10-06-1997 MinutesAction
97-1226
CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
OCTOBER 6, 1997
4:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
The City Commission convened at 2:30 p.m. in a Study Session to discuss Part
II of the Drainage Feasibility Report (West Salina, Broadway, Ninth and
Claflin.) The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to
order at 4:00 p.m. in Room 107, City -County Building. A roll call was taken
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
There were present:
Mayor Kristin M. Seaton, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Peter F. Brungardt
Commissioner Don Heath
Commissioner Alan Jilka
Commissioner Monte Shadwick
comprising a quorum of the Board, also present:
Absent:
Greg Bengtson, City Attorney
Dennis M. Kissinger, City Manager
Judy D. Long, City Clerk
None.
None.
CITIZEN FORUM
AWARDS - PROCLAMATIONS
(4.1) Resolution Number 97-5201 expressing gratitude and appreciation to
Fire Lieutenant Gary L. Willard for his employment with the City from May 1,
1971 to October 1, 1997.
Mayor Seaton presented a plaque of appreciation to Gary L. Willard.
Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka,
to adopt Resolution Number 97-5201. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried.
(4.2) The Week of October 7th - 11th, 1997 as FIRE PREVENTION WEEK in
the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Carol Vineyard, Public
Education Specialist, Salina Fire Department.
(4.3) The Month of October, 1997 as NATIONAL FAMILY SEXUALITY
EDUCATION MONTH in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by
Amber Hurn, YWCA Project Assistant, "Let's Talk" Campaign for Responsible
Sexuality.
(4.4) The Month of October, 1997 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS
MONTH in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Sandra Dilling,
Executive Director of DVACK.
(4.5) The Month of October, 1997 as BREAST CANCER AWARENESS
MONTH, the Day of October 17, 1997 as MAMMOGRAPHY DAY, and the Day of
October 22, 1997 as BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY in the City of Salina.
The proclamation was read by Linda Smith, Service Chairman for Altrusa.
(4.6) The Month of October, 1997 as the MONTH OF THE YOUNG
ADOLESCENT in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Jane
Haney, TCI of Kansas, Inc., Salina Educational Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
(6.1) Approve the minutes of September 22, 1997.
Action
97-1227
(6.2) Accept donation from Morrison Building Supply of property described
as portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Hutchinson's Addition.
(6.3) Authorize staff to request proposals for the purchase and relocation
of a city -owned house located at 437 S. Fifth Street.
(6.4) Approve the plans and specifications for the construction of a new
wastewater pumping station, Pump Station No. 58, Project No. 97-1073, to
serve properties along South Ninth Street, and set a date to receive bids.
Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to approve all items on the consent agenda. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion
carried.
DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS
(7.1) Application #Z97-7, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission,
requesting an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations by adding Section
36-81 requiring the dedication of land for public park purposes or payment of
a fee in lieu of dedication within residential subdivisions.
(7.1a) First reading Ordinance Number 97-9832.
Roy Dudark, Planning and Community Development Director,
explained that the idea for this proposal came from the Neighborhood Park Plan
as a way to produce new parks. The plan has roughly 80% City funding with
20% from new developments by way of land dedication or fee on each new home
built in those areas. He advised the Commission that the focus of the plan is
to collect fees from the areas where the new parks will be developed, not city
wide. He also informed the Commissioners that the City Planning Commission
has held three public hearings, a meeting with the Board of Realtors and a
meeting with the Homebuilders Association, noting that a number of ideas came
from those meetings. He added that out of this proposal also came an
initiative to look at the cost of residential construction.
Dennis Kissinger, City Manager, explained that this is a new
initiative for the City as an extension of the user fee concept. He advised the
Commission that there are two thresholds to be crossed. There is a strong
policy issue as parks have always been done by the city -at -large and that this
is legitimate opposition to this proposal. Other objections regarding the taking
of land and constitutionality are not seen as valid objections. He clarified that
if the Commission saw the parks system as a purely city -at -large system they
do not have to get into the administration of it. However, if they cross the
threshold for a user based park system then they will need go into the
administration of it the way the City Planning Commission did. In closing, Mr.
