04-10-1972 MinutesA
w
City of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners' Meeting
April 10, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners'
Room, City -County Building, on Monday, April 10, 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 April 3, 1972, were approved as mailed.
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the Week of April 10 through 15, 1972 - "LIFE INSURANCE
L
WEEK". The proclamation was read by Mr. Frank Ptacek, General Agent for American
c
>.
National Insurance Company.
C
O
+_
N
o
-
-
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the Month of April, 1972 - "CANCER CONTROL MONTH" and
`�
L
�-'E
s
L
Monday, April 17, 1972 - "CANCER CRUSADE DAY". The proclamation was read by
D
-+-
0
a
+
�
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk, for Mrs. Donald Amend.
E
^U
4-
N
0_
Ln
z
°
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the Week of April 10 through 17, 1972 - "ARBOR WEEK".
°
-0
(D
coo
L>
The proclamation was read by Mrs. Michael 01 dfather.
°
i-
o
o-0Mo+f0-
—
a)
a)
•C
STAFF AGENDA
4-
O
E
N
L
a)
IL
c
�
•-
+
(n
3
E
°
co
3
a)
L
ui
°
THE CITY COMMISSIONERS considered an agreement between the City of Salina
o
2:
_0°
L_
o
m
+-n
and the State Highway Commission, for project 70-85 1 70-4 (-) which will be supplement
-o
c
¢
(1)
-
+
.-
—
.-
number 1 to agreement 39-70 for updating guard fence for that part of Interstate 70
+_
°
o
o
M
E
3
M
L
within the City Limits.
L
O
0)
L
O
3+
-
+<
L
+-
cn
co
U
CL m.n
_
°
c
c
c
The City Manager explained that agreement 39-70 was signed in December of 1970,
`-
�
�
C•°
a
+
0
—
and the only difference between this supplemental agreement and the original agreement
w
,
a)
a)
cn
°
U)
+
o
is the definition of the area within the City Limits. It is now described with a legal
UJ
.-
+
�'F
o
description of so many feet from the center of US 81, whereas the supplemental agreement
>
+
+
i
E.-
.
will describe it as from the west city limits to the east city limits. This agreement
LU
°
(On
_
r
m
�
o
will be good, even if the city limits change in the future.
�-
F-
—
.n
--
-0
a)
.o
°
-0
E
E
A motion was made b Commissioner Cooper, seconded b Commissioner Ashton
Y P Y
U
m
L
(D
o
Q)
o
(n
to approve the agreement and place an ordinance on first reading authorizing the Mayor
Li _
—
+
3
a
o
a)
co
z
to sign the agreement, Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
c
�
U
(n
L
•—
(1)
CL
a)
U)
L_
Passed: ;i IJ 197z Number: 5199
3
T
L
L
N
T
-h
Ordinance
a)
a)
—
-c
+f°
C
aa))
U
o
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber
U•-
-c
-;:0)
(0
•-
0)o
C
a
L
(0
N
-
4-
L
()
-
m
C
(n
a)
>.
to introduce an ordinance for first reading creating and defining a certain lateral
.0
3
in
w
6.
-a
¢
w
¢
sanitary sewer district in the City of Salina, Kansas, designated as Lateral Sanitary
Sewer District Number 514, and providing for the construction of a lateral sanitary
sewer in said Lateral Sanitary Sewer District Number 514. (The sanitary sewer was
requested in Petition Number 3241, which was filed by John Ryberg on March 30, 1972)
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: l I�l L Number: gZ 0 0
A LETTER was received from the Salina City Planning Commission recommending
the City Commission amend the Salina Transportation Study to establish Schilling Road
as a major arterial road and establish a 40 foot setback line on either side of Schilling
Road, extending from US 81 to Arnold.
Commissioner Ashton asked if this would create any problems with existing
facilities in any way.
