03-02-2015 MinutesE
Z
W
D
R
0
0
U
15-0066
15-0067
CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
March 2, 2015
4:00 p.m.
The City Commission convened at 3:45 p.m. for Citizens Forum.
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in Room 107,
City -County Building. Roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of
silence.
Those present and comprising a quorum: Mayor Aaron Householter (presiding), Commissioners
Jon R. Blanchard, Trent Davis, and Randall R. Hardy.
Also present: Jason A. Gage, City Manager; Michael D. Schrage, Deputy City Manager; Greg
Bengtson, City Attorney; and Shandi Wicks, City Clerk.
Absent: Kaye J. Crawford
AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS
None.
CITIZEN FORUM
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
(6.1) Approve minutes of February 23, 2015.
Commissioner Davis noted a correction to the minutes.
Moved by Commissioner Blanchard, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to approve the consent
agenda as corrected. Aye: (4). Nay: (0). Motion carried.
ADMINISTRATION
(7.1) Approve the purchase of a used vehicle for the Fire Department.
Chief Larry Mullikin introduced Fire Marshal Roger Williams, Investigator Troy Long and
Ashes, the City Arson dog. Mr. Long provided information on Ashes and her training.
Chief Mullikin explained the vehicle purchase.
Commissioner Hardy asked for the expected life of the vehicle. Chief Mullikin responded
by stating that vehicle could last six to seven years.
Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Blanchard, to authorize the City
Manager to purchase the Kansas Highway Patrol vehicle in the amount of $26,200. Aye: (4). Nay:
(0). Motion carried.
(7.2) Approve the Design, Fabrication and Installation Agreement for the East Iron Avenue
Gateway Art Project.
Page 1
Brad Anderson, Director of Arts and Humanities, explained the project and the interests
and information received from the City Commission.
Grace Peterson, Art Services Coordinator, explained that staff worked with the artist to
develop design options following the study sessions and introduced the artist.
w
Kent Thomas Williams, Artist, explained the design options in a slide show presentation.
Ms. Peterson explained the site location options, stated that the CAD Committee voted for
u Option "A" and asked the Commission for their preferences.
0
Commissioner Hardy asked if the 75 feet spacing would replicate the spacing of the street
lights. Ms. Peterson stated yes, either option would replace the street lights. Mr. Anderson
responded by stating that some of the cost savings was real but was also made up from
related expenditures of the project. It does not replace the cost of the art element but does
assist with the structural ground.
Ms. Peterson explained the site location options and asked the Commission for their
preferences.
Commissioner Blanchard did not have a preference on the site location options.
Commissioner Hardy preferred option "A" of the site location options.
Commissioner Davis stated that through a preliminary statistical perspective, the closer
you put them together, the better it looks. Otherwise they are just isolated structures down
the street. Ms. Peterson stated that the idea of putting the structures closer together was
suggested at the end of the last study session.
Ms. Peterson explained the surface options and asked the Commission for their
preferences.
Commissioner Davis and Hardy preferred option "B" of the surface options.
Commissioner Blanchard and Mayor Householter did not have a preference on the surface
locations.
Ms. Peterson explained the zenith profile options and asked the Commission for their
preferences.
Commissioner Hardy did not have a preference on the zenith profile options.
Commissioner Blanchard did not have a preference on the zenith profile options.
Commissioner Davis preferred option "B" of the zenith profile options.
Mayor Householter preferred option "B" of the zenith profile options.
Mr. Anderson explained the Community Art and Design Committee (CAD), the
Community Art and Design Site Committee roles and summarized the preferred options of
the Commission.
Jason Gage, City Manager, explained the amount spent today would be $18,000 and
explained the timing aspect of the project. .
Commissioner Blanchard asked when the project would go out for bid. Mr. Gage stated it
was a spring project. Mike Fraser, Director of Public Works responded by stating that the
bid date had not been determined yet.
Commissioner Hardy stated that he watched the March 24, 2014 meeting where the art
Page 2
0
Z
LU
D
0
U
element for Irm
on Avenue was first discussed. Commissioner Hardy asked Mr. Anderson
that during that meeting he specifically mentioned that the gateways were not necessarily
arches, was that correct? Mr. Anderson responded by stating that was correct.
Commissioner Hardy then asked Mr. Anderson if the Commission on two occasions stated
that they were open to a variety of options. Mr. Anderson stated that was his
understanding.