Kissinger informed the Commission that if this system is not approved it does
not mean that the City won't build parks in the future, but if it is approved,
there will be seed money to begin.
To Commissioner Jilka's question as to why the City has not been
very successful developing parks in new parts of town, Mr. Kissinger
responded that in the past ten years the focus has been on rebuilding the
existing internal park system with the dollars going into the larger community
parks and smaller vest pocket parks within developed areas. He indicated that
it was not a priority to reach out into newly developed areas noting an
exception being Oxbow Park, the only new park venture in the past ten years.
When Commissioner Shadwick asked if any subdivision, no matter
what size, would have to pay, Mr. Dudark explained that 20 acres or less
would have to pay the fees but would not have to dedicate land. The
Commissioner then asked if that applied anywhere in the City and Mr. Dudark
clarified that it was only in the area that is shown on the map.
Mr. Kissinger added that when this plan was envisioned it was as a
new platting requirement. A one time impact fee on a new plat. Based on
input received, the Planning Commission asked staff for an alternate plan that
would impose the fee at the time of building. If done at the time building
permits are issued on newly platted areas, home owners whose lots back up to
each other may ask why they have to pay $200 when their neighbor doesn't.
It is more logical to begin fresh at some period in time and say all new homes
within these areas, whether previously platted or not, impact the need for a
park and would be subject to paying this impact fee or user fee for parks.
Action
Mr. Dudark identified the new park locations, advising the
Commission that those areas were set in prioritys by the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. The Mayor clarified that she wanted people to realize that
this concept had come before the City Commission when the Neighborhood Park
Plan was presented by the park board.
Mr. Dudark confirmed that the developer pretty much has the option
of land dedication or fee payment. The Planning Commission looks at the Park
Plan, and other options, to see what would be in the best interest of the
City. If they do not agree, they would try to negotiate with the developer.
Mr. Dudark explained that a developer can say that he doesn't want to make
the dedication and then the City Planning Commission would decide if it really
wants the land. It will be up to the City Commission to decide the issue.
Commissioner Heath asked if the developer would receive
compensation for the land that was jointly decided will be a Neighborhood
Park. Mr. Dudark informed him that there are two options for the developer,
1) to give 5% of the raw land for the park, or 2) to pay the fee and keep the
land. He again confirmed that if the City Commission, Park and Recreation
Advisory Board and the City Planning Commission all want the park in this
subdivision then will it be a mandatory land dedication of up to 5% of their
total holdings with no compensation to the developer as the developer's
obligation.
Mr. Kissinger expanded on that issue by stating that the theory is
that the park located within their subdivision adds value to their lots. The
lots are then more desirable being close to a park and are not subject to the
$200 building fee. He clarified that the City Commission could not require a
dedication of land that was disproportionate to the benefit gained by the
developer. The 5% is the general framework but, if the City wanted more land
there may well be discussion.
Mr. Dudark gave an example of what might be seen regarding the
type of land that would most likely be dedicated. Mr. Dudark thought each
developer would see it differently as some land may be in a flood plain, a
flooding area, oxbow or otherwise be costly to develop with streets and
utilities. Land without problems will probably be retained for lot development
so we will have to talk with each developer individually. Mr. Kissinger gave
an example of an area containing a pond noting that a developer may not want
a Homeowners Association to maintain it and may want to give it to the City to
maintain as a park.
Commissioner Heath felt the developer may make up for the loss of
land by charging more for the remaining lots and asked if that wouldn't put
the developer at a disadvantage. Mr. Dudark noted that that may be a
developer's analysis, but that others may see the asset to charge more for the
lots.
Mr. Kissinger stated that it will be up to the elected officials to
decide an argument by listening to the developers' objections and making the
decision. He clarified that a forced dedication was always the Commission's
option.