The City Planner answered that it would not create any problems for existing
facilities and that the setback should be established so if the street is widened for a
thoroughfare in the future, there is enough right--of-way for the expansion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Ashton
to amend the Transportation Study to establish Schilling Road as a major arterial road
and establish a 40 foot setback line. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Salina City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of Petition Number 3229, filed by the Salina Airport Authority, for the
rezoning of the West 415 feet of Block 6, Schilling Sub -division from "P.I.P." (Planned
Industrial Park) to "F" (Light Industrial).
Commissioner Losik asked if this rezoning has any bearing as to the controversial
item regarding the building permit and inspections that are going on at Tony's?
The City Planner said he did not recall the Planning Commission discussing this as
an item under consideration.
Commissioner Losik asked what can be done to prevent the reoccurrence of something
like this?
The City Manager said he is of the opinion it will not happen again. The petition
for rezoning should have been filed prior to the issuance of the building permit. He said
this is the only error he is aware that might have been committed.
Commissioner Losik asked if any of the city inspectors had been out inspecting
the construction.
The City Manager replied that he assumed they have been calling for inspections,
the same as any other construction.
Commissioner Losik asked what control is there? Doesn't he have a permit number
to refer to when he goes out to inspect? How can an inspector go out and inspect without
having that? He said what is done is done, but how do we prevent it from happening again?
The City Engineer said he has the number now, but inspections can be made by
referring back to a name or a street number.
Commissioner Losik said he is still not getting a clear answer. He said we
have gone ahead and violated the code and code enforcement in some way, shape or form,
this is neither here nor there on this particular case. He said he does not want to do
anything to delay it, what he said he is interested in is what are we going to do to
prevent this in the future. He added there are certainly ways we can expedite it from
this end, and he said he thinks, if it had been brought to our attention, we would have,
under the circumstances. He said he is concerned about this thing being taken so lightly.
A precedent has been set. This has been done before and obviously it will happen again.
The City Attorney explained that if the inspector finds out that a building is
being constructed without a permit he could get an injunction to enjoin the person from
the building. This is the procedure, which could be followed if he wanted to.
Mrs. Lucille Hanson spoke about her problem of trying to get her property off
the demolition job. She said she feels she was not properly informed of her rights and
feels the whole building inspection office is "bent out of joint". She feels she has
been mistreated on this demolition of her property and mentioned several other items
that she has had trouble with the inspection department.
Mayor Caldwell said they are now aware of her problem.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to
accept the Salina City Planning Commission recommendation and approve the petition, and
introduce an ordinance for first reading for the rezoning. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
Ordinance Passed: ��Ah, Q n Ig1L Number: �2oI
i
A LETTER was received from the Salina City Planning Commission recommending
the vacation of Marietta Street between the east right-of-way line of Clark Street and
the west boundary line of the alley, with the City retaining the south 45 feet thereof
as a utility easement. (The vacation was requested in Petition Number 3206, which was
filed by Albert M. Schneeman on October 29, 1971)
Mr. Jim Morrow asked if this vacation included any of Railroad Street.
He was assured Railroad Street was not included in the vacation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
accept the recommendation of the Salina City Planning Commission and introduce an
ordinance for first reading for the vacation of that portion of Marietta Street, with
the City retaining the south 45 feet as a utility easement, and to introduce an ordinance
for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: 11 ( 972- Number: $Z0Z
T
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on a letter from Mr. Louis Pauls, dated March 14, 19721.
requesting a loading zone in front of 109 West Ash Street, and recommended the loading
zone be denied.
Commissioner Cooper asked the City Engineer if it would be possible to consider
an alternate plan, to move the parking meters on the north side of the 100 block of West
Ash to the south side of the 100 block of West Ash, then move the center line of the
traffic lanes one lane to the north. The parking would then be on the south side of the
street, and there would still be 2 lanes of traffic.
The City Engineer said he had not considered such a plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
refer the matter back to the City Engineer to consider alternate plans, and report back
to the City Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3238, which was filed by
Richard A. Payne, Jr., for a street light at Neal Avenue and Linda Lane, and recommended
the street light be installed. He also recommended an additional street light be placed
near the mid point of the block.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
accept the City Engineer's recommendation and approve the street lights. Ayes: (5).
