by the following planners:
Mr. Richard Preston -------
Mr. Norris Olson ----------
Mr. Duane Pearce ----------
}IT. Thomas Darnell --------
7/18/60
7/ 1/63
11/30/64
2/10/69
to 11/15/62
to 5/ 1/64
to 4/ 5/68
to Date
The present City Planning Commission is composed of the fol-
lowing me~bers (11-20-70):
Mr. John Ryberg, Chairman
Mr. Pat Bolen, Vice-Chairman
Mr. J. D. Patterson
Hr. william Reimold
Hr. Lee Havlorth
Hr. Frank Langshaw
Mr. E. A. DaHdy
Dr. Neal Jenkins
-2-
\
{
I
\
í
(
\
I
I
!
\
I
\
,
,
t
I
I
I
i
(
¡
\
/
~
I
t
,
i
!
The Zoning Board of Appeals was established by Ordinance #6613,
3-20-62 and is now composed of the following members:
Mr. J. D. Patterson
Mr. Leonard Altman
Mr. Joe Mcndicina
Mr. vlilliam Grosser, Jr.
Mr. John Sabin
The building, housing, health and recreation programs are
administered by the following boards and commit~ees:
Building Board of Aþpeals -----
Building Code Advisory Board --
Electricians Exam. Board ------
Housing Authority of the
City of Salina --------------
Joint City-County Health Bd. --
Plumbing and Gas Fitters
Examining Board -------------
Plumbing Board of Appeals -----
Recreation Commission ---------
Salina Airport Authority ------
Urban Rene\va1 Agency ----------
Ord. #6805 - 8-17-64 - 5 members
Ord. #7060 - 6- 1-68 - 10 members
Ord. #6075"- 7-24-56 - 6 members
Ord. #2954 - 9-11-67 - 5 members
- 7~ 5-55 - 10 members
Ord. #8038 - 8-18-69 -
- 6-24-68 -
3 members
6 members
5 members
5 members
5 members
Ora. #6854 - 4-26-65 -
Ord. #2821 - 4-12-65 -
HISTORY - Saline County Planning.
The Planning Board fòr Saline County, Kansas was created with
5 members by the County Commission on July 1, 1942~ The "Zoning
and Master Plan Resolution of Saline County, Kansás" was adopted
by the County COImnission on May 19, 1953 with the IIterritory"
being all of the area of Saline County except corporate cities of
Salina, Brookville, New Cambria, Assaria, and Gypsum, and the town
sites of Smolan, Mentor, and all lands of the U.S. Government.
This 5-19-53 resolution did adopt Platting Regulations, did require
Permits & Certificates of Occupancy, except for agricultural uses,
did create a Board of Zoning Adjustment, and did create the posi-
tion of Administrative Officer.
The present Saline County Planning Board is a 5-man board
consisting of:
Doris "lins low
Russell Jones
\'layne Johnson
Paul Hall
Gordon Forsberg
Herb Callon - County Engineer,
Ex-Officio
-3-
Mr. Ronald Richmond serves as Administrative Officer. There
is no record of a planning study having been made of , the County
as the 1953 "Zoning and Master Plan Resolution of Saline County,
Kansas" is comprised of only zoning and platting regulations
and a small-scale district zoning map. A countý road survey
was performed through the County Engineer's office by Wilson &
Company in 1969.- A complete reappraisal of tax assessment was
made through the County Clerk's office with the assistance of
united Appraisal Company. A complete population enumeration was
performed by the County Clerk as of January 1, 1969. Saline County
did, on November 10, 1970, contract with Bucher & Willis, subject
to approval of an FHA grant, to perform a county-wide water and
sewer study.
PLANNING STATUS.
Salina Status:
The existing land use of the City was up-dated to 8-1-69 by a
field survey in the process of performing the Community Renewal
Plan and a brief study in 1969 prepared a small-scale, generalized
future land use plan of the City and a portion of the 3-mile area
around the City., There has been substantial change in the econ-
omy, lanßuse, schools and directio~ and type of growth in the
City since the 1965 comprehensive report was prepared in 1963-64.
The zoning and subdivision regulations have been partially revised
by numerous amendments since adoption on 3-20-62. There has been
considerable residential, coffiTI1ercial and industrial development
of an urban nature and density in the 3-mile area around the City.
Salina is a prime source of~vater supply to the 3-mile area, and
there is serious and urgent need for cooperative effort to provide
adequate planning and development regulations in the 3-mile area
as portions of ~his area will likely soon become a part of the
corporate City.