Mr. Anderson stated that he did not mean to mischaracterize what happened in the March
24, 2014 meeting but was simply trying to summarize direction received from that meeting
that reflected the Design Challenge and/or the scope of responsibilities.
Commissioner Hardy asked Mr. Anderson if he felt the summary of common areas of
agreement in the blue sheet fairly represented the outcome of that meeting and that staff
proceeded to act on the Commissions recommendation. What we have before us, is the
culmination of the efforts from the Site and CAD Committees, Arts & Humanities, and the
Artist to provide us with a project that came out of our discussion in the March 24, 2014
meeting. Mr. Anderson responded by stating yes and they .tried their best to listen to
options and ideas to put together a design of what the commissioners were looking for.
Commissioner Blanchard provided his thoughts from the past study sessions as well as the
need for a downtown gateway design that could be placed at any downtown entryway
locations. He expressed the need to include Salina Downtown, Inc. and the Business
Improvement District.
Mr. Anderson stated that from a department perspective, there were many important
community partners that potentially could have been part of this decision making in what
was presented today.
Commissioner Blanchard stated that the gateway locations were included in the
Comprehensive Plan and that the Commission was extremely interested in community
engagement in developing an art and entertainment district.
Commissioner Hardy asked if the artwork could be replicated in other places in town. Mr.
Anderson responded by stating that the art element could be utilized and scalable to other
locations.
Commissioner Blanchard asked for clarification on the scope of the roadway reconstruction
project. Mr. Gage responded by stating that the Commission asked that the colored
stamped concrete not be included on the center lane from Ohio Street to Front Street except
for the block between Front and Oakdale in an effort to insure the budget was met.
Commissioner Blanchard asked if the light concept would be compatible to the street lights
currently in place. Mr. Williams responded by stating that there would be a significant
luminous output of the lighting concept.
Mr. Gage provided information regarding the March 24, 2014 meeting pertaining to the
expectations of the commission and the message delivered to staff and the CAD
Committee.
Mayor Householter provided his thoughts on the need for a gateway and the art element
design that was presented.
Mr. Gage explained that the CAD process would not provide the opportunity to dictate the
outcome.
Page 3.
7�
Commissioner Davis asked if following the CAD process does not influence the outcome,
what was the purpose of the Commission approving the contract today. Mr. Gage
responded by stating that the CAD process was designed to articulate a plan and process
N for the provision of public art through public funding in a way that reflects the best
N
business practices from the artistic organizations in our community and what has been
W applied in other communities.
Commissioner Davis asked if the Commission would send the item back to the CAD,
would it in turn put an influence on the outcome. Mr. Gage responded by stating that the
y options of the City Commission would be to approve the agenda item or postpone the item,
amend the CAD policy and bring the item back to the commission.
Mr. Anderson explained the CAD policy.
Commissioner Blanchard provided his thoughts on CAD and the Site Committee.
Commissioner Blanchard discussed information from the Design Challenge pertaining to
the translation of the term gateway to a visual invitation to downtown and asked when the
Design Challenge was complete. Mr. Anderson responded by stating that he took the
information from the meeting to the CAD Committee. In late July, early August staff
identified and invited individuals to become members of the Site Committee. Staff then
shared with the Site Committee the need to include a gateway experience. Mr. Anderson
continued to explain the roles of the Site Committee.
Commissioner Blanchard asked when the Design Challenge was complete. Mr. Anderson
responded by stating that the Design Challenge was approved in September.
Commissioner Blanchard asked if staff looked back at the Design Challenge stating that the
artistic element should not be a literal translation of the term "gateway'. Mr. Anderson
responded by stating that perhaps hind sight was 20/20 and staff could have gone to Jason
for direction and held a study session.
Commissioner Hardy provided his thoughts on a gateway. Mr. Anderson provided
information on gateways.
Mayor Householter stated that the bulk of the people in the world see gateway entries as a
single point gateway. Mr. Gage responded by stating that staff understood what the
Commission had intended as in the form of a gateway. When it was determined that it
might not be feasible, staff should have scheduled a study session and reported the
findings to the Commission and obtained direction from the Commission at that point.
Ray Hruska, 235 N. Santa Fe, thanked everyone involve for their work on the project and
asked where the project costs were coming from. Mr. Gage responded by stating that
$120,000 of the 2.74 million dollar project would cover the art element of the project. The
remaining cost would cover the reconstruction of the street and would be funded from
general taxes and general fund along with the Kansas Department of Transportation.