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3239, which was filed by
Verner C. Smith for the concrete paving, curb, sewer and water line for Linda Lane to
the south edge of Bonnie Ridge Addition from Neal Avenue, and for Scott Avenue from Linda
Lane to Pattie Drive.
The City Engineer reported that 94% of the property owners signed the petition,
and that they own 95% of the property in the benefit district, and suggested the
Commissioners instruct the Engineering Department to prepare a feasibility report.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton that the
petition be approved and instruct the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ATTORNEY reported on the Metropolitan Planning Commission.
The City Attorney stated that the City Commissioners have his written report,
but basically it states that the commission does have the preogative to amend this
section, and could do it. He suggested, if they desire to do it, that when the ordinance
is placed on second reading, at that point, they go ahead and amend it. He said right at
this point we are premature in that we do need to wait for the approval of the Attorney
General.
Commissioner Cooper said she agrees with the City Attorney as far as the timing
is concerned on the thing, as it stands at the moment; however, before this thing ever
went on first reading, it doesn't show it in the minutes and this is the reason it is
being run through again, at that particular time she said she thinks she made the inquiry
if the Commission could make any amendments or revisions or changes, if there was some
area in there that we happen to be dissatisfied with; and he told her that they could,
but she said he didn't go ahead and explain that it would involve going back through
the same channels that we had originally started with; in other words, it would have to
have the County Commission and Attorney General reapproval. She said she guesses there
14
there really isn't anything that we can do now, is what it amounts to, until the approval
from the Attorney General's Office, and then before we place it on second reading, if
there are any changes we want to make, then it is with the understanding that it does
have to go back through all these other channels before we can make any revisions, is
this correct?
The City Attorney said possibly where the misunderstanding was, the agreement
was approved and the ordinance was placed on first reading. The ordinance can be
amended at any spot if you want to; however, we are talking now about amending the
agreement, not the ordinance.
Commissioner Losik asked if the Attorney General is concerned only with the
City -County agreement.
The City Attorney said this is correct.
Commissioner Losik said "OK that answers that".
The City Attorney explained that this agreement is what he has to approve.
Commissioner Losik repeated that what we do is in two parts then; the ordinance
is one that we can handle without recourse to the Attorney General or the County, but
the agreement, we would have to run through channels again.
Commissioner Ashton said he would like to make one comment at this time. He
asked if any of the Commissioners have any objections to the way it is now written, so
there wouldn't be any delay, in regard to holding this up; because the Planning Commission,
as well as everyone, is concerned with this and would like to get it off the ground as
soon as possible; and he wondered if there are any comments or any changes being
contemplated, as soon as we get confirmation from the Attorney General's Office. He
asked if any of the Commissioners have any changes that might change the agreement that
would force this to go back to the County. He said he understands the County is wanting
to get it completed and get it working.
Commissioner Cooper said she doesn't know that we are going to have a problem.
Commissioner Ashton said he doesn't think they will either.
Commissioner Cooper said the City Attorney is saying we can't amend the
ordinance without having to go back through channels, for the lack of a better word.
Commissioner Ashton said he would like to get the machinery to work.
Commissioner Cooper said if the ordinance so states, so you do not have to know
Kansas State Statutes or you do not have to consult an attorney so that you and the
organization or business and individuals, whatever, knows that you can come before your
elected officials, then, she said, she has no questions about it, because she said she
thinks this Metropolitan Planning Commission is a great thing. She said she thinks it
is certainly a step in the right direction, but she wants the ordinance that creates
the Metropolitan Planning Commission, as far as the City is concerned, to spell out,
in black and white, what you can or cannot do, if you are going to have a problem with
the Metropolitan Planning Commission, or any issue before the Metropolitan Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Losik said he doesn't think there is going to be much of a delay
or hold up on it. He thinks that between now and the time we get it back, if there is a
clarification on a specific item, that doesn't change the spirit or intent of it, just
clarify it, we have no problem on it. He said he won't say right now that he won't
have some ideas about it later. When we get the agreement back, we should be able to
have some firm understanding of it that says something to the people and that is all
I want.
Commissioner Weisgerber asked if they are going to approve what we have up
to date and get it in operation, then are we going to go ahead and suggest an amendment?
Commissioner Cooper said it depends on what we are talking about doesn't it
Larry?
The City Attorney said he doesn't know what the Commission intends to do.
This decision would come at the time the Attorney General comes back with his approval.
At this point you would make your decision whether you want to approve it and then put it
in effect, or if you want to hold up approval of it until these amendments have been made.
Commissioner Weisgerber said he knows this is how it is going to be, but he
said can we go ahead and approve what we've got so far, and get it in operation, then
come along with an amendment, if we choose to amend it?
I
Commissioner Losik stated that Is
Commissioner Losik said the purpose of
it is, if the wording is clarified in
such a
manner to mean what it says and that is all
we are concerned about, as
far as he
hold up this whole thing to get that step in
is concerned,
if there is a controversy, then the
delay would be in order so
that we
do anything about it now
don't
have people misinterpreting the implication
of this thing, and then we
are in hot
water.
Commissioner Weisgerber said he thinks
the interpretation is clear
enough now.
We are
told the matter goes from the Metropolitan
Planning Commission to the
appeal
board,
and from the appeal board to court.
The City Attorney said what you are talking about is Section 90. If you have
a variance, or if you want a side yard waived or something such as this, which we do now,
this would not go through planning, it would go directly through the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Say you wanted to waive a side yard requirement, and they said no, we're not
going to do it. If you are dissatisfied with this decision you could appeal it through
the court. Now, under the present ordinance you have the option of either coming here
to the City Commission or to go to court.
Commissioner Weisgerber said the question is do we want to let it go that way
and then get the amendment, or do we want to hold up the whole business and everybody
get started on this,
The City Attorney said he doesn't believe it is ambiguous now, because if you
are dissatisfied, you go to district court. He said he thinks the proposed amendment,
or what has been suggested, there would be an alternative solution and that you could
appeal it to the Commissioners or to the district court. He said he doesn't think it is
ambiguous, it is just one step that is not in there.
Commissioner Weisgerber said this is going to come to a head in another week
or two.
Commissioner Losik replied that by then we'll be ready to know which way to
go on it.
Mayor Caldwell asked if there were any further comments.
There were none.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced entitled: "AN ORDINANCE making an appropriation
for the payment of certain claims." (Bills - $110,271.00). A motion was made by
Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber, to adopt the ordinance as
read.
Commissioner Cooper said she wanted to talk about appropriation ordinances for
a little bit. She said this is just a formality we go through, because the bills have
been paid by the time they are submitted to the Commission for their approval. She read
from the Handbook, by the League of Kansas Municipalities, on Claims and their Payment,
where the appropriation ordinances are to be approved prior to the writing of the checks
Mayor Caldwell said that the City Commission approves the City Budget, and
authorized expenditures for certain items.
The City Attorney said he would be happy to go through the handbook and quote
sections and try to have the report for next week.
Commissioner Cooper said she didn't know if this would clarify anything. What
she is trying to determine is, is this standard practice for municipalities?
The City Attorney said he could not answer for other cities, but he assumes
this is standard practice.
Commissioner Cooper asked what do we do in the event that something has been
paid by the time it is submitted to the Commission, and you do not get approval of a
certain item?
Commissioner Losik stated that Is
the step he thinks should
be in there.
Commissioner Weisgerber said that
what he is getting at is,
are we going to
hold up this whole thing to get that step in
there, or are we going to
approve it as
it is and then amend it?
Commissioner Losik stated we can't
do anything about it now
until the Attorney
General brings it back.
Commissioner Weisgerber said this is going to come to a head in another week
or two.
Commissioner Losik replied that by then we'll be ready to know which way to
go on it.
Mayor Caldwell asked if there were any further comments.