Commissioner Heath stated that he is against a forced dedication but
has no problem with the fee.
Mayor Seaton spoke regarding voluntary dedication of land and asked
how quickly the City would be obligated to develop a Neighborhood Park and
how that fit into the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Dudark explained the two
year schedule to have five parks in ten years which will depend on the
rapidness of development.
Mr. Kissinger gave options on modifying this ordinance pertaining
to involuntary dedication: 1) requiring an extra ordinary majority in order to
do an involuntary dedication, 2) to modify it so that it will not allow an
involuntary dedication.
Bob Haworth, 913 Twin Oaks Drive, noted that the Salina
Homebuilders Association is opposed to this change. He advised the
Commission that the Homebuilders Association asked past and present members
about the parks issue to find out that no one from the City has talked to any
of them about developing parks. He suggested that the City pay a nominal fee
to the developers for Neighborhood Parks and noted that 20 years ago he was
involved in the dedication of land to be included as a park that the City has
Action
never developed . He noted that the City is already 80 acres short and that
this action will do nothing to solve the problem that exists today. He
suggested that the City continue to work with the schools as they have in the
past and asked if we were only going to concentrate Neighborhood Parks in
new areas and not in established areas. He also commented that the 5% of land
dedication referred to in these discussions is actually up to 10% in the
ordinance. He further pointed out that this issue hasn't been looked at until
a few months ago and that the land dedication requirement excludes drainage
easements, flood control areas, street, drainage and utility easements which
are to be dedicated separately from the park land.
Mr. Kissinger clarified that natural drainage areas could coincide
with the park land, adding that a developer could not call the constructed
drainage pond a park, nor could the detention pond acreage be included in the
dedication though the City would not disallow the use of an oxbow.
Mr. Haworth restated that the City has not tried to work with
developers regarding parks and that the City should pay developers for their
land, to which Mr. Kissinger stated that the land dedication will be infrequent
and decided by the elected officials.
Mr. Dudark explained that, with the dedication of land for a private
open space, the fee would be reduced up to 50% because the park area would
be restricted from the public. He also clarified that fees would be returned,
for land that is not developed within the plan period of 10 years, to whomever
had paid it. Mr. Kissinger confirmed this by noting that the language in the
ordinance would be corrected.
Commission Jilka asked Mr. Kissinger why this new system would be
better than the one the City has and was told there are no cases of the City
asking for land from developers. Mr. Kissinger further clarified that this
method is forward looking to expand parks into newly developed areas.
Mr. Haworth closed with the comment that the City should try to
work with the developers first, before implementing this ordinance.
Daryl Bixby, 2227 Linden drive, President of the Salina
Homebuilders Association, reiterated that the members of this association are
opposed to this action. He thinks there are too many unanswered questions
and asked if we could try to work together first, questioning the need to jump
right in. He noted that the building permit already costs enough. In closing,
he repeated his suggestion that the staff try to work with the developers first
and take this action later if it becomes necessary.
Henry Hoeffner, 2319 Applewood, Salina Board of Realtors, referred
to the two thresholds Mr. Kissinger spoke of noting inequitabilities in both.
The first being that all other parks in town are provided for by the general
fund but, in the future the new areas will pay the mill levy based on the
value of their home for all parks plus pay a user fee for new parks. He
asked if this is right for parks, what about fire stations and schools? Asking
where do you stop once you've gone to impact or user fees? The second
threshold contains inequitabilities in administration giving the example of the
Chapel Ridge Apartment Complex that is not in this development area. He
reminded the Commission that there are 144 units not paying anything for new
parks, though they're putting a demand on the system, and there is talk of
putting in another 144 units. He noted there are a lot of other inequities and
asked the Commission to be careful crossing the first threshold.
Commissioner Jilka noted that the City as a whole has always
provided new parks and asked for the rationale of the change.
