07-22-1974 Minutes207
City of Salina, Kansas
Regular Meeting of the Board
of Commissioners
July 22, 1974
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the
Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, July 22, 1974, at seven
o'clock P.M.
The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance to the
Flag and a moment of silent prayer.
There were present:
Mayor W. M. Usher, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Robert C. Caldwell
Commissioner Norma G. Cooper
Commissioner Mike Losik, Jr.
Commissioner Jack Weisgerber
comprising a quorum of the Board, also:
L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney
Norris D. Olson, City Manager
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
Absent:
None
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 15, 1974 were approved
as printed.
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED August 1, 1974 - "NAVY MOTHERS' DAY". The
proclamation was read by Lorena Wicks, Commander of the Navy Mothers' Clubs of
America.
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the Week of July 22.to July 28, 1974 - "DRUM AND
BUGLE CORPS WEEK". The proclamation was read by Bill Scott.
STAFF AGENDA
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "A RESOLUTION
authorizing the temporary investment of approximately $640,000 of Idle Funds of
the City of Salina, Kansas.1° A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber,
seconded by Commissioner Cooper to adopt the Resolution as read and the following
vote was had: Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays: (0).
Carried. The Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3193.
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of the rezoning of Lots 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Block 4,
Schippel Addition from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District
"D" (Local Business District) as requested by Dr. Daniel C. King in Petition
Number 3435.
Mr. Harold Pierce explained the attorney for the opponents to the
rezoning had not arrived, but that Mr. Kennedy would come to the meeting to
explain the restrictive covenants, and the legal aspects.
Mr. Ken Wasserman, Attorney for the petitioner, said, "With respect to
Mr. Pierce's comments about Mr. Kennedy coming down and covering the property
restrictions, it is my understanding that the property restrictions in and of
themselves are given no specific consideration by the City. Certainly we are
aware of the fact that there are property restrictions there, we have always been
aware of the fact that the property restrictions are there, we are aware of the
the fact that the property restrictions call for this area to be single family
roe
"That concludes my argument except for the fact that I would like to
say that at this meeting we have a number of people in support of the petition."
Mayor Usher asked everyone to stand who had not attended the Planning
Commissioner meeting regarding this petition and are in favor of the petition."
17 people stood.
Dr. King commented, "I sincerely feel there is considerable misundersta
about my request. It has never been my desire to ask for anything that would not
enhance the area, or build anything that would lower the property values. I also
feel that if and when we were to consider a new clinic, the architecture and
design would be similar to the office building of Doctors Dowell, Jackson and
Weber on East Iron, and that it would not be an objectionable type of building.
In small animal clinics everywhere, everything is inside and sound proof as
evidenced by them being in malls and in residential areas in other cities."
Mr. Kennedy said, "I am appearing here as sort of a last minute pitch
hitter for my partner Robert Berkley who has been handling this case. Again,
I think the position of the property owners who are opposing this rezoning
project boils down to one simple fact namely they bought property that had certai
zoning restrictions embodied in the tracts themselves and they merely want it kep
that way. The entire matter actually was submitted to this City Commission, one
of the predecessor City Commissions, and I think the position of these people is
set forth in a memorandum from Mr. Berkley dated January 14, 1967. The facts and
questions of law remain the same. To rezone this property merely subjects these
property owners to an undue time and expense that they will have to incur in orde
• ••
family residential. We are also aware of the fact that the particular area in
question has also been reserved for church purposes. As I pointed out at the
last Planning Commission meeting, it is difficult to seek a church to build, in
other words, if the church does not seek you, then there is no reason to use
that area for the area as designated; so with respect to that I just leave that
lie where it may except that I do not feel that that is pertinent and we will
certainly stipulate to the fact that the property restrictions may be a question;
nevertheless a court of law is the place to have them interpreted and construed."
"With respect to our request, to support it, we feel that first
of all
the four corners at Cloud and Ohio have not at any time, and they have been in
the City for a long time, and one of them, I believe, something like 30 years.
