Loading...
03-27-1972 Minutes1 City of Salina, Kansas Commissioners' Meeting March 27, 1972 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, March 27, 1972, 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 Robert C. Caldwell, Chairman presiding Commissioner Leon L. Ashton 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 March 20, 1972, were approved as mailed. Mr. Norman Riffel, President of the Salina Jaycees, was present and read a Resolution adopted by the Salina Jaycees supporting the construction and operation of a Multi-purpose building. The Mayor introduced Mrs. Ella Smith, of the Mothers Club, and asked her and her group to stand, and give the reason for attending. Mrs. Smith explained that Mrs. Weisgerber is a member, and they have not taken a very active part in the Commission meetings and thought it would be nice to visit and see what the Commission is up to. STAFF AGENDA BIDS WERE RECEIVED for the demolition of 34 structures. (Engineering Project Number 72-546) Bob Albers Construction, Inc., Salina, Kansas $8,500.00 Ark Wrecking Company, Wichita, Kansas 8,620.00 Bob Smith Salvage Company, Solomon, Kansas 10,000.00 Stevens Contractors, Inc., Salina, Kansas 10,300.00 Wilson Constructors, Inc., Salina, Kansas 15,678.00 Commissioner Ashton asked if the contractor demolishing these structures is to fill the ground to grade level? The City Engineer explained that he is to completely clean and level the lot. A Motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to accept the bid of Bob Albers Construction, Inc., for $8,500.00, based on the Engineer's specifications. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing that every electrical contractor must have a master electrician in its employment who may not act as the master electrician for more than one electrical contractor; amending Section 9-146 of The Salina Code and repealing the existing section." The City Attorney said he reviewed the proposed amendments which the Building Code Advisory Board made, and suggested an amendment on the final reading: "One and the same person may hold the electrical contractor's license and the Master Electrician's license. This master electrician shall be in the employ of only one person, firm, partnership, or corporation holding an electrical contractor's license" be amended to read: "One and the same person may hold the electrical contractor's license and the master electrician's license. For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section, a master electrician may act as the master electrician for only one electrical contractor." This way we are not prohibiting him from working for more than one contractor, but we are prohibiting him from using his license as a master electrician for more than one firm. The City Attorney said he talked with Mr. Whitaker, who is the electrical inspector, and reviewed this with him, and he is sure this is perfectly acceptable with the Board, because this is what they are trying to do. They are trying to prohibit a master electrician, who could say to someone, for a fee, you can list my name in the City Clerk's Office as your master electrician, for the purpose of obtaining a contractors' license. He might be able to do this for four or five different ones. Our intent is that the electrician might work for more than one, but for the purpose of obtaining an electrics contractor's license, be listed as the master electrician for one firm. This is what the Building Code Advisory Board and the Electrical Code Panel were attempting to do in the amendment. Commissioner Cooper asked if they all agree? The City Attorney said they all agree he should not be able to be the master electrician for more than one, and this was the whole purpose behind the amendment, that three or four electrical contractors could not use the same master electrician. He said his feeling is that the purpose of having a master electrician is to supervise work and if he can be a master electrician for four or five firms, he could not do this. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to adopt the ordinance as amended. Commissioner Losik said he would like to make sure the records reflect that this is in accord with both the Electrical Code Panel and the Building Code Advisory Board, so we don't have any kickbacks on this. Mayor Caldwell asked the City Attorney if that was the way he stated it? The City Attorney said he checked with Mr. Whitaker, who is a member of this group and he said he is sure this will be acceptable. This was their intent. The Mayor called for a vote on the motion to adopt the ordinance as amended. Ayes: Ashton, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8197. The ordinance was introduced for first reading March 20, 1972. A LETTER was received from the Salina City Planning Commission recommending the request of John Ryberg to withdraw his petition number 3142, for the rezoning of Lot 19, Block 2; Lot 10, Block 5; and all of Block 1, Lakewood Addition (Preliminary Plat) be approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to accept the Salina City Planning Commission recommendation and allow John Ryberg to withdraw his petition. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LETTER was received from the Building Code Advisory Board recommending the adoption of the 1971 Edition of the National Electrical Code. Mayor Caldwell asked the City Attorney if he had any comments. The City Attorney said he is assuming they are asking that it be adopted, but still retain the exceptions to it we have in the present City Code, because there is some conflict between the National Electrical Code and our present City Code. In previous action, when we have adopted the National Electrical Code, we specifically provide wherever it is in conflict with our City Code, that our code controls and I'm assuming we are not going to adopt it in toto, but adopt it in all particulars which are not in conflict with our local code. Commissioner Ashton asked if the other recommendations for the upgrading of the code would be forthcoming, and spelled out at a later date? The City Manager said the Electrical Code Panel and the Building Code Advisory Board had a meeting March 22, 1972, and they could not resolve their differences on the deletions at this meeting and will meet at a later date and attempt to reach an agreement. All members present were unanimous wanting the 1971 National Electrical Code adopted as soon as possible. This does not involve the City Code portion. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to accept the recommendation of the Building Code Advisory Board and adopt the 1971 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and to introduce an ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. Ordinance Passed: 3 191E Number: 7199 COMMISSION AGENDA None PUBLIC AGENDA PETITION NUMBER 3238 was filed by Richard A. Payne, Jr. for the installation of a street light at the corner of Neal and Linda Lane, Bonnie Ridge Addition to the City of Salina, Kansas. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a report. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3239 was filed by Verner C. Smith for the installation of concrete paving, curb, sewer and water for Linda Lane to the South edge of Bonnie Ridge from Neal Avenue, and for Scott Avenue from Linda Lane to Pattie Drive. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a report. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA Mayor Caldwell introduced Mrs. Caldwell, who was present. Commissioner Cooper asked about the water line project at the cut-off channel and Channel Road. The City Engineer said it has been completed, the line has been tested, and we are backfilling today. The water was turned loose last week. Commissioner Cooper said it isn't back at the same level that it was before. The City Engineer explained that it is because the gates at the dam have not been closed, but that amount of water is all that will ever come through the City. Commissioner Cooper asked if we couldn't reverse it, so it would appear there is more water in the river through town. Commissioner Cooper said she would also like to make mention of the fact that she hopes we are still corresponding and communicating with the Corps in regard to flow in the channel coming through town, so they won't forget about us. The City Engineer explained that there is not much of anything we can do, they have assured us we will stay in the hopper. Commissioner Ashton asked the City Attorney a question regarding railroad crossings. He said he had a phone call today wanting to know if we had taken any action toward getting the Ninth Street and Santa Fe crossings fixed. The City Attorney said this is an annual event, that we have to threaten them to get it done. The City Engineer said Rock Island is supposed to start repairing their crossings this coming Monday. Union Pacific has just replaced the crossing at 4th and Iron. The Missouri Pacific crossings are generally in very good condition. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. D. L. Harrison, City Clerk City of Salina, Kansas Commissioners' Meeting April 3, 1972 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, April 3, 1972, at four 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 Robert C. Caldwell, Chairman presiding Commissioner Leon L. Ashton 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 March 27, 1972, were approved as mailed. The Mayor recognized Rick Morrow, 5th Grader from Lowell School, who received the Outstanding Youth Award, at the Gra-Y Model City program. The Mayor recognized two Boy Scouts, David Sissler and David Larson, from Troop 23, who are working on their Citizenship Badge. The Mayor asked his daughter, Toy Caldwell, to stand. STAFF AGENDA BIDS WERE RECEIVED on Engineering Project 72--544 for street and water improvements in Lakewood Park: Smoky Hill, Inc., Salina, Kansas $115,901.49 Stevens Contractors, Inc., Salina, Kansas 118,763.01 Engineer's Estimate 121,550.15 A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the bid of Smoky Hill, Inc., for $115,901.49, subject to approval by the Engineer. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0), Motion carried. BIDS WERE RECEIVED on Engineering Project 72-544 A for the improvement of Lakewood Park: Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Presley Builders, Inc., Salina, Kansas $29,933.00 $35,913.00 Wilson Constructors, Inc., Salina, Kansas 34,353.00 41,403.00 Mullen Construction Co., Salina, Kansas 38,690.00 46,780.00 Engineer's Estimate 41,540.00 52,560.00 A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to accept the Presley Builders, Inc.,Alternate Bid # 2 in the amount of $35,913.00, based on the Engineer's specifications and approval. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Three Refuse Bodies for the Sanitation Department. 0. J. Watson Company, Wichita, Kansas $4,671.00 difference State Industrial Supply Co., Wichita, Kansas 7,989.00 difference Truck Parts & Equipment, Inc., Wichita, Kansas 8,295.00 difference A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept the bid of 0. J. Watson Company for $4,671.00 difference, subject to the Sanitation Department approval. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried, 1 1 BIDS WERE RECEIVED for a Dump Truck for the Street Department: Long McArthur, Inc., Salina, Kansas $4,087.00 Jim Sullivan Chevrolet, Salina, Kansas 4,185.17 International Harvester 4,398.00 A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to accept the bid of Long McArthur, Inc., in the amount of $4,087.00, subject to meeting the specifications. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A MOTION was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Losik to set the date of April 17, 1972 as the date to receive bids for three two ton cab and chassis for the Sanitation Department and instruct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE adopting by reference the 1971 Edition of the National Electrical Code; amending Section 9-179 of The Salina Code and repealing the original section." A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to adopt the ordinance as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8198. The ordinance was introduced for first reading March 27, 1972. THE CITY ENGINEER filed Final Estimate on Engineering Project 71-533 for sidewalk improvement for Wilson Constructors, Inc., Salina, Kansas, in the amount of $6,618.65. (Central Business District sidewalk job) A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to approve the final estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. THE CITY ENGINEER filed Final Estimate on Engineering Project 71-539 for sidewalk improvements, for James A. Heckert, Contractor, Salina, Kansas, in the amount of $2,855.40. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to approve the final estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. THE CITY ENGINEER filed Final Estimate on.Engineering Project 71-540 for water main improvements and sanitary sewer extension for Earth Excavation, Inc., Salina, Kansas, in the amount of $620.56. (Saunders Leasing System) A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to approve the final estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 1 on Engineering Project 71-536 for water main repair across the river channel, for J. S. Frank Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $11,856.83. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. COMMISSION AGENDA "INQUIRY CONCERNING THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION" (Commissioner Cooper) Commissioner Cooper directed her inquiry to the City Attorney. She said this agreement, concerning the Metropolitan Planning Commission, is a legal document and she wanted his opinion on a couple of items. She asked, first, will the Metropolitan Planning Commission, excluding the additional area involved, have the same, or more, authority than the present Planning Commission? The City Attorney replied yes, but its authority is set out by State Law; basically they are going to do the same job, except they are going to extend their jurisdiction out for another three miles. Commissioner Cooper said, in other words, "Yes, the new commission will have the same authority as the present commission." Second, she asked if the City needed the approval of the Attorney General's office to establish the present Planning Commission. The City Attorney replied, "No". Commissioner Cooper said, if the local government is authorized by State Statute to form a joint planning commission, then why do we have to have the approval? The City Attorney explained that the State Law says whenever any two governmental agencies join in any agreement to do any act that individuals do, that agreement must be approved by the Attorney General's Office. Commissioner Cooper asked, even though there is a State Statute which permits you to do this? City Attorney replied, "Yes". Commissioner Cooper asked if there is any part of the agreement that is not satisfactory, can we change or amend it before second reading? The City Attorney said we can change it in any way that will not conflict with State Law, but if our present agreement conflicts with State Law, the Attorney General is going to tell us about it and will not approve it until we do amend it, so it does not conflict with State Law. Commissioner Cooper said supposing we get it back and there is no conflict as far as the Attorney General's Office is concerned, then if we wanted to make an amendment or any kind of change, would it then have to go back for another approval? The City Attorney said it certainly would. It not only would have to go back to the Attorney General, but it would also have to go back to the Board of Commissioners of Saline County, because you cannot make any change, if the Attorney General approves it, without resubmitting it to him, or resubmitting it to the County, which has already approved it. Commissioner Losik repeated that any changes could be made if they are required or desirable, but we would have to route it through the same channel. The City Attorney said he spoke with John Martin, Assistant to the Attorney General, about 10 days ago, and he said he read the agreement through, and he didn't have any quarrels with it except he wanted to make sure, in his own mind, none of the provisions in the ordinance are in conflict with the State Statutes. The City Attorney said all provisions in it were basically copied from the State Statutes. He said he called again this morning, but Mr. Martin had not returned his call before three o'clock, so he is not sure as to the present status of it. He said the only thing Mr. Martin wanted to check was that there is no conflict with the ordinance and the State Statutes. Commissioner Cooper said she reviewed the present City Planning Commission, or the ordinance creating the present planning commission, and there is a provision allowing any person that would be dissatisfied with a Salina City Planning Commission decision to come to the City Commission, as an alternate recourse. In the Metropolitan Planning Commission, there is nothing. She read from paragraph 90 of the agreement: "That any person, official or governmental agency dissatisfied with any order or determination of said Board may bring any action to the district court of the county in which such property is located to determine the reasonableness of any such order or determination..." Commissioner Cooper said you don't have to pass an ordinance to tell people they can go to court, but do you have to provide it in an ordinance they they can go back to the local governing unit? The City Attorney said people always have the right to come before you with any problem or request. Commissioner Cooper said they do in the old one, but I can't