The zoning and subdivision regulations are of a cuJnmulative
construction and do not include recent statutory provisions for
adequate control. The City plan and regulations, essential plan-
ning tools to permit process of an effective planning program,
are in rather urgent need of update and do need to be coordinated
with regulations and administration of the County.
State statutes now provide very precise criteria for Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.) Districts, and authorization for the
establishment of flood plain districts has also been added. The
procedure for appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning
-4-
.
¡
¡
I
I
¡
I
I
i
!
\
!
!
Appeals has been chan~ed and a lot split provision is now required
to be a part of the Subdivision Regulations. It should be empha-
sized that when a state statute becomes effective, any city ordi-
nance that is in conflict with the state statute is void and
unenforceable.
The present practices of City Planning Activities for cases
within the City limits are as follows:
zoning Change --
#
Petitioner file application and fee with City Clerk.
Petition (P) referred to City Commission (CC).
CC refer to City Planning ConMission (CPC).
CPC refer to City Planning Staff (PS).
PS study and make report to CPC.
CPC advertise Public Hearing.
CPC hold Public Hearing and send recommendation to CC.
Citizen protest period.
CC make decision on petition.
Publication effectuating change.
Petitioner may appeal to District Court.
Suggest clerk refer direct to CPC-PS.
n
tt
Plat --
#
#
Applicant file preliminary plat and fee with City Clerk.
City Clerk refer to CC.
CC refer to CPC.
CPC refer to City Planning
owners within 200 feet
for review of plat.
City Planning staff review, coordinate with Engineering,
Uti1itißs, Poli~e, Fire, and Ci~y Clerk and report to CPC.
CPC review plat and' findings and approve preliminary plat.
Applicant submit final plat to City Planning staff.
City Planning Staff review plat and report to CPC.
CPC review final plat and send reco~nendations to CC.
CC review and approve plat and plat can be filed for record.
Applicant file plat with Register of Deeds.
Suggest plat be referred by Clerk direct to CPC-PS.
Staff and notify all property
of s~bject property of date set
t
Va~iance, Exception and Special Use P~rmit --
Petitioner make application to City Clerk.
City Clerk refer to Building Official (Administrative Officer
of Board of Zoning Appeals).
-5-
#
Building Officer review and report to
City Planning staff review and report
Building Official advertise for Board
Hearing.
Bo~rd of Zoning Appeals hold Public Hearing and make decision.
_Building Official report to Petitioner and/or issue permit.
Appeal to City Co~~ission.
petitionei appeal should be to District Court. (Statute was
revised in 1965 changing appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals
to the District Court.)
City Planning Staff.
to Building Official.
of Zoning Appeals Public
Building -Permit --
Applicant make application and pay fee to Building Official.
Building Official review and issue or deny building permit or
if debatable, submit to Building Board of Appeals for
ruling.
Mobile Home Park, Community Unit Plan and Industrial Park
Mobile home regulations are now limited
nance and are not covered by Zoning
Regulations. Substantial review of
procedure is now under preparation.
to a special City Ordi- .
or Subdivision
this ordinance and
Certificate of Occupancy -- Not enfcirced.
'-
:'<"
The procedures practiced by the City appear, except as noted
thus # above, to be adequate and in accordance with usual and
statutory procedures except for the Certificate of Occupancy which
should either be enforced or regulation voided.
It is apparent that the zoning district map at a scale of
111 = 200' woulq be desirable, and that the 111 = 200' record of
existing land use is an" excellent record and is adequately up-to-
date. Considerable revision of the zoning and subdivision regula-
tions is quite in order, and the future land use plan is not
adequate for a successful planning and zoning administration pro-
gram. The future land use plan is general and at a small scale;
it should be analyzed in considerably more depth, taking into
account the various sub-categories of residential, commercial and
industrial land use.
-6-
ì
-.
.'