No one has ever sought to construct residential property there. As I understand
it both Cloud and Ohio Streets are major arterial streets, the proposed land use
map drawn up by Oblinger-Smith called for this particular area in question to be
commercial. It is impractical at this point, we feel, to continue to stress the
single family residential section at that particular point. In addition to that,
the planning staff has recommended that this area be approved for Zone "D"
commercial and the Planning Commission, as you are aware of in their letter,
recommended that it be zoned "D" commercial and the Planning Commission, as you
are aware of in their letter, recommended that it be zoned "D" commercial. Aside
from this to argue some respects of the opponents, first of all, most of the
descenters have argued only the property restrictions point, they have not,
I feel, come up with any logical reasoning why this would be bad for the City
to have this area zoned "D11 or actually why it would be bad for the entire area,
since, in fact, most of the area is not only zoned "D", across the street we
have "EE" which is the lowest class we can get, so to speak. None of the
protestors, none of the vehement protestors, or anyone has come to our attention
within the 200 foot area as indicated on the map, has been opposed to it;
therefore we assume that those within the 200 foot area have no objections to
this type of business and you will note that certain area behind this area in
question is already rezoned "C", which is multi -family and consequently what we
have at this point in time is somewhat of a landlocked little block right there
at the corner."
"I am sure as a land owner of that additional property, he too would
not want to see property values decrease there because of something he might
construct at the corner of Ohio and Cloud Streets; plus the fact, although
there are no definite plans for the use of this area right now, Dr. King, does
intend to develop something there that would be harmonious with the rest of the
atmosphere and something that would not be a blight on the area. He is willing
to work out any kind of arrangements with the opponents if they desire, and be
willing to meet with them and discuss this, and see whether or not something
cannot be worked out."
"That concludes my argument except for the fact that I would like to
say that at this meeting we have a number of people in support of the petition."
Mayor Usher asked everyone to stand who had not attended the Planning
Commissioner meeting regarding this petition and are in favor of the petition."
17 people stood.
Dr. King commented, "I sincerely feel there is considerable misundersta
about my request. It has never been my desire to ask for anything that would not
enhance the area, or build anything that would lower the property values. I also
feel that if and when we were to consider a new clinic, the architecture and
design would be similar to the office building of Doctors Dowell, Jackson and
Weber on East Iron, and that it would not be an objectionable type of building.
In small animal clinics everywhere, everything is inside and sound proof as
evidenced by them being in malls and in residential areas in other cities."
Mr. Kennedy said, "I am appearing here as sort of a last minute pitch
hitter for my partner Robert Berkley who has been handling this case. Again,
I think the position of the property owners who are opposing this rezoning
project boils down to one simple fact namely they bought property that had certai
zoning restrictions embodied in the tracts themselves and they merely want it kep
that way. The entire matter actually was submitted to this City Commission, one
of the predecessor City Commissions, and I think the position of these people is
set forth in a memorandum from Mr. Berkley dated January 14, 1967. The facts and
questions of law remain the same. To rezone this property merely subjects these
property owners to an undue time and expense that they will have to incur in orde
• ••
�0
to formally and legally protect their rights in court. It all boils down to a
simple matter of enforcing a restrictive covenant that exists on this property,
and that basically regardless of the merits or demerits of the proponents positio ,
we feel justified that basically is the entire reasoning of the people supporting
the denial of this."
Mr. Pierce said, "I would like to speak for the opponents. I have
before me a petition of 150 people in our area who are against this zoning,
might show you."
Mayor Usher commented, "I think they are all here tonight."
Mr. Pierce said, "Almost. I have drawn out on a map to show you the
people that are involved with these signatures. We have all but 3 people in the
Schippel Addition. One is a rental property, that have expressed their desire
to keep this as a residential area. Now as a point I would also bring it up,
we realize the corner of Cloud and Ohio has not developed as a residential area.
I might point out also that the corner of Ohio and Albert which has been zoned
commercially since 1958 has not developed as a commercial area. There is a
great deal of commercial property.available along Ohio for commercialization.
We feel that we would like to keep our area as a residential area, not have
commercialization in our particular Schippel Addition. Also we would like to
remind the Commission that two weeks ago the Planning board disapproved a nearly
identical request for zoning at the corner of North Ohio and Greeley, stating
that they wished to discourage additional traffic on Ohio Street which commercial
establishments along its route would surely create. The reasoning, we feel, is
a valid reason. We feel that North Ohio and South Ohio should be treated in like
manner. I have, as I say a group of people here that, not quite all 150, but I
am sure a number of them would like to say a few things in regard to disapproval
of this petition."
Mayor Usher explained, "Well, we might go all evening doing that Harold
but I think if we could get them all to stand that might give us in relationship
if that is the pleasure of the Commission."
Mr. Pierce said, "One more thing, I listened to Dr. King's comments,
and as he stated that he wanted the corner there, has no plans, current plans,
at the time for that, and he has a great interest in our area. I would also like
to ask him why he seeks commercialization of other spot zoning in our area on a
previous proposal?"
