MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Wichita, Kansas, May 16, 1995 Tuesday, 9:07 A.M. The City Council met in regular session with Mayor Knight in the Chair. Council Members Cather, Cole, Gale, Rogers; present. *Council Members Ferris, Kamen; absent. Chris Cherches, City Manager; Gary Rebenstorf, Director of Law; Patricia L. Burnett, Deputy City Clerk; present. The invocation was given by Linda Munhall. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was participated in by the Council Members, staff, and guests. Minutes -- The minutes of the regular meeting of May 9, 1995, were -- approved approved 5 to 0. (Ferris, Kamen; absent) AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS *Council Member Kamen present. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Knight presented the Proclamations that were previously approved. PRESENTATION Awards from the American Concrete Institute for the Kellogg Flyover Project and the State Office Parking Garage were presented to the City Council. PUBLIC AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMENTS BY ROBERT C. HUGHES. Robert Hughes Robert Hughes urged the closing of the alley from Second to Third Street between Piatt and Ash; and that property owners be allowed to plant flowers or use the space for individual purposes. Mr. Hughes asked for a continuation of one week so he could get sufficient signatures on a petition to close the alley. COMMENTS BY KARL PETERJOHN. Karl Peterjohn Karl Peterjohn urged reduction of polarization and reconsideration of issues which have divided the community. A lot of businesses have been concerned about the way City Government has been proceeding. Mr. Peterjohn said that, last year, when the delinquent tax was published the City of Wichita was listed with 134 properties with taxes totaling $335,000. Most of the properties had downtown addresses. Mr. Peterjohn said the Council should pursue privatization. Mr. Peterjohn did research and found the City owns a substantial number of properties. As one form of privatization, Mr. Peterjohn urged the Council to seriously look at the idea of seeing how much of the property is necessary and appropriate for City ownership, and seeing how much of the property can be divested and placed back on the tax rolls. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight said he shares Mr. Peterjohn's concern regarding the amount of City-owned real estate and hopes a strategy for the community can be developed for Council consideration in the near future. There also needs to be a plan for getting City owned property back on the tax roll. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said she had learned how much more difficult disposition of property is than acquisition is for a public entity. *Council Member Ferris present. COMMENTS BY MERVYN WEBSTER. Mervyn Webster Mervyn Webster, Director of Tennis at the Racquet Club and Executive Board Member of the United States Tennis Association, said Wichita is one of twenty-five cities selected by the United States Tennis Association and the Tennis Industry to host Tennis clinics. A prerequisite to hosting a tennis clinic is that the City have a professional tennis event. The objective of the program is to grow the game of tennis throughout the Nation and to reach 2,000 to 3,000 people in a number of cities. Free 90-minute tennis lessons will be given to the following groups: Juniors (8 to 15 years of age), Adults (15 years of age and up), and Families. Over 200 clinics have been scheduled throughout Wichita. All that needs to be done is to call one of the sites and make a reservation at an available time. The three sites holding a majority of the lessons are the Riverside Tennis Center, Edgemoor, and the Wichita Racquet Club. One of the objectives is to encourage the development of tennis as a lifetime sport and to get young people off the street. UNFINISHED BUSINESS GYPSUM CREEK GYPSUM CREEK IMPROVEMENT, WEST OF HILLSIDE. (District III) (This Item was delayed until later in the meeting. Action is shown in Agenda Order.) (Council Member Rogers absent) This Item will be considered at the time or following consideration of the Storm Water Utility. Motion -- carried Knight moved that this Item be deferred two weeks. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rogers absent) NEW BUSINESS HUD CONSOLIDATED PLAN PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONSOLIDATED PLAN. Chris Cherches City Manager reviewed the Item. Agenda Report No. 95-170 B. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires submittal of a Consolidated Plan/Combined Application for 1995/1996 funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program and the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program. Staff has prepared the plan which includes the priority needs, the Citizen Participation Plan, a Five Year Strategic Plan, and a One Year Action Plan. The One Year Action Plan is the annual funding allocation. The Council is scheduled to formally authorize submittal of the Consolidated Plan to HUD at its May 23 meeting. The public hearing provides an additional opportunity for citizen comment prior to the expiration of the required 30 day public comment period May 23. At the termination of the comment period, appropriate changes will be made to the Consolidated Plan prior to submittal to HUD. Total HUD funding of $5,802,000 is included, as are ESG and HOME matching funds and CDBG program income. Consolidated Plan regulations require a 30 day comment period prior to submittal to HUD. The comment period began April 23 and concludes May 23. Regulations require submittal of the plan to HUD by June 1. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- Cole moved that the final public hearing be set for May 23, 1995. Subst. Motion -- Rogers moved a substitute motion that the Public Hearing be closed and the comments be taken under advisement, and staff be instructed to make necessary -- carried changes to the plan. Substitute motion carried 7 to 0. RECYCLING ENHANCED DROP-OFF SITE RECYCLING PROGRAM. Chris Cherches City Manager reviewed the Item. Agenda Report No. 95-398. On January 10, 1995, the Council considered a proposal made by Council Member Kamen that the City develop and operate an expanded drop-off site recycling program. The Council referred Mr. Kamen's suggestion to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Solid Waste Management Committee. This report presents the recommendations of the Public Works Staff and the Committee regarding such an expansion. Wichita and Sedgwick County are currently served by four drop-off recycling collection sites. In the past, there were twelve (12) sites, but sponsoring companies have closed eight of these sites. Dillons has paid the cost of sponsoring the original and present four sites. These sites are located at: 13th and Tyler Road; 31st and Seneca; 21st and Oliver; and Harry/Edgemoor. Option #1 - Six New Sites - Total 10: This Option is essentially the program initially suggested by Council Member Kamen. A total of 10 sites would be established across the City at strategic locations. The total cost, after adding the six new sites to this program (for a total of 10), is estimated at $138,000 per year. Option #2 - Twelve (12) New Sites - Total 16: This Option expands Option #1 and adds twelve (12) new sites (to the existing four Dillons sites) for a total of 16 sites. This number of sites would most likely be sufficient and could provide some convenient sites to nearby communities within the county. These sites could be located to maintain a one-way commute distance of 2.5 miles or less for almost everyone living in Wichita. The estimated cost of all 16 sites that would be in this option is $221,000. Option #3 - Eighteen (18) Sites: This Option would add sites (outside of the City of Wichita) in Haysville and Park City (for a total of 18 sites). Likewise, it would add one full-time (or part-time) position(s) to oversee the operation of the program, including providing the required supervision and maintenance. This Option has an estimated cost of $300,000 per year. It likewise has a major policy issue relative to expenditure of funds outside of the City of Wichita. Solid Waste Committee Review/Recommendations: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Solid Waste Management Committee recommends that the City Council consider other Options, including: Option A - Grants to Cities: This Option would be incorporated with Option #3 (above). It would provide grants to smaller cities that would not be directly served by the program. This added feature increases the cost of the program in the third option by about $14,000 to a total of $314,000; it provides for 18 sites. Option B (Alternative). A differing approach under Option A would be to extend the grant program to any city (within Sedgwick County) with a population of 14,500 or less. The total cost of the program may be reduced under this concept. That is, if sites in Goddard, Valley Center, Park City and Haysville are eliminated from the program and given grants, the annual cost, after the first year, would be reduced to $281,600. This alternative represents another alternative with 13 collection sites. The Solid Waste Committee also recommended that the furnishing and collection of the recycling bins be bid: (1) as several smaller contracts, and (2) as one large contract. In this way, the City Council will be able to consider the best or most cost-effective approach. Other Community Comments: The Waste Control and Recycling Coalition, a coalition of citizens with an interest in solid waste management issues, unanimously endorsed the expanded recycling program concept at their regular meeting on January 30, 1995. No funds are budgeted in the l995 Budget for recycling or to implement any of the options (above). Whatever option selected by the City Council to be implemented, if any, will require a revision of the Landfill Budget and an increase in tipping fees. The 1996 tipping fee needed to support the expanded program outlined in Option #3, for example, would amount to $0.90 per ton. The fee in 1997 would then be adjusted to an amount necessary to fund the recycling program (as selected). [The Solid Waste Committee recommended implementing an expanded recycling program on July 1, 1995 and raising the tipping fee at the beginning of 1996 a sufficient amount to recover the costs for 1995 and the future program costs.] Depending upon action by the City Council, lease agreements will have to be negotiated with the site sponsors and reviewed for approval as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution by the City. Normal legal bidding practices will be followed as applicable to contracts. Mayor Knight left the Bench; Vice Mayor Kamen in the Chair. Discussion was had and it was determined that public speakers would be allowed to speak at this Council meeting and at the next public hearing on this matter. Mayor Knight present; Vice Mayor Kamen in the Chair. Vice Mayor Kamen Vice Mayor Kamen inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- Kamen moved that this Item be deferred for two weeks to allow time for Staff to meet with Vice Mayor Kamen to work out some options to be brought back to the -- carried Council for consideration and action. Motion carried 7 to 0. Mayor Knight in the Chair. STORMWATER UTILITY FEES STORMWATER UTILITY FEES. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works reviewed the Item. Council Member Ferris momentarily absent. Agenda Report No. 93-202 B. In January 1988, the Wichita City Council initiated efforts to address problems of drainage throughout the city. The City Council employed Black and Veatch to assess the drainage conditions and develop a Comprehensive Master Stormwater Drainage Plan to identify capital and maintenance needs. During this study, a Citizen Task Force was also formed to study and make recommendations regarding funding options to implement the proposed plan. The City's Drainage policies at that time called for special assessments to pay some of the costs of major drainage improvements, and public opposition prevented many needed improvements from being constructed. The Black and Veatch Study was completed in 1989 and presented to the City Council. The report indicated over $200 million was needed in capital drainage improvements. Included in the list were ten high-priority projects totaling over $28 Million, which were recommended for immediate action. In addition, maintenance efforts were considered inadequate, and recommended to be increased. The Study also noted that the issue of storm water quality (in terms of pollutants) would be an important consideration in the City's drainage program. New federal Clean Water Act regulations would impact the City, requiring expanded and new water quality monitoring and control measures for discharge into streams/rivers. These requirements would add additional costs to the City's storm drainage needs. The Storm Water Task Force studied various options for funding and recommended a Storm Water Utility be established as the most practical method of dealing with the City's drainage needs. Establishment of a Utility (to fund the storm water program), with rates based on drainage run-off generated by the property, would address funding needs without increasing the burden of property tax and special assessments for improvements in developed areas. After numerous public meetings and discussions, the City Council took action to initiate the utility. A consultant was hired to perform a rate study and to develop recommendations for equitable rates to address the needs identified in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. On June 2, 1992, the City Council approved a Charter Ordinance officially establishing the Storm Water Utility. The Council also approved the consultant's recommendations for establishing the Storm Water Utility rates, based on impervious areas (pavement, roofs, etc.) on the site. In Wichita, the average impervious area (per residence) is 2,139 square feet. This area is considered one Equivalent Residential Unit, or ERU. All residential properties are charged 1 ERU per month. Non-residential properties are charged one ERU for each 2,139 square feet of impervious area on the site. The initial monthly rates were set at $1.78 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) at a public hearing July 14, 1992. The City Council later reduced the rates to $1.66 per ERU on February 23, 1993. The Storm Water Utility was implemented on March 1, 1993. On April 18, 1995, the City Council directed staff to return with information and recommendations on cutting Storm Water Utility fees, and pay costs through other means. The impact on current obligations, impact on mandated maintenance, and new construction projects, and neighborhood "Hot Spots" is to be addressed. The initial rate of $1.66 per ERU was the level necessary to address the objectives of the City Council: * A $4 Million per year Capital Improvement Program investment for drainage improvements, based on needs identified in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. * Additional $430,000 per year funded to address minor drainage problems (Neighborhood "Hot Spots") not covered by the CIP. * A mandated maintenance program, phased-in over three years. * An aggressive remedial maintenance program (i.e., catch basin reconstruction; storm sewer rehabilitation; and drainage channel restoration; etc.). * Relief of future special assessments on major drainage projects in developed areas. * Coverage of debt service on delinquent special assessment payments (previously borne by the General Fund.) * Continued General Fund support for Storm Sewer Maintenance at the previous level (approx. $525,000 per year). * Clean Water Act (NPDES) requirements, when established by the EPA, to be implemented through future rate adjustments. The rates were established for a three year period, (1993-95) to allow for the three-year implementation of the maintenance program. Rate adjustments, if necessary, would be addressed by the City Council for 1996 and beyond. The Storm Water Utility presently collects about $5.5 Million in revenues from fees annually. In addition, $525,000 is allocated from the General Fund to support maintenance activities. This is the same level that maintenance was funded through the General Fund prior to the utility. These revenues are applied to the Storm Water Capital Improvement and Maintenance programs. The funding levels shown are based on the 1996 Proposed Budget. The $6.2 Million recommended budget will require minor funding from interest earnings and reserves if rates are not increased. The Storm Water Utility has incurred over $14 Million in debts to pay for Capital Improvements which are complete or are under contract. An additional $9 Million is proposed for projects to be constructed in 1995 and 1996. The utility is focusing its Capital Improvement Program Revenue heavily on the High-priority projects identified in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Bond financing for the $23 Million in Capital Improvements is scheduled for August 1995, and will require debt service payments of approximately $2,050,000 per year. Future Capital Improvement projects beyond 1996 will also be financed through future revenue bond issues. Adequate revenues will also be required to provide for debt service coverage requirements when the bonds are issued. This obligation of the current debt will have to be paid, either through revenue bonds, as proposed, or through General Obligation Bonds. The Clean Water Act has mandated that cities such as Wichita develop programs to reduce pollutants in their storm water. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits are required which set out the programs which must be implemented to be in compliance with the law. The City of Wichita applied to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) for an NPDES Permit, including proposed programs to address storm water pollution in November, 1992. The City employed the consulting Engineering firm of Black and Veatch, a noted expert