¡
I
Saline County Status:
¡
¡
I
I
I
The formal, t'/ritten plans for the 3-mile area include a Road &
Bridge Study - Saline çounty, a portion of the 3-mile area shown
on the 1965 Comprehensive Plan, and a district zoning map of the
3-mile area and a portion of the County. It is quite probable
that this present planned condLtion would be found deficient, if
tested in court, to support a regulatory program. The minimum
planning tools essential to operation of regul~tory controls include:
A current land use mŒp; A current future land use map; A definitive
district zoning map; and Enforceable regulatory laws. Planning
tools necessary to operation of an effective planning program
include written plans for the following: Population; Economics
and Agriculture; Housing; Community Facilities (school, park,
police, fire, roåds, ambulance, solid waste, '.vater, se1,.¡er, storm
water, hospital and nursing homes); Existing and Future land use;
Capital improvement priority; and Regulatory controls. The zoning
and platting regulations presently in force deserve considerable
revision to bring into a condition normally considered desirable
and the zoning maps are considered quite inadequa~e for adminis-
trativ~ purposes.
I
!
,.
, -
State statutes have been changed regarding county zoning and
subdivision regulations, and a complete review of the regulations
is necessary to correct all the inco~sistencies. Many changes in
development techniques have also occurred since the adoption of
the regulations, and revision to update in this manner is also
necessary. It is essential that the county prepare an accurate
existing land u~e plan and keep it current. Based on the analysis -
of the existing land use plan, a future land use plan must be
developed which in turn servès as the basis for the development
of the zoning district map. The county does not have existing and
future land use plans; and therefore, has no legal basis for
establishing zoning districts. Consequently, the county would be
in a poor position to provide sufficient jurisdiction for its
actions in a court of law.
There are byo operating water districts in the county and a
third is now under study. The County has made application for
an FHA grant to perform a county-wide water and sewer study, and
it is intended that this study will produce a brief population-
economic-agriculture study of entire County, a rather detailed
çxtsting land use and future land use map for the 3-mile area
and will suggest City-County cooperative policy and procedures
regarding water and sewer development in the 3-mile area around
S¿¡,lina.
-7-
Statutory Authorities:'
The Kansas Statutes authorize planning and planninq regulations
as follm.¡s:
City Authorities -~
12-701 --- Create City Planning Commission (7-15 m(~mbers)
12-704 --- Prepare and Adopt City Plan
12-704 --- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction - Plans
12-705a -- Subdivision Regulations
12-705a -- Joint Committee for Subdivision Regulations
12-705b Plats Required
12-705c Major street Plan - Official Map
12-708 --- Zoning Regulations
12-7l5b -- Extraterritoriall Zoning in Area Adjacent to City
12-714 --- Board of Zoning Appeals
12-3009 -- Code Adoption by Reference
12-716 --- Joint or Regional Planning
12-722 --- Joint Board of Zoning Appeals
12-1750 -- Unsafe Structures
12-4759 -- Unsafe St~uctures (Beautification Statute)
12-101,13-401, 13-436 & Chap. 17, Art. 23 & 47 - Minimum
Housing Code
12-725 --- Planned Unit Develop~ent
County Authorities --
19~2915 -- Create Countx Planning Board (5-9 members)
19-2914 -- Prepare and Adopt County Plan
Chap. 71, Sec. 8 -- Subdivision Regulations
65-184 --- Sanitation Regulations
19-2918b - Joint Committee for Subd~vision Regulations
19-2919 -- Zoning Regulations
19-2926a - Board of Zoning Appeals (3-7 members)
12-3303 -- Adoption of Codes by Reference
12-3301 -- Building Code (untested in court)
12-716 --- Joint or Regional Planning
12-725 --- Planned Unit Development
Planning Organization Structure:
The Kansas Statutes authorize a rather broad set of alternates
for organization of City, County and 'Joint or Regional planning
i.1'j(~:ìcies. The four sketches on the follmoJÌng page describe the
-8-
Condition ttl -- CPC & Co. PB
.---~-
Condition #2 -- CPC w/ETJ and
Co. PB
~~
Ico~
Condition #3 -- Jt. 3-Mile CPC
and Co. PB
Condition #4 -- Reg. PC (Spec.
\
Agreement *)
* -- 3-mile cases referred to Co. C for comment and forwarded to
CC for action.
11
,8
City of Salina.
3-Mi1e Area around Salina.
Saline County.
Path of procedure requ~ring Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction.
CPC = City Planning Commission (12-701)
Co. PB = County Planning Board (19-2915)
JPC = Joint or Regional Planning Commission with City and 3-mi1e
Area Jurisdiction (12-716)
Reg. PC = Joint or Regional Planning Commission with City and
County-wide Jurisdiction (12-716)
City = Salina
C.C. = Salina City Commission
Co. C = Saline County Commission
ETJ = City Planning Commission with 3-mi1e Extraterritorial Juris-
diction = --- path (12-704)
::ote:
The planning and r~gulatory authority of the county is
limited to the unincorporated 'area except where a city
delegates its subdivision authority to the county.