Commissioner Brungardt explained that they are talking about adding
one more criteria to the list of things the City tells a developer they must do
to create a development, and gave the examples of streets, set backs and
drainage. He continued saying that the developer will now have to provide for
a Neighborhood Park for the residents, and the developers can do that along
with all their other variables by contributing money and/or land, and helping
plan where the park will go. He feels that is working with the developer, and
that unless needs are defined in black and white we won't get progress. New
residents will be contributing 20% of the value of their Neighborhood Park
which he thinks is a good idea and will move as such when that time arrives.
Mayor Seaton said it this is a response by the City to unprecedented
residential growth, perhaps at a rate that the City has not been able to be as
Action
97-1228
97-1229
97-12301
97-12311
97-12321
97-12331
responsive as it should be. She believes homeowners of the areas will have
value accrued to them.
Commission Shadwick agreed with the two previous comments having
no problem with the impact fees because it will only be 20% of the cost. He
stated that he does have a problem with the dedication of land and thinks it
should be returned to the Planning Commission to look at a fee only schedule
and perhaps expand to other areas.
Mr. Dudark added that the City only needs five parks and has
twenty-five subdivisions. He stated that the reason the City hasn't really
done much is because there was never really a place to start before. There
wasn't a concept to present to developers and say here is a chance to make a
park in your area. He feels that nine times out of ten the developer is going
to choose the fees, and that the City wants that, as we don't want that much
land.
Commissioner Heath stated he has no problem with the impact fee but
is against the forced dedication of land. He indicated he would like to restrict
the 3 to 2 majority by the Commission to force the dedication, strike it
completely, or require a 4 to 1 vote.
Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka,
to approve Ordinance Number 97-9832 for first reading. Aye: (3). Nay: (2),
Heath, Shadwick. Motion carried.
ADMINISTRATION
(8.1) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9828 amending Chapter 42 of
the Salina Code pertaining to the zoning of Adult Oriented Businesses.
Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9828 on second reading. A roll call vote was
taken. Aye: (5), Jilka, Brungardt, Shadwick, Heath, Seaton. Nay: (0).
Motion carried.
(8.2) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9829 amending Chapter 6 of the
Salina Code pertaining to the licensing and regulation of Adult Oriented
Businesses.
Moved by Commissioner Jilka, seconded by Commissioner Brungardt,
to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9829 on second reading. A roll call vote was
taken. Aye: (5), Heath, Shadwick, Brungardt, Jilka, Seaton. Nay: (0).
Motion carried.
(8.3) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9831 providing for the vacation
of portions of Orange Street and Ash Street in Elm Grove Addition.
Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Brungardt,
to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9831 on second reading. A roll call vote was
taken. Aye: (5), Jilka, Brungardt, Shadwick, Heath, Seaton. Nay: (0).
Motion carried.
(8.4) Resolution Number 97-5202 establishing various fees for services in
the City.
Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to adopt Resolution Number 97-5202. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried.
(8.5) Resolution Number 97-5203 authorizing the Mayor to execute an
agreement with the Kansas Department of Transportation for the Walnut Street
Bridge Replacement, Project No. 97-1069.
Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project.
Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to adopt Resolution Number 97-5203. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried.
(8.6) Approval of the plans and specifications for the 1997 Subdivision
Improvements, Phase Il, Project No. 97-1072.
Action
97-1234
— 97-1235
97-1236
97-1237
97-1238
Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project.
Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick,
to approve Project No. 97-1072 and allow staff to establish a bid date. Aye:
(5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried.
(8.7) Final action on the 1997 Downtown Traffic System Improvements,
Project No. 97-997.
Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project.
Dennis Kissinger, City Manager, advised the Commission that on the
matter of Seventh and Iron the position to confirm the removal of the traffic
signal is defendable and that there is enough support to put that signal back
in.
Commissioner Shadwick spoke regarding Fifth and Ash noting a bad
feeling at that intersection with a lot of people gunning to get across it.