Mayor Usher said, "Well, I hate to get into a debate on this thing
because we have been through the Planning Commission and what we wanted to do is
give both the opponents and proponents an opportunity to speak, so we would have
some kind of feeling. We have all had minutes of this Planning Commission
meeting, and what I would like to do is open it up to the Commission, now I have
a couple of questions and I am sure the other Commissioners have too, if that
is satisfactory."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "Let's clear up one thing with our City
Attorney and that is the business of restrictive covenants. It has been some
time since this business of restrictive covenants has been brought up to the
City Commission. We have had a little about it in the past, but the Planning
Commission, when they make a decision on this zoning, should they take the
restrictive covenants into consideration at all? Should they overlook it
completely? Do they have latitude in this matter or from a legal point of view
what sort of emphasis or credence should be given to this business of restrictive
covenants so far as the Planning Commission and so far as this City Commission
are concerned?"
The City Attorney replied, "Actually restrictive covenants are an
agreement between the property owners within a specified area. Now whether the
Planning Commission should or should not take these into consideration I suppose
is a matter for debate. It probably has merits on both sides; however I would
say this, that the fact that the area has restrictive covenants on it does not
prohibit the City from rezoning this property, which would be different from
those in the covenants. The covenants that are in the plat must be enforced
among the property owners by injunction or any other legal process. It is not
for the City to enforce restrictive covenants that are in a plat."
41
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "No, I am sure it isn't, and yet it seems
like sort of an exercise in futility, in a way, not to take them into considerati n."
The City Attorney replied, "Well, this is probably true. I think
probably what the petitioners have said here, they question the legality of the
restrictions and that this would be a matter for the courts to decide and not the
Commission, and I think this is their prerogative."
Mayor Usher asked Mr. Wasserman, "Are there any court cases in Kansas
on restrictive covenants?"
Mr. Wasserman replied, "Yes there are."
Mayor Usher asked, Have they been favorable or unfavorable?"
Mr. Wasserman said, "It is real unfortunate that Mr. Berkley isn't
here. The last time we were before the Planning Commission he had a number of
these cited. I have read some going both ways. Generally reasons for not
enforcing them are substantial changes in the area in which, of course, we feel
we have here. Sometimes reasons for not enforcing them are because people have
gotten together to amend them, either a majority of the people or all of the
people or something like that; which has also happened here and which, not to
create any conflict with Mr. Kennedy, is subject to question. I would say it is,
but nevertheless there has been a document filed with respect to those restrictio s
and it has been signed by a majority of the property owners out there to amend it
Whether that is a valid document again is something that, as Mr. Bengtson, pointe
out, is up to a court of law to decide, but as far as court cases going all one
way or all the other way, you can find them on both sides."
Mayor Usher asked, "We have never had one in our courts here?"
Mr. Wasserman replied, "Not that I am aware."
Commissioner Losik asked, "Keith, you can probably answer this better
for us than anybody here, I suppose. Has the proposed land use plan been
officially adopted?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "No, it is not."
Commissioner Losik said, "Alright."
Mr. Rawlings said, "It has been approved, but it has not been adopted."
Commissioner Losik said, "Alright, from here until the effective date
of adoption, can that plan be amended?"
Mr. Rawlings asked, "The one we are currently under?"
Commissioner Losik said, "No, the proposed one."
Mr. Rawlings replied, "Yes."
Commissioner Losik said, "Alright now, that is all I need on that. I
attended this meeting of the Planning Commission. Just happened to drop by it,
and many things did come out at that meeting, and frankly I am a little bit
concerned as to why the minutes of the meeting and the letter recommending
approval from the Planning Commission did not state what justified the basis for
this 3 to 2 vote to be made. Now I specifically asked those questions because
we are going to have to make a determination here today probably as to whether we
are going to follow the law that exists today or whether we are going to follow
a proposed law that might or might not be changed before it becomes law. The
basis that the chairman of the board of the Planning Commission used, to finally
break the deadlock was that it was in compliance with the proposed land use plan.
That would be just like us making right turns on a red light before the law was
enforced. We would have been violation. I feel quite troubled by that
recommendation being submitted without a complete and thorough evaluation in
accordance with the existing guidelines that we are supposed to be following.
211
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "As a matter of information or
correction, a land use plan is not a law."