-9-
vdrious
ptlths.
conditions of planning agencies and the approval procedure
Examples of co!1@unities pr¿wticing under given administrative
conditions:
Condition #2
Condition #3
Condition #4
(wI variations)
condition #1
Salina
Hutchinson.
HcPherson
Concordia
Emporia
None in Kansas
at present --
many under
consideration
Beatrice, Nebr.
Garden Ci ty ,
Dodge City
Hays
Wichita
Topeka
Leavem..¡orth
Fort Scott
It is the duty of this study to expose the known advantages
and detriments of each of the conditions and are given as follows:
Condition #1 -- CPC + Co. P.B.
This is the present Salina-Saline County organization.
A.
This condition structurally lacks the cooperation in the
city-3 mile area to offer a coordinated plan with regard
to water, sewer, land use, ioads, fire, police, refuse,
and other community facilities. .
B.
This condition seldom produces uniformity of regulations
or administration.
C.
A separate staff for county area and city usually produces
a lower quality of staff service at a higher cost than one
joint staff.
D.
The paths of staff, planning cowuission and governing body
review are isolated without a structural check and balance
between the interested bodies permitting development of
different and even opposite policies and goals.
E.
It has proven true that absence (of cooperation) does not
make the heart grow fonder - it is not uncommon for a city
agency to become so imbued with urban-problems and oppor-
tunities to impose actions that are not in the best
interests of the rural residents, and it is equally common
for a county agency to be over-aggressive for the benefit
of rural residents, assessed valuation increase or the
inefficient withhold of necessary public investment to not
be in the best interest of the entire County.
-10-
This structure has a long and rather unsuccessful career ~nd
is partially impractical where the city is over 4,000 population
~nd a condition of urban growth exists.
condition #2 -- CPC (ETJ) + Co. P.B.
To achieve this condition in Salina-Saline County ~~ould require
that these steps"be taken:
A.
County Planning Board recommend and County Co:!"M:lÌssion
hold Public Hearing and then abate regulations in 3-mile
àrea around Salina.
B.
City notify County of intent to regulate development in
3-mile area after 60 days notice period.
C.
City Planning Commission be composed of minimum of 2 mem~
hers from 3-mile area, draft and recommend regulations and
plan for 3-mile area and City Commission hold hearing and
adopt regulations.
: .
D.
Cases are referred only to City Planning Commission and
City COJrunission for review and action.
This condition does avoid the disadvantage òf A, B, and C
under Condition #1, but continues the unfavorable status of D and
E. An improvement to this structure, not specifically authorized
by the statutes, would be to have the cases referred to County
Commission for comment and decision by City Commission. The pro-
cedures to accomplish this ETJ condition, requiring abatement of
existing county-regulations" is not considered a detriment as the
present regulations are not adequate and of questionable legal
authority.
Condition #3 --
This condition is the same as {t2, and so are the com.men ts ,
except that referral from JPC to Co. Comm. for action is normal
m~de unless City and County have taken "ETJ" actions. The normal
JPC referral for action to Co. Comm. (except through ETJ) struc-
tures planning cooperation but has no cooperation structures at
~ction level. As stated under #2, this may be improved by a cross
referral JPC to City Corom. for comment and on to the County Com-
~ission for action.
, This condition, while a marked improvement over #1, is slightly
~c5S attractive than #2, as the majority of the cases in the 3-mile
-11-
"
':I!-t~ oJ arc of an urban nature and the City Corruniss ion is usually
r<>!-C practiced in making decisions on urban matters than the County
Co::::ü ssion.
Co:ìòit'ion #4
This condition avoids the given faults A, B, C, D, and E
under Condition #1, and t¡lould appear to have the struc'tural quality
, warranting a successful experience for Salina and Saline County.
This condition presupposes a cooperative partnership having the
need, as a unity base, for a common goal of a planning process
that will create an improved place to live and perform..
Business and Agriculture.
It is recognized that Condition #4 is a rather serious and
large administrative step from the present structure. This step
should be taken only under the condition of enthusiastic coopera-
tion of both governing bodies. If there is a lack of confidence
on this score by either party, then consider in suggested priority
order Condition #2, then Condition #3.
