Loading...
10-26-2015 Minutes15-0412 CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 26, 2015 4:00 p.m. The City Commission convened at 2:30 p.m. for Sanitation 5th Route, Automation and Recycling and at 3:45 p.m. for Citizens Forum. The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to order at 4:02 p.m. in Room 107, City -County Building. Roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. present and comprising a quorum: Mayor Jon R. Blanchard (presiding), Commissioners Crawford, Trent Davis, Randall Hardy, and Karl Ryan. Also present: Jason Gage, City Manager; Michael Schrage, Deputy City Manager; Greg Bengtson, City Attorney; and Shandi Wicks, City Clerk. (AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS (3.1) The day of November 1, 2015 as "Extra Mile Day" in the city of Salina. George Troutfetter, Advisory Council Co -Chair read the proclamation. Mayor Blanchard announced his picks for the five extra mile change makers and provided some background on each person or organization he chose. ICITIZEN FORUM George Meinhardt,136 Bel Air, asked for an extension on the completion date for repairs to 906 N. 11th Street. Mayor Blanchard asked if a commissioner would like to make a motion to add this matter to the agenda. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to add item 7.3 to the agenda to consider an extension to Resolution No. 15-7213 in reference to the dangerous structure located at 906 N. 11th. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. Ray Hruska, 235 N. Santa Fe, read an article pertaining to individuals being an American citizen. Dan Stack, City Engineer, explained the street repairs recently made to Iron Avenue from Gypsum to Marymount Road and explained that the repairs made to the street did not work, additional repairs to the street will continue. IPUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME (5.1) Hearing for owners of 623 N. 13th Street to show cause as to why the structures should not be demolished on the basis that the owners have failed to diligently prosecute the repair or removal of dangerous conditions pursuant to Resolution Nos. 15-7209 and 15-7258. Mayor Blanchard opened the public hearing. Jim Brown, Building Official, explained the background of the dangerous structures, the purpose of a show cause hearing, fiscal impact and commission action options. Page 1 Mayor Blanchard asked for an update on the court case. Greg Bengtson, City Attorney, explained the current status of the court case and explained the reasons for holding the show cause hearing. Mayor Blanchard asked if Mr. Minneman could pull a permit today if needed. Mr. Bengtson stated that a permit could have been pulled at any time. Mayor Blanchard asked if the premises were safe and secure. Gary Hobbie, Director of Development Services, stated that staff secured the property by installing a fence around the property and the fence had since been removed. He noted that it was not removed by staff. Commissioner Hardy asked if the court would address the issue pertaining to the serving of paperwork to Jeffery Minneman. Mr. Bengtson stated that a hearing was scheduled in Saline County District Court for purposes of oral arguments on Mr. Minnemari s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside. Joseph Minneman, 623 N. 13th, provided a typed document to the commission and read the contents of the document that listed a timeline of events pertaining to 623 N. 13th along with his views on the matter and asked that the resolution be dropped. Mr. Bengtson stated that the findings and order of the building official was mailed certified to Jeffrey Minneman and the letter was refused by Jeffrey Minneman. Mayor Blanchard asked if the issue pertaining to Jeffrey Minneman being served the paperwork would be addressed in court. Mr. Bengtson stated that the court would address on October 28, 2015 the issue pertaining to Jeffrey Minneman being served the paperwork. Jason Gage, City Manager, asked Joseph Minneman if his brother had representation and who filed the motion in Saline County District Court on September 14, 2015. Mr. Minneman stated that his brother did not have representation and there was no entry of appearance by Jeffrey Minneman. Mayor Blanchard asked Mr. Minneman if he knew who took down the fence around the property. Mr. Minneman stated that he did not know who took it down. Commissioner Davis asked if it was his practice to not tend to his property until he received a nuisance notice. Mr. Minneman stated that he was working on the property on the inside. Commissioner Hardy stated that Mr. Minneman had the choice to perform construction or demolition. Mr. Minneman stated that the paperwork did not state anything about the options available to him. Mr. Bengtson asked Mr. Minneman if the work that was performed was to rehabilitate or to demolish the property. Mr. Minneman stated that it was to investigate the economic factors on whether he wanted to rehabilitate or demolish the property. Mr. Bengtson asked Mr. Minneman if he had made his determination on whether he was going to rehabilitate or demolish the property. Mr. Minneman stated that he had not determined what he was going to do to the property. Mr. Bengtson stated that the order did not keep Mr. Minneman from working on the property lawfully. Page 2 15-04j3 ti y U 15-0414 There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bengtson stated that if a motion was made on the basis that the property owners failed to diligently prosecute the work, that would need to be included in the motion. Moved by Commissioner Crawford, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to order staff to proceed with demolition of the structures located at 623 N. 131h Street in accordance with Resolution Nos. 15-7209 and 15-7258, determining that no diligent prosecution of work had occurred, subject to no objections being received by the District Court Judge at the October 28, 2015 hearing. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. Commissioner Davis requested that Mr. Minneman's document be an official record of the October 26, 2015 minutes. (The document has been retained as an official record of the meeting minutes as "Attachment A"). (CONSENT AGENDA (6.1) Approve the minutes of October 19, 2015. (6.2) Authorize an agreement with Rineco Environmental Services, LLC for the training of staff, packaging, transportation and disposal of Household Hazardous Waste materials in the amount of $26,109.50 and the 3 -year projected total of $78,328.50. Moved by Commissioner Hardy, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to approve the consent agenda as presented. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. IADMINISTRATION (7.1) Resolution No. 15-7292 establishing fees in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule for alarm systems designed to summon a fire response. Rod Franz, Director of Finance and Administration, explained the new fees and explained modifications to the "Failure to register a fire alarm system" fee and changes to the "Fire and nuisance false alarm service" first alarm and second alarm fees originally provided to the commission. Commissioner Hardy asked if the purpose of the fee schedule was to reduce the number of false alarms. Mr. Franz stated yes. Commissioner Hardy also asked if staff would keep track of the number of alarms within a year and possibly adjust the fee schedule accordingly. Roger Williams, Fire Marshal, stated that staff would be tracking the numbers of alarms in a year and would also track the cause of the alarm. Commissioner Hardy asked if the fire alarm registration would be required for residential homes and commercial businesses. Mr. Williams stated that the fire alarm registration would be for commercial businesses only. Jason Gage, City Manager, stated that the fire alarm registration of a commercial business would be to help to insure the businesses have a good running fire alarm system. Commissioner Hardy asked what the cost was for the fire department to respond to a false alarm. Mr. Williams responded by stating that when the item was originally Page 3 15-0415 brought to the City Commission, Chief Mullikin used the FEMA fee schedule to determine the amount of money spent to respond. Mr. Williams stated that it cost $350 per person to respond and multiple units and staff would be required to respond. Commissioner Hardy stated that he did not feel that the fee schedule developed was high enough. Mr. Williams stated that the intent of the registration was to encourage the business owners to have a fully functioning system. Mr. Gage added that after the first year, staff could review the fee schedule. Calvin Kelsey, Fire Chief, stated that the fire fee schedule was developed in comparison with the police fee schedule and staff's intent was to educate the community. Commissioner Davis asked what the remedy was if the business had four false alarms. Mr. Kelsey stated that a portion of the ordinance would allow the Fire Department to pull the license for the business until the fire alarm system was fully functional. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Crawford, to adopt Resolution No. 15-7292 establishing fees in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule for alarm systems designed to summon a fire response. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (7.2) Resolution No. 15-7293 authorizing the Mayor to execute a compliance agreement with Michael Carter providing an extension of time to repair or remove the designated dangerous structure located at 910 N 11th Street. Jim Brown, Building Official, explained the request, compliance agreement and extension dates. Mike Schrage, Deputy City Manager, explained that Mr. Carter provided staff with the list of repairs to be completed on the property along with information pertaining to his financial obligations. Ralph Carter, 1025 Eastgate, explained that he could perform the repairs to the structure to make the structure safe but the money required for the financial security would be the money he would use to perform the repairs. Aaron Martin, Attorney, Clark, Mize & Linville, explained the modifications to the resolution and the option to modify the compliance agreement pertaining to the financial security. Mayor Blanchard asked about the financial guarantee. Mr. Scbrage stated that part of the financial guarantee required payment of the $1,049.42 to cover the City's administrative costs and expenses and the remaining portion would be a $9,000 financial guarantee. Mr. Bengtson noted the changes to the agreement that could occur if the cpmmission would like to remove the financial guarantee requirement. Mayor Blanchard asked if Mr. Carter would be able to provide payment in the amount of $1,049.42. Mr. Carter stated that he could write a check tomorrow to cover that costs. Page 4 15-0416 Z W Moved by Commissioner Hardy, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to adopt Resolution No. 15- 7293 with a change to the compliance agreement to delete paragraph 3b under Payment of City's Costs: Financial Guarantee and delete sub point (2) under City's Remedies authorizing the Mayor to execute a compliance agreement with Michael Carter providing for an extension of time to repair or remove the designated dangerous structure located at 910 N 11th Street. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (7.3) Consider an extension to Resolution No. 15-7213 in reference to the dangerous structure located at 906 N. 11th Street. Michael Schrage, Deputy City Manager, provided details on the history of the property, explained that the twenty properties that were on the list of dangerous structures were determined by searching the utility usage of the properties and explained that the city was already under contract for demolition of the property. Mayor Blanchard asked when the demolition of the property would occur. Gary Hobbie, Director of Development Services, stated that it would be two to three weeks before the contractor would get to this property. Jason Gage, City Manager, asked for an update of completion of work on the property. Mr. Schrage stated that the date for work completed was on June 11, 2015 and the next step of the process was to demolish the property. George Meinhardt, 139 Bel Air, apologized for the property becoming an eyesore, explained his personal situation, the agreement he had with Kristi Copas to manage the property and requested a thirty day extension. Mr. Hobbie stated that staff had conversations in the past with Mr. Meinhardt and Kristi Copas regarding the property and explained the dangerous structure process and that the property owner would need to appear before the City Commission to request action. Commissioner Davis asked what Mr. Meinhardt's plans were for the property. Mr. Meinhardt stated that he would like to rent the property out. A conversation ensued between Mr. Schrage and the Commission regarding the demolition contract and the payment required to keep the property from being demolished. Greg Bengtson, City Attorney, explained that the matter pertaining to the demolition contract would be best discussed in an executive session. Commissioner Crawford stated that she was disappointed that Mr. Meinhardt had not completed the repairs to the property that were discussed in April 2015. Mayor Blanchard stated that in order to keep the structure from being demolished, the property owner would have to buy out the contract for the demolition along with administrative costs in order to keep the property from being demolished. Mr. Gage stated that the property owner would have to buy out the contract of the demolition contractor to keep the property from being demolished and the city could require a financial guarantee on top of that cost to buy out the contract. Mr. Gage asked staff for the date that an agreement would need to be developed. Mr. Hobbie stated that an agreement would need to be made by the second week in November. Mr. Meinhardt stated that he would probably have his friend purchase the property and have his attorney deal with the matter. Page 5 U 15-0417 Mayor Blanchard stated that Mr. Meinhardt could work with staff to develop a plan. Mr. Gage asked if the commission would be in favor of working with the demolition contractor and require a financial security of 125%. The Commission reached a consensus to allow staff to work with the demolition contractor and require a financial security of 125%. Mr. Gage stated that if staff could develop a resolution with Mr. Meinhardt, staff would bring the item back to City Commission for action. Mayor Blanchard requested a three (3) minute break at 6:22 p.m. DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS (8.1) Land Use Matters relating to the west side of South Ohio Street north and south of the Ohio -Midway intersection. (8.1a) First reading Ordinance No. 15-10809 amending the Future Land Use Map of the Salina, Kansas Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of the west side of South Ohio Street north and south of the Ohio - Midway intersection from future Urban Residential to future Public/Semi-Public. (8.1b) First reading Ordinance No. 15-10810 requesting approval of zoning change from R-2 (Multi -Family Residential) district to a PDD (P -[EX]), (Public Use - Exposition Facilities) Planned Development District and the approval of a preliminary site development plan for proposed entryway improvements for the Bicentennial Center, including an electronic message center sign to be located at the southwest corner of South Ohio and the Midway (Application #PDD15-1/1A, filed by the City of Salina). Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Crawford asked if the change only affected the properties the City purchased. Mr. Andrew stated yes. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to pass Ordinance No. 15- 10809 on first reading amending the Future Land Use Map of the Salina, Kansas Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of the west side of South Ohio Street, north and south of the Ohio - Midway intersection from future Urban Residential to future Public/Semi- Public. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the current request to change the zoning district, provided a detailed history of the properties, intent and purpose of the public use district, public utilities and services, streets and traffic, character of the neighborhood, the Planning Commission recommendation and the action options. Commissioner Davis asked what the setback of the sign was. Mr. Andrew stated that the sign was seventeen (17) feet back from the west curb line of Ohio. Commissioner Ryan asked if the sign was approved and the initiation of the text amendment would occur, would the sign be able to catch up to the text amendment. Mr. Andrew stated that the applicant would be best to respond to that question but he was aware that the intent was next spring. Commissioner Crawford asked for the size of the current Bicentennial Center sign located on Oakdale. Mr. Andrew