Commissioner Losik said, "Call it what you may, it is a guideline that
we adhere to Jack, now that is a technicality but the point is it is a guideline
that is a land use plan."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "It is a guideline."
Commissioner Losik said, "When you deviate from it there should be a
very valid explanation as to why."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, there must be some basis in our land
use plan for the simple reason that the person who files the petition wants do
do something differently than the rules presently permit or they would not seek
a zoning change. If they wanted to use the area for whatever it had been
designated for then they would not need the zoning change, so apparently the
rules do have to receive some kind of considerations or the guidelines do have
to receive some kind of considerations from planning and the commission in order
for the land to be used for a different purpose. I suppose this does have to go
back to planning - it doesn"t have to, but it could go back to planning because
they did not forward the basis for their conclusion, they just simply forwarded
their conclusion, which we can either accept or reject; however the Commission
wants to do it. I might suggest a couple of things one of them being to Dr. King
This commission in the past has had petition changes - petitions for zoning change
that were opposed by people in the area and I can think of one recent occasion
where they were able to resolve the differences. Now you cited as an example
what you wanted to do would be comparable to the structure that is presently
over on East Iron, the medical clinic that is over on East Iron, now I am not
trying to equate the two residential areas, but if you had some firm plans as
to what you actually proposed to do with the area, and would visit with the peopl
that are involved, it is possible that you would not be facing some of the
opposition that you are facing at the present time. If the City Commission has
to decide on the basis of the information that is available to us at the present
time from your petition I think my views on these kinds of subjects are fairly
well know, the error of my thinking has been pointed out to me on several
different occasions, but I believe we do have to go by the guidelines that the
City has adopted unless there isn't any kind of opposition from the people in
the area; but the people in the area have an investment there and maybe
restrictive covenants and the rest of it are not supposed to be taken into
consideration, but I feel like governing bodies have a moral obligation to
more or less try and secure the investment of the people who are presently
there as opposed to the ones who want the area changed for whatever purpose.
Is that a justifiable reason?"
The City Attorney explained, "Well the law says that this is their
recommendation it be zoned, if you agree with their recommendation you would go
ahead and place an ordinance on first reading to rezone it; if you disagree with
their recommendation the law says at least one time you must send it back to them
with your reasons for sending it back, and then they will come back with a
recommendation, and at that point you can either accept it or reject it; but
if you disagree with it on the first time, you must send it back if you disagree
with it."
Now I would hope that we would have a more valid and a more consistent
recommendation for us to take and chew on. Now it would also appear to me, and
this Commission has practiced this quite religiously, that when a controversial
item is on the agenda we made every effort to make sure the full membership was
present so that it would be discussed and a decision reached by - if humanly
possible - all of them. To me, I came here not to criticize that they weren't
there or that they should have been, the point is, it is such a weak recommendati n
it is not based on any valid existing rule and I would therefore feel that we
should send this back for further evaluation to the planning board because we
cannot disapprove it here, if I am correct, it this right Larry, it has to go
back to the planning board. I would therefore request that it be sent back to
them and the basis is to give an explanation that as to how this recommendation
was reached as to whether it was on the current guidelines or the proposed. If
it was on the proposed, there should be a full justification why a proposed law
is being used as opposed to an existing law."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "As a matter of information or
correction, a land use plan is not a law."
Commissioner Losik said, "Call it what you may, it is a guideline that
we adhere to Jack, now that is a technicality but the point is it is a guideline
that is a land use plan."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "It is a guideline."
Commissioner Losik said, "When you deviate from it there should be a
very valid explanation as to why."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, there must be some basis in our land
use plan for the simple reason that the person who files the petition wants do
do something differently than the rules presently permit or they would not seek
a zoning change. If they wanted to use the area for whatever it had been
designated for then they would not need the zoning change, so apparently the
rules do have to receive some kind of considerations or the guidelines do have
to receive some kind of considerations from planning and the commission in order
for the land to be used for a different purpose. I suppose this does have to go
back to planning - it doesn"t have to, but it could go back to planning because
they did not forward the basis for their conclusion, they just simply forwarded
their conclusion, which we can either accept or reject; however the Commission
wants to do it. I might suggest a couple of things one of them being to Dr. King
This commission in the past has had petition changes - petitions for zoning change
that were opposed by people in the area and I can think of one recent occasion
where they were able to resolve the differences. Now you cited as an example
what you wanted to do would be comparable to the structure that is presently
over on East Iron, the medical clinic that is over on East Iron, now I am not
trying to equate the two residential areas, but if you had some firm plans as
to what you actually proposed to do with the area, and would visit with the peopl
that are involved, it is possible that you would not be facing some of the
opposition that you are facing at the present time. If the City Commission has
to decide on the basis of the information that is available to us at the present
time from your petition I think my views on these kinds of subjects are fairly
well know, the error of my thinking has been pointed out to me on several
different occasions, but I believe we do have to go by the guidelines that the
City has adopted unless there isn't any kind of opposition from the people in
the area; but the people in the area have an investment there and maybe
restrictive covenants and the rest of it are not supposed to be taken into
consideration, but I feel like governing bodies have a moral obligation to
more or less try and secure the investment of the people who are presently
there as opposed to the ones who want the area changed for whatever purpose.