It is under ,Condition #4 that maximum economy of planning and
staff can be achieved as well as durable uniformity. This condi-
tion has the best organizational structure and the most potential
for success, but the degree of effe¿tiveness is dependent primarily
upon the quality of the membership.
It is anticipated that under this condition one staff would
serve the Regional Planning Commission, thus avoiding duplication
of effort and cost while providing the most efficiently coordinat-
ing program. It is recommeriaed that the regional commission
consist of seven to nine members and that the commission establish
sub-committees such as zoning, subdivision, current planning, and
long-range planning, where commissioners will playa more intensive
and active role in the planning process and develop a greater degree
of depth in planning matters. The function of a sub-committee is
to perform the necessary detailed review within the committee as
well as with other clubs, organizations and committees within the
comnunity so that more people will be involved in the planning
program. The sub-committee more or less serves as a screening
group on a given subject and makes a recommendation to the full
planning commission.
. In order to legally form a regional or joint planning corrunis-
S~O~I the city shall by ordinance and the county shall by resolu-
ll~~ enter into agreements providing for such joint planning
-12-
L
r
,.
cooperation. The agreements should contain information on the
follo\ving i terns:
C'
l'
~ ,
L~
r~~"
'- .
, -
.- ,
1.
Jurisdictional Area -- The agreement should contain infor-
mation setting .out the jurisdictional area of t:he Regional
Planning Commission. In this particular instance, it
would include the city of Salina and the unincorporated
area of the county. Provision should be made, however,
for the inclusion of other incorporated communities within
the county if they should so desire. It should also be
specified that zoning applications within the 3-mile area
will be determined by the County Commission as indicated
in the diagram for Condition #4.
2.
Number and Qualifications of Hembers -- The 'agreement
should set out the number of members and the ratio be-
V.veen the city and the county. The ratio normally is
based upon population being served, and the proportionate
share of costs contributed by each governing body. For
example, a nine-member Regional Planning Commission \vould
probably have three county appointees and 6 city appointees.
Normally, an agreement such as this would set out that the
county should appoint so many members and the city should
appoint so many members; however, there normally is no
residence requirement of the appointee. For example, the.
city appointee could live wi~hin the city or anywhere
within the jurisdictional area of the Regional Planning
Commission; and likewise, the county appointees could live
anywhere within the Regional Planning Commission's juris-
dictional area, and it very well could be that a member
would live within the city of Salina. Further qualifica-
tions could be added" to speèify that the membership be
representative of specific groups such as realtors, builders,
attorneys, central business districts, etc.
3.
Employment by Commission -- The agreement should also spec-
ify the method by which a Director of Planning, his staff,
and consultants maybe employed. This item can be handled
in several different methods; in some instances, the
Planning Commission is authorized to retain the Director
of Planning and the Consultants necessary to perform the
work, and authority to hire staff is delegated to the
Director. Most cooperating agencies delegate the authority
of hiring the Planning Director to the City Manager who
also retains the necessary staff. The selection of Con-
sultants, ho\"lever, normally is done by the Planning Com-
mission who under this cooperative agreement has authority
to spend funds.
-13-
4.
Proportionate 'Share of Costs and Expenses -- The agreement
must specify the proportionate share of costs. Information
on this item is contained in the study and upon a determin-
ation of the city and county, the item can be incorporated
into the agreement.
State statutes require that every joint agreement between a
city and county shall, prior to and as a condition precedent to
its entry into force, be submitted to and receive the written
approval of the Attorney General as to the form and compatibility
of such joint agreement with the laws of the State of Kansas.
FUNDING PLANNING PROGR~1.
The funding considerations offered below are based upon the
administration and structure conditions described under Condition
#4.
Funding of Condition #4 could be performed in a variety of
methods. The thesis of a citizen paying specifically for the
public services rendered is a favorable method - get water; pay
water bill; receive sewer service; pay sewer bill. This can only
partially be done for planning servi6es - request for zoning
change, pay fee to cover cost of planning service; same for sub-
division application, building permit, variance, exception, special
use permit, mobile home or development park license - and these
charges should be adequate to fully cover the cost of these ser-
vices. The planning service of public information and the
preparation of city-wide development plans (roads, solid waste,
land use, parks, libraries ang other public facilities) are ser-
vices which cannot be equated directly to an individual service
charge, even though the benefits are very real and necessary.
These are services for the general good ,of the public, necessary
and available to all citizens and therefore warrant general budget
support.