Commissioner Jilka spoke concerning the use of sensored traffic
signals at Fifth and Ash. He was advised that there would be substantial cost
to do that improvement. The Commissioner also expressed his concerns
regarding Fifth and Ash and at Seventh and Iron. He noted that the counts
done show the traffic signals aren't needed but at certain times of the day
they are.
Commissioner Brungardt explained that the signals aren't needed but
that he has also received a lot of feedback on Seventh and Iron. Even though
the signals are not warranted by counts and video tapes, people have the
opinion that that they are.
Moved
by
Commissioner
Brungardt,
seconded by
Commissioner Heath,
to approve the
retention of the
traffic signals at Santa Fe and Mulberry, and
Santa Fe and South
and confirm
the removal
of the traffic
signals at Fifth and
Ash, and Fifth
and
Walnut, and
to reverse
the previous
action by approving
the retention of
the
traffic signal
at Seventh
and Iron.
Moved by Commissioner Jilka, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick,
to amend the motion to include retaining Fifth and Ash. Aye: (2). Nay: (3),
Seaton, Heath, Brungardt. Motion failed.
A vote was called on the original motion. Aye: (4) . Nay: (1) ,
Shadwick. Motion carried.
(8.8) Setting of public hearing date and authorization of published notice
regarding issuance of industrial revenue bonds for the construction of a
manufacturing/office complex for Coronado Engineering, Inc.
Greg Bengtson, City Attorney, explained the matter.
Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick,
to adopt a motion setting a public hearing on October 20, 1997, and
authorizing published notice of the hearing and the issuance of industrial
revenue bonds for Coronado Engineering, Inc. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion
carried.
(8.9) Change Order No. 3 for the 1995 Concrete Curb and
Gutter/Pavement Improvements, Project No. 95-959, in the amount of
$43,698.05.
Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the increase in
cost for the project.
Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to approve Change Order No. 3 for the 1995 Concrete Curb and
Gutter/Pavement Improvements, Project No. 95-959, in the amount of
$43,698.05. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
(9.1) Mayor Seaton announced there will be no meeting next week and
urged citizens to participate in the free yard waste day Sunday at ECRA.
Action
ADMINISTRATION
(8.10) Request for Executive Session to discuss a legal matter.
97-1239 Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
to recess into executive session for the purpose of discussing with the City
Attorney a matter which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, for the
reason that public discussion would waive the privilege and that the City
Commission reconvene in this room in 20 minutes or at 6:20 p.m. Aye: (5).
Nay: (0) . Motion carried.
The Board of City Commissioners recessed into executive session at
6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 6:18 p.m.
97-1240 Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath,
that the City Manager and City Attorney be authorized to present information
in opposition to the specific petition before the Saline County Board of
Commissioners for the paving of Waterwell Road between Burma Road and
Lightville Road at the Board's public hearing regarding the petition on
Monday, October 13, 1997, and to offer to work directly with Saline County
staff and the property owners to find alternate methods to accomplish the
project, for the reasons:
1. That K.S.A. 68-706 , adopted in 1909 and last amended in 1951, in
providing that 50% of the cost of such a road project alongside the
city limits will be paid by the city, did not anticipate the paving of
a road alongside a separate non -boundary tract of real estate owned
and annexed by the city for the limited purpose of operation of a
landfill.
2. That the proposed benefit district and assessment of costs leaves
unresolved questions as to whether the boundaries of the proposed
benefit district have been properly drawn and whether similarly
situated properties are being treated similarly.
3. That the city believes the project itself has merit and would not
oppose the city being included in a benefit district and paying its
proportionate share under a petition for what is found to be a
properly defined district and a fairly apportioned plan of assessing
the cost of the project.
Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
97-1241 Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka,
that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
ristin M. eaton, Mayor
[ SEAL]
ATTEST:
",,/ &
D . Lo CMC Cit Clerk
g> Y