stated that the sign was 94 square feet total. Page 6 Mr. Andrew stated that the Masonic Temple sign was 40 square foot and the Bank VI sign was 52 square foot. Mayor Blanchard asked for the size of the Kansas Wesleyan University sign that was recently approved. Mr. Andrew stated that the Kansas Wesleyan University sign was 450 square foot total with 12% of the sign being the digital portion. Commissioner Davis asked what the distance was to the closest residence from the sign. Mr. Andrew stated that the Lazy River Town Homes was the closest residence the sign and that the sign would have an automatic timer that would allow for the illumination of the sign to be brighter during certain conditions. Mayor Blanchard asked if the sign would be illuminated at all times. Mr. Andrew stated that the sign would not be illuminated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. unless an event would be at the Bicentennial Center during those hours. Commissioner Davis asked if there was a way to block the illumination of the light from the sign so it was not as bright. Mr. Andrew stated that the sign could be recessed back with shields on the sides of the signs to reduce the brightness of the light. A conversation ensued between Mr. Andrew, Mr. Gage and the Commission regarding the sign size, the visibility of the sign and the size of the digital portion of the sign. Ron Rideout, Salina Bicentennial Center, explained the elevation and design standpoint of the sign. Mr. Rideout responded to the earlier question pertaining to the construction of the sign and stated that the project would commence in June of 2016 and be completed by August or September of 2016. Commissioner Davis asked if staff had discussed the shields on the sides of the sign prior to today. Mr. Rideout stated no. Mayor Blanchard asked if the digital display was a video display. Mr. Rideout stated yes. Mr. Gage stated that the picture would change but the continuous flashing would not occur. Carol Rucker, 1223 Windsor Drive, property owner of 317 S. Ohio, expressed her concerns on the sign location and the illumination of the sign along with the property values of the homes in the area. Keith Searcy, FREW Development Group, explained that the street light would be brighter than the sign would be at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. Mayor Blanchard asked if the digital display was a video screen or LED lights. Mr. Searcy explained that the digital display would consist of LED lights in panels. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Gage regarding the traffic in the area, the ability to make turns from The Midway and the illumination of the sign from across the street. Commissioner Davis asked about the location on the sign on the property. Mr. Andrew stated that the sign would be in the approved location on the approved site plan and would be seventeen (17) feet from the property line. Page 7 :J 15-0418 15-0419 15-0420 15-0421 Mr. Gage stated that you cannot predict the property values but stated that traffic was probably the main factor for that location being a five lane road. Commissioner Davis asked if a motion could be made tonight and still allow for the engineering firm to review the digital inset of the sides of the sign. Mr. Gage stated that the commission could make a motion but include a condition for staff. Mayor Blanchard asked for the minimum effective size of the digital display of the sign. Mr. Gage stated that if the total sign was 160 square feet the digital display would be 128 square feet or 80% of the sign. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Rideout pertaining to the total size of the sign and the size of the digital display. Commissioner Davis asked if the sign panels were custom made for the sign or pre - manufactured. Mr. Searcy stated yes. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Gage regarding the size of the sign and the size of the digital display. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to postpone first reading of Ordinance No. 15-10810 until November 2, 2015 City Commission meeting. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. Ms. Rucker asked why the sign could not be 100% of the 100 square feet. Mr. Gage stated that staff would get an answer to the question. I OTHER BUSINESS Jason Gage, City Manager, stated that a liaison member would need to be appointed to the Community Access Television board. Mayor Blanchard asked for staff to find out what time the board met and provide the information to the commission. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to recess into executive session for 10 minutes to discuss with legal counsel matters subject to the attorney-client privilege for the reason that public discussion of those matters would waive the privilege and adversely affect the City's interest in the matters and reconvene at 8:25 p.m. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. No action was taken. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to extend the current executive session for an additional 10 minutes. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, that the regular meeting of the Board of City Commissioners be adjourned. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Page 8 [SEAL] ATTEST: 3*. -,6 U Shandi Wicks, CMC, City Clerk Page 9 ATTACHMENT A Page 10 To The City Council of Salina, Kansas Subject: 623 N 13th St October 26, 2015 After receiving the Journal Entry Order entered 7-23-15 that I received at the end of August that was entered without any evidence on a scheduled hearing for 7-11-15 as I had requested evidence to support the City's position. However, the Court allowed the City to confess its' petition as it told the City to draft an order and it will be signed it and was, I sought legal advice. And now I receive a document entitled FINDINGS & ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL for why I am now here at this moment. The background in this matter is that on 4-27-15 the City adopted several resolutions covering several different residential dwellings providing for repair or removal of dangerous structures and establishing a reasonable time with which the repair or removal of such structures shall commence and to be completed by invoking CITY CODE CHAPTER 31 ARICLE VI, SEC 31-502 & 502.1 that provides a dangerous structure legal standard of proof in that Any portion of a building has been damaged by fire earthquake, wind, flood, deterioration, neglect, abandonment or by any other causes to such extent that it is likely to partially or completely collapse or to be detached THIS BEING THE JURISDICTIONAL STANDARD AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE with proof to this effect needed to allow the City to invoke KSA 12-1750 et seq. to raze or rehabilitate the structure in question if the landowner(s) fail(s) to either repair or remove the claimed dangerous structure the City is claiming as dangerous and unsafe. DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE according to CITY CODE CHAPTER 31-502 is that which is dangerous to LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY OR SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC OR THE OCCUPANTS OF THE STRUCTURES. The report prepared on 9-18-14 describing different factor's checklist that was used to justify the initial resolutions. HOWEVER THE REPORT DID NOT FIND THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN ANY KIND OF STATE OF COLLAPSE OR PARTIAL COLLAPSE AND IN FACT THE REPORT STATED AND ADMITTED OTHERWISE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD OF SEC 31- 502 AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. The initial notice me and my brother received set a hearing as to any objections to the proposed resolutions that were scheduled before the Council on 4-27-15 which I alone attended and requested the resolution be tabled which was denied and the resolution passed stating that work had to begin by no later than May 11, 2015 and completed by no later than 6- 11-15 as to not only the dwelling structure but also as to the unattached garage.. (my legal counsel later told me that there is no deadline on any completion of the work. Only to diligently pursue the matter). After this, work began immediately and in earnest to consider factors to determine the economic feasibility of repair or to raze the dwelling structure (THE OPTIONS BEING ME AND MY BROTHERS) and not include the garage as it was not found to be dangerous and unsafe. Work was progressing nicely as me and my cousin who was assisting me in dismantling and preserving various parts for future use. Not long thereafter the City comes out and told my cousin, as 1 was not present at the time, that the work had to stop because of a lack of a permit had not been obtained from the City and posted notices and a stop work order. After this I set up an appointment with the City as to what permit I needed as the stop work order referred to the International Building Code and the International Residential Building Code that the City had adopted citing CITY CODE CHAPTER 8 which I pointed out refers to construction, building and new development and left the meeting and my cousin and I resumed work as to what would be decided regarding the dwelling structure the City claimed to be dangerous and unsafe, so as to invoke KSA 12-1750 et seq. On 6-11-15 while continuing to check all relevant factors as to which route to pursue i.e. raze or repair, a woman representing to be a private process server handed me a verified petition for permanent injunction and ABATEMENT OF A COMMON NUISANCE. (NOT A DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE STRUCTURE VIOLATION) plus an application for a restraining order. She also handed me the same set of papers addressed to my brother who was not present. At which time, discovery of all relevant factors regarding the dwelling structure stopped and on 7-23-15 a JOURNAL ENTRY ORDER was entered against me and my brother permanently enjoining us from not only denying us from doing any work, but now required us In order to work on our own property to hire a licensed contractor to do the work and to obtain a permit. CODE CHAPTER 31 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY OF THIS. After this I consulted with counsel as to HOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN JUST TAKE MONEY OR PROPERTY BY CONFISCATION FROM ME AND MY BROTHER. After reviewing all the documents and finding out how this case came about, he said the City has a MAJOR PROBLEM IN THAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO "JURISDICTION". BOTH PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS ALWAYS OPEN TO QUESTION AND ATTACK AT ANY TIME. Counsel said after reviewing the two CITY CODES of CHAPTERS 8 & 31 and the Kansas Statutes that CHAPTER 8 is inapplicable because the structures are already in existence. CHAPTER 8 IF covers new development, construction, erection and building. PROCEDURE under CHAPTER 8 is the preparation of documents as to a proposed project and presenting it to the City for approval in that it will met zoning and building restrictions, such as external and internal access etc which on approval of the project to proceed, various permits are required and usually involve different contractors. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE OR SITUATION IN YOUR CASE. Counsel said from what I said and what the documents and the CITY CODE and KANSAS LAW reveal is the CITY is trying to invoke that which is commonly referred to as the "CONFLAGERATION STATUTES of KSA 12-1750 et seq interpreting CIIY CODE CHAPTER 31-501, 31-502 and 31-502.1 in a way these statutes were not meant to be used (NO JURISDICTION) and then went on to tell me how these statutes came about. He said that at one time before these statutes were passed and usually in a commercial setting, corporations, having moved their operation or having no further use for some of its property would not maintain the property, but it being an asset would keep the taxes paid and properly insured and if the property caught fire, the Corporation would just collect the insurance proceeds and leave the property sit as it was not being used in the Corporation's business, i. e. use the insurance proceeds for some other use leaving a dangerous and unsafe situation as fire usually leaves a building in a condition of partial collapse or possible collapse or actual collapse as "CONFLAGRATION" means an extensive fire that destroys a great deal of land or property. It being called "CONSUMPTION BY FIRE". A CATASTROPHIC EVENT. In order to curb such a situation conflagration statutes were passed where insurance companies are required to assess the damage and either have the building razed or repaired and not just settle a clam made by the insured. The point my counsel made to me is that the CITY CODE provides that some major event occur such as a fire, an earthquake, wind, flood, abandonment or vandalism or by any other cause to such extent that the structure is likely to partially or completely collapse in order to come within KSA 12-1750 et seq. that is dangerous to bile, health, property or safety of the public or the occupants of the structure. THIS IS THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTOR IN ORDER FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT TO ACT AS IT IS VERY RESTRICTIVE IN ITS' APPLICATION. IF NOT, IT CAN EASILY LEAD TO PUBLIC CORRUPTION" AS WELL AS CRIMINAL TRESPASS CHARGES AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND INTENTIONAL TORTS. COUNSEL THEN ASKED ME IF MY HOUSE WAS DAMAGED. 1 SAID NO AS THERE HAVE BEEN NO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS THAT AFFECTED MY HOUSE. I said the facts are that the City targeted 20 different houses scattered throughout the City for the same action its' resolution imposed on me and my brother which is to demolition. So the City is saying what? These 20 structures were damaged in one conflagration or in 20 separate ones. W Neither, as these resolutions are aimed at something different than the intent of the ordinances/statutes involved as the properties are located in low rent areas. The inspections used and represented to the Council were meant for demolition purposes only and not any economic feasibility study as to demolition or repair by owners. Case in point. A 6 month old inspection report dated 9-18-14 of my property was used to obtain Council resolution that did not include my garage, but the resolution includes my garage. THE END RESULT IS THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND NOT ANY CHANCE OF REPAIR. My counsel then told me I needed to file a Motion to Vacate and Set Aside claiming lack of personal jurisdiction because the Journal Entry Order says your brother was personally served and was not and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the Order affects both of your legal interests. A Motion to Vacate was filed and is scheduled for hearing on 10-28-15; In State ex rel vs City of Topeka 173 Kan 387, 391, 246 P 2nd 250 (1952) a case that stands for the rule that the failure of the City to comply with requirements of the legislative enactment which gave it the power and authority takes precedence over any ordinance as the ordinance must fill the purpose contemplated by the legislature. In a case entitled William R Hickman Trust vs the City of Clay Center (1999) 266 Kan 1023, 974 P 2nd 584 the Kansas Supreme Court said the ultimate issue is whether a municipality can force the property owner to make un warranted and unnecessary repairs and renovations to such property. In other words, can the City force the owner to either destroy his building or bring it into Code compliance for a habitable dwelling. Only under very limited conditions, which is considering all relevant factors and not any imputed economic feasibility that would impute non feasibility of repair. The City's findings order of the building official is without facts or law to back it up as the City's jurisdiction and authority is only as good as the law/ordinance which it claims jurisdiction under and where it fails to a follow the statutory mandate, constitutes arbitrary and capricious action by an administrative body and in failing to follow the intent of the statute/ordinance leaves the City open to a litany of accusations and charges, two of which are public corruption and criminal trespass if any of landowners money or property is taken which under these circumstances the City is attempting to do. THE QUESTION NOW, IS NOT HOW ME AND MY BROTHER PROCEED, BUT WHAT AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION DOES THE CITY HAVE AS A RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST OUR PROPERTY AND MONEY. "NOTE Public corruption is the act of doing something with intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others, a fiduciary's or official's use of an ordinance or statue or office to procure some benefit either personally or for someone else contrary to the rights of others.