An effective continuing planning program is essential and not
inexpensive. A written 5-year planning program outlining specific
products and staff should be offered by the Planning Body and
adopted by the City and County governing bodies. A one-year cost
budget need be firmly established and monitered by the governing
bodies as to production of stated products throu9h careful review
of a year-end planning body report of accomplishments. In approach-
ing a cost-share basis of City-County, these factors are important:
1.
All residents of the County (urban and rural) benefit from
improved and more efficient service - when county road
-14-
access is improved, then Salina business and Salina resi-
dents benefit,' as well as the rural residents on the
improved road; \,¡hen Salina urban routes are improved, it
is more convenient for both urban and rural; ~alina grows
through increased attractiveness and efficiency results
in improved and enlarged services - better library, park,
playgrounds, colleges, parking, businesses and employment
opportunities - and both urban and rural residents gain.
2.
All residents of the county pay ad valorem taxes
portion to taxable value - urban and rural - and
tax is paid only by Salina residents in addition
county tax.
in pro-
a Salina
to the
3.
The 1970 Census reports population values as follows:
Salina
'3-Hile Areal
'Other I Saline Co.
Total Saline County
37,714
3,274
5,604
46,592
81%
7%
12%
100%
Assume conservatively that 13-Mile Areal and IOther' Saline
County residents receive a value and costs are attributable
at the rate of 1/2 the direct value to Salina residents.
The costs proportion of County Tax-Salina Tax would, on
this basis, be as follows per, $1,000 of planning budget:
SUGGESTED PLANNING BUDGET SOURCE
(Per.$l,OOO of Plan Budget)
Population
Numbers Percent
Relative
Benefit
Ratio
Total Prop.
of $1,000
Plan Budget
City
Tax
County
Tax
--
Salina 37,714 81% (1) $ 905 $500 $405
3-Mile Area 3,274 7% (1/2) 35 35
Other Saline 5,604 12% (1/2) 60 60
- --
County
TOTAL 46,592 100% $1,000 $500 $500
It would therefore seem practical that the initial distribution
cost be on the basis of 50% Salina tax and 50% County tax, and that
should any of the other incorporated cities in the County desire
the services of the Regional Planning Co~~ission, that the pay pro-
portion be on a similar basis. The actual cost experience of the
first two years of operation should be meé1sured as to cost of service
to Salina and other Saline County, and these values should then
guide future proportions.
-15-
I
,
'1
J
1
PLANNING PROGRl~ COMMENTS.
It is outside the scope
proposed planning program.
analy~e organization, it is
include the following:
1
J -
1
j
.,
"I
:1
"
1
j
.J
J
1
t
of this study to recommend a specific
In our search of planned condition to
apparent that the planning needs
*
County-wide water and sewer study - application submitted
to FHA
Secondary road and bridge analysis to comply with BPR
reports -
Extension of the 1969 road and bridge study and update
of capital program'of county road system plan
County-wide solid waste study and plan
Fire district and service analysis
County-wide existing land use plan (a general plan will
result from water-sewer study)
County-wide future land use plan (a general plan will
result from water-sewer study)
Three-mile area existing and future land use plan (a gen-
eral plan will result from water-sewer study)
Improved subdivision and zoning regulations and map -
Salina, 3-mile area, and the county rural area
Population and economic analysis on basis of 1970 Census
of the entire county (a general plan will result from
water-sewer study) .
Capital improvement program - City and County
Law enforcement study and plan - City and County
Update of Community Facilities Plan for Salina and for the
3-mile area - schools, parks, housing, police, fire,
water, sewer, medical, public buildings, storra, streets,
and airport
County has authority to adopt Building Code
*
*
*
*
All of these planning items are necessary to the operation of
an effective planning program, and all of the items are eligible
for 2/3 grant from Housing & Urban Development (HUD) under Section
701 of the Housing Act. Due to the lack of federal funds, it
is reported by Kansas Department of Economic Developmeni: (KDED)
that a ,vai t time of 12 to 18 months after application might be
experienced unless enhanced priority isa\varded by KDED specifically
for Salina-Saline County. A number of communities recognize urgent
need for planning and are proceeding to fund the most urgent items
with local funds with the balance of the cost of the planning study
funded 1/3-1ocal funds, and 2j3-fede:r.-al funds, v¡hen federal funds
become available. In the light of this possibility, we suggest
that the items noted with an asterisk (*) be considered as urgent
to warrant the initial step, if necessary, by total local funds
or other than BUD funds.
-16-