Is that a justifiable reason?"
The City Attorney explained, "Well the law says that this is their
recommendation it be zoned, if you agree with their recommendation you would go
ahead and place an ordinance on first reading to rezone it; if you disagree with
their recommendation the law says at least one time you must send it back to them
with your reasons for sending it back, and then they will come back with a
recommendation, and at that point you can either accept it or reject it; but
if you disagree with it on the first time, you must send it back if you disagree
with it."
21.2
Commissioner Caldwell said, "I have some comments about the rezoning.
We have heard two recommendations for returning it to the Planning Commission.
I would be in favor of returning it back to the Planning Commission with these
recommendations, that 5 of the 9 members voted - 5 of the 9 members on the
board present with a 3 to 2 vote. The present land use plan is residential.
The intended use is unknown and there is no definite plan for the use of this
project. This will add additional traffic on Ohio which was recommended 2 weeks
ago on Ohio and Greeley and this was turned down because of additional traffic
on Ohio. We continue to ignore the quarry of downtown Salina, and we have a
continuous effort in its deterioration while we continue to rezone other areas
in the city. I would recommend returning this to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration on these five conditions."
Commissioner Losik said, "If that is a motion, I'll second it."
Mayor Usher called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
None
COMMISSION AGENDA
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3440 was filed by Frank C. Norton for the rezoning of
the South ' of Lot 6 on Fifth Street, Hollands' Addition to the City of Salina,
Saline County, Kansas, from District "C" (Apartment District) to District "D"
(Local Business District). A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber,
seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the City Planning
Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A MERCHANT POLICE LICENSE Application was filed by Paul J. Gesti, Sr.
d/b/a Merchant's Special Police Service and Merchant's Detective Agency. The
City Clerk reported the applicant has paid the required fee, and the application
has been approved by the Police Department. A motion was made by Commissioner
Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to approve the license application and
authorize the City Clerk to issue the license. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE Application was filed by Everett D.
Billbe, d/b/a The Rondezvous, 101' North Broadway. (New application). The City
Clerk reported the applicant has paid the required fee, and the application has
been approved by the Health Department, Zoning Officer, and the Police Department
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the license
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE Application was filed by Richard L.
Crawford, d/b/a Mopsey's Bar, 808 North Santa Fe. (New application). The City
Clerk reported the applicant has paid the required fee and the application has
been approved by the Health Department, Zoning Officer and the Police Department.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the IicensE
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY COMMISSIONERS considered a request from William F. Keeler
for a project status report on the petition filed by the Quivera Hunting Club
for a civilian shooting facility on the new landfill property.
Mr. Harris reported, "We have met with the President and the Treasurer
of the club. I believe Mr. Mudd the Club President is in the audience. I
suppose first of all it would be in order for me to explain and appologize for
the delay here. I am sure it prompted Mr. Keeler's inquiry. The City Manager
turned this over to me some time ago and in the mean time we were involved in
negotiating the lease of the property with Mr. Hocking. That was finally
concluded in March, about the middle of March. Since that time I have been
involved in a number of other projects that have been quite time consuming,
the annual report, application for recertification of the workable program,
our paper recycling operation and the budget. Then I decided to take a little
213
Commissioner Weisgerber asked how much land is required.
Mr. Harris replied, "Well this is what we don't know really until we
get accurate information on the specifications for safety areas. It looks like
a minimum of 23 acres."
Mr. Boyer said, "23 acres would be the bare requirements of just the
dimensions of a 600 foot range."
Mr. Harris explained, "But the confusion we get into from these
specifications that they provided us is in the safety zone for riccochet. When
the engineers went to measure that out it just didn't check out."