Mr. Hruska continued to express his opinion on the art element and asked where the
inclusion of the art element came from. Mr. Gage responded by stating that the original
project did not include an aesthetic or artistic component but during a study session it was
suggested to include an art element.
Commissioner Blanchard explained the definition of an impact street within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 4
Norman Mannel, 7532 W. Pleasant Hill Road, provided his thoughts on the art element and
the potential need to postpone the action today due to one commissioner being absent from
the meeting.
Noel Pinnick, Salina, Kansas, provided his thoughts on the art element.
Melissa Hodges, Salina, Kansas, stated that she did watch the video of the March 24, 2014
LU
meeting pertaining to the project and provided her thoughts on the project.
Lisa Upshaw, Smoky Hill Museum Curator of Collections, explained the controversies of
N public art and would ask the Commission to approve the public art components brought to
them.
Commissioner Davis provided his thoughts on the project and the CAD policy. He stated
that he did not feel he could support the project.
Mr. Williams provided his thoughts on the Design Challenge and the project.
Commissioner Hardy stated that the Site Committee probably took into consideration the
items Commissioner Davis addressed and that they were valid concerns but were the
concerns taken into consideration before.
Commissioner Hardy provided his thoughts on the project and the impact of the
community. He considers the funding of art to be an economic development.
Commissioner Hardy went on to say that he supported the project.
A conversation ensued between the Commissioners pertaining to public art and the
representation of downtown Salina. Mr. Williams explained the representation of the art
element to include art deco, iron mineral and Native American.
Commissioner Davis stated that the cost to fund the project would be looked at by the
community. Mr. Williams stated that the cost was in proportion to the money spent on
public art.
A conversation ensued between the Commissioners regarding the art element representing
the elements in the Design Challenge.
Commissioner Blanchard stated his concerns on the art element and the need to include
public art in the downtown area in order to become an arts and entertainment district. He
expressed his vision on the art needed in downtown Salina.
Commissioner Hardy stated that this conversation should have been done a long time ago.
Mayor Householter provided his thoughts on the project and public art.
Debate ended when Commissioner Davis called the question. Commissioner Davis moved
that the agreement for the proposed art project be denied. Before the motion could be
seconded, the City Manager and City Attorney recommended that the matter be addressed
by an affirmative motion. It was explained that a successful motion to approve the
proposed agreement would authorize the project. Either an unsuccessful motion to approve
or the lack of a motion to approve the agreement would have the effect of a denial of the
proposed project. On the basis of that recommendation, Commissioner Davis withdrew his
motion.
Mayor Householter then called for a motion. No motion was made. Consequently, the
proposed agreement for design, fabrication and installation of the East Iron Avenue
Page 5
Ei
15-0068
15-0069
Gateway Art Project was denied for lack of motion to approve.
DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS
(8.1) First reading Ordinance No. 15-10767 amending Salina Code Sections 31-900 and 31-1006
relating to maintenance of weeds and grass nuisances and abatement of violations by the
City of Salina.
Gary Hobbie, Director of Development Services, explained the code amendment.
Commissioner Blanchard asked how staff would notify the property owners. Mike Fraser,
Director of Public Works stated that staff would notify the contractors of the right-of-way
mowing contract bid and hold a pre-bid meeting with the contractors. The approval of the
contract would be brought to the City Commission and letters would be mailed to the
affected property owners.
Commissioner Blanchard asked if warnings would be given to property owners to notify
them of the changes. Mr. Hobbie responded by stating that staff discussed the option to
send an additional notice to the property owner of the requirement.
Jason Gage, City Manager, stated that the requirement was a less restrictive requirement
and staff would need to educate the community of the new requirements.
Moved by Commissioner Blanchard, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to pass Ordinance No. 15-
10767 amending Salina Code Sections 31-900 and 31-1006 relating to maintenance of weeds and
grass nuisances and abatement of violations by the City of Salina on first reading. Aye: (4). Nay:
(0). Motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
(9.1) Request for executive session (personnel).
The Commission came to a consensus to not recess into executive session.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Blanchard, seconded by Commissioner Da ' , at the regular meeting of
the Board of City Commissioners be adjourned. Aye: (4). Nay ). otion carried. The meeting
adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
J�.,r�c�G(Jaetf11
Shandi Wicks, CMC, City Clerk
Aaron K. Householter, Mayor
Page 6