find it in the new one. The City Attorney said they always have the prerogative to come to you to discuss anything. Commissioner Cooper said why doesn't it say so. 69 ,. The City Attorney said at the time of the hearing, you are the ones who will be rezoning and taking any formal action and the citizens may appear. Commissioner Cooper said she is not talking about appearing, she is talking about appearing before the Metropolitan Planning Commission and get a decision they were not satisfied with. Since the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Metropolitan Planning Commission are one and the same body, what follows these two, if they are still dissatisfied? Do they have any recourse to go to the local officials of the City or County, or is their only choice to go to court? Mr. Bengtson said he would be happy to review paragraph 90 for them and report back at the next meeting. The City Planner explained that the agreement is talking about a different board, the Board of Metropolitan Zoning Appeals, it is not talking about the planning commission. Commissioner Cooper said the Board of Zoning Appeals is the Planning Commission, don't they sit as the same? The City Planner said, "No, it is a separate board." He pointed out that this is a direct copy from the State Statutes, which says: "That any person, official or governmental agency dissatisfied with any order or determination of said board may bring any action in the district court of the county in which such property is located to determine the reasonableness of any such order or determination..." He explained that it is permissive, if they want to, the appeal is still open to the City Commission, if they don't like your decision, they can appeal on to the district court. Mr. Ryberg was present and asked if the sewers were approved, if he, as a developer, will have to pay the 50% charges. He said there is already development on the land. Commissioner Losik said Resolution 3113 is what we are talking about, and he said he thinks it specifically brought this out, and if this is one of the loop holes the City Attorney spoke about, it should be closed immediately. We have to draw the line, and do this in the spirit and intent of what we are trying to do. Commissioner Weisgerber said there was probably no assessed valuation on the taxes this year. The City Attorney said we consider improved property, as of the date of the filing of the petition. If there are no improvements on the premises assessed for taxation purposes in the County Clerk's Office, then they are required to deposit 50% of the cost of the improvement. Commissioner Weisgerber said he happened to drive on North Street and noticed the building, and asked if it was started after January 1st. He said they seem to be making fairly good headway. The foundations are laid and there is some framing done. Commissioner Losik asked when the building permit was issued? Mr. Ryberg replied in November, 1971. 1 The City Planner said it might be a good idea to have the City Attorney review • this for them. PUBLIC AGENDA PETITION NUMBER 3240 was filed by The Hansen Development Company, 2450 South Ninth Street, for the rezoning of Mid -State Mall from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "D" (Local Business District). A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the Salina City Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3241 was filed by John Ryberg for sanitary sewers i.n Lakewood Addition. Mr. Ryberg was present and asked if the sewers were approved, if he, as a developer, will have to pay the 50% charges. He said there is already development on the land. Commissioner Losik said Resolution 3113 is what we are talking about, and he said he thinks it specifically brought this out, and if this is one of the loop holes the City Attorney spoke about, it should be closed immediately. We have to draw the line, and do this in the spirit and intent of what we are trying to do. Commissioner Weisgerber said there was probably no assessed valuation on the taxes this year. The City Attorney said we consider improved property, as of the date of the filing of the petition. If there are no improvements on the premises assessed for taxation purposes in the County Clerk's Office, then they are required to deposit 50% of the cost of the improvement. Commissioner Weisgerber said he happened to drive on North Street and noticed the building, and asked if it was started after January 1st. He said they seem to be making fairly good headway. The foundations are laid and there is some framing done. Commissioner Losik asked when the building permit was issued? Mr. Ryberg replied in November, 1971. 1 Commissioner Losik said he believed they discussed the building permit as opposed to actual construction. Anyone could ask for a building permit and that in itself does not constitute improvement. Since you were aware this was going to be built, this could be a method of getting around the spirit and intent of what we're trying to do here with Resolution 3113. This must be corrected immediately and the loop holes closed. Anyone can go in here and start the development, get the building permit and go ahead before it goes on the tax roll, then immediately we have to go ahead and put those improvements in, even though there is no assurance the development will be completed, or the improvements paid for, even though the intentions are proper and right. Commissioner Losik moved that in view of the legal opinion rendered here by Mr. Bengtson, that the petitioner put up 50/*as required in Resolution Number 3113, and the petition be approved and referred to the Engineering Department for a report as expediently as possible, and to comply with State Law. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion to refer the petition to the City Engineer and that it be expedited. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. ,�—Xw,e ^1 t,�ir c1� D. L. Harrison, City Clerk