There were none.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced entitled: "AN ORDINANCE making an appropriation
for the payment of certain claims." (Bills - $110,271.00). A motion was made by
Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber, to adopt the ordinance as
read.
Commissioner Cooper said she wanted to talk about appropriation ordinances for
a little bit. She said this is just a formality we go through, because the bills have
been paid by the time they are submitted to the Commission for their approval. She read
from the Handbook, by the League of Kansas Municipalities, on Claims and their Payment,
where the appropriation ordinances are to be approved prior to the writing of the checks
Mayor Caldwell said that the City Commission approves the City Budget, and
authorized expenditures for certain items.
The City Attorney said he would be happy to go through the handbook and quote
sections and try to have the report for next week.
Commissioner Cooper said she didn't know if this would clarify anything. What
she is trying to determine is, is this standard practice for municipalities?
The City Attorney said he could not answer for other cities, but he assumes
this is standard practice.
Commissioner Cooper asked what do we do in the event that something has been
paid by the time it is submitted to the Commission, and you do not get approval of a
certain item?
l b4
t
The City Attorney said if it is for an item not included in the budget, or if
it is for some item which has not been set forth, or if the City Manager approved
something which was not correct, he would be responsible for it.
Commissioner Cooper said she thinks the appropriation ordinance should be
submitted prior to, not following, payment of bills.
The City Attorney said he would be happy to check, and collate it with the
state statutes.
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Ashton, Cooper, Losik,
Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and
it is numbered A-1623.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced and passed entitled: "AN ORDINANCE making an
appropriation for the payment of certain claims." (payroll - $106,550.32) A motion
was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber 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 A-1624.
None
COMMISSION AGENDA
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3242 was filed by Dale Hoag, 1936 Queens Road, for the rezoning
of Lots 15, 16, 17, Block 6, Rolling Hills Addition to the City of Salina, from District
"A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "C" (Apartment House). 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.
A REQUEST was received from Donald E. McConnell, 661 South Fourth, to "DISCUSS
THE PLACEMENT OF STOP LIGHTS IN THE CITY OF SALINA."
Mr. McConnell read a prepared statement:
"I have a few questions I would like to have answered.
"First: Do you know how many traffic lights are around the
City -County Complex?
"Starting at 9th and Ash there are 8 lights, continuing North
to the intersection of Park and 9th 6 more which incidently 4 are flashing
Caution and 2 flashing Red. At 9th and Elm 8, 7th and Elm 8, 7th and Ash 8,
and at 8th and Ash a total of 10, this makes a total of 48 traffic lights
in this small area, utilizing a total of 16 steel overhanging poles and
6 straight metal poles.
"I feel that all of these lights are not necessary to control
the flow of traffic around this area. Some of them could be removed
and placed in other areas where they could be utilized for the purpose
of controling traffic at potentially dangerous intersections.
"A few months ago I requested the feasibility of traffic lights
at the intersection of 4th and Crawford. A survey was run by the City
and this request was denied. Since that time 4th Street has become a
one way Street from Crawford South. My second Question is Can we get
Traffic lights installed at this time?
"It seems that even with all the signs that are erected that some
drivers are unaware that from Crawford North on 4th is a two way Street
for they continue on North in both lanes.
"My third question: When are they going to properly regulate the
traffic lights at Broadway and Crawford?
"The way the Left turn signals are installed is confusing to say
the least.
f
1
"My final question is: When the City was informed that
traffic lights could be installed at the intersection of 81 and Magnolia
was any consideration given for the removal of the two steel poles that
are presently located at 9th and Park and utilizing them at this
intersection?
"If this would have been accomplished the City would have
had only two poles to purchase thereby saving the Taxpayers money.
"I realize these questions cannot be answered at this meeting
but I will be present at the Commission Meeting on 17 April 1972 and I
would like to receive the answers at that time. Thank you."
Mr. McConnell presented each Commissioner', the City Engineer and the City Clerk
with a copy of his statement.'
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to
submit it to the City Engineer for a reply at the next meeting. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton
that the Regular Meeting of the City Commission be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1