Commissioner Weisgerber said the land out there that we are not using
is all under lease."
Mr. Harris said, "Well the area that they have requested is in a wheat
field. I think under our agreement, our lease agreement with Mr. Hocking that
we can amend that lease for a municipal purpose. Naturally this would mean an
amendment to that lease, pulling that land out of production and there we are
talking about some amount of money. I don't have any idea how much at this
point."
Mayor Usher asked Mr. Keeler who the officers of the executive committe
are.
Mr. Keeler said, "Raymond Mudd is the President, Bob Frobenius is
Treasurer, and Ron Tremblay is Secretary. In the executive committee also are
the past presidents."
Mayor Usher commented, "You can see the value of the request that we
coordinate our efforts with our executive committee, that it would be best."
Mayor Usher asked if this is satisfactory as far as the status report
is concerned.
Mr. Keeler replied it is.
time off for sickness in the last part of June and the fore part of this month.
Then last week, my first full week back on the job, I did pull this out of the
pile and start doing some work on it. We have contacted the National Guard, we
want to explore that as a possibility to use the range that is existing. They
are in the process of changing commanders. We understand a new CO will probably
be here around the first of August and we will try to arrange a meeting with him
soon after that time to see what possibly could be worked out for the use of that
existing facility• The Quivera Hunting Club, as a result of our meeting with Mr.
Mudd and Mr. Tremblay, will be obtaining additional information on the possibility
of Federal funding, fhe mechanics of submitting an application and the requiremerits
for local contributions and participation. They will also be getting some
additional information on range specifications. They provided us a drawing of a
range with the required safety areas. When the Engineers went to check this out
and plot it on the landfill property, they found out things didn't check out so
far as the area that was shown, so they are checking that out. There is also a
possibility of a piece of privately owned land near the City that might be used
for this. It is a non-productive piece of land and we will be contacting the
owner of that to see what mght be worked out, and also checking out the safety
requirements on it. There are a number of possibilities or alternatives to be
considered. The club tells us also that they have Clancy King, a member of the
club, researching and trying to develop a proposal to submit whereby they might
lease the land from the City, construct the range, operate and maintain it
themselves. I think this is pretty much the status of the petition at this
time. I think that it would be to everyone's benefit if we could deal strictly
with the executive committee of that organization. Mr. Keeler is a member of
the Quivera Hunting Club, and I believe that it might save some confusion and
misunderstanding if he and the other members of that club work entirely through
their officers and let us coordinate with them. In this way we might avoid some
misunderstanding about it."
Commissioner Weisgerber asked how much land is required.
Mr. Harris replied, "Well this is what we don't know really until we
get accurate information on the specifications for safety areas. It looks like
a minimum of 23 acres."
Mr. Boyer said, "23 acres would be the bare requirements of just the
dimensions of a 600 foot range."
Mr. Harris explained, "But the confusion we get into from these
specifications that they provided us is in the safety zone for riccochet. When
the engineers went to measure that out it just didn't check out."
Commissioner Weisgerber said the land out there that we are not using
is all under lease."
Mr. Harris said, "Well the area that they have requested is in a wheat
field. I think under our agreement, our lease agreement with Mr. Hocking that
we can amend that lease for a municipal purpose. Naturally this would mean an
amendment to that lease, pulling that land out of production and there we are
talking about some amount of money. I don't have any idea how much at this
point."
Mayor Usher asked Mr. Keeler who the officers of the executive committe
are.
Mr. Keeler said, "Raymond Mudd is the President, Bob Frobenius is
Treasurer, and Ron Tremblay is Secretary. In the executive committee also are
the past presidents."
Mayor Usher commented, "You can see the value of the request that we
coordinate our efforts with our executive committee, that it would be best."
Mayor Usher asked if this is satisfactory as far as the status report
is concerned.
Mr. Keeler replied it is.
214
Mr. Harris commented, "I might add that it would appear that we ought
to come up with something more definite, further to report here in the next
month or two after we meet with the National Guard, and this would give us a
chance to check into these federal programs, and check out the various alternativ s
that we have hit upon so far. I would imagine at least by September we ought
to have something."
Mayor Usher asked if that would be alright with Mr. Keeler
Mr. Keeler said, "Could I ask it be placed on the agenda some time
in the first part of September."
Mayor Usher said, "You are welcome to do that, and it would probably
be best if you would make a note of it and coordinate with the staff here.
You don't want it put on the agenda unless they have got something we can talk
to you about."
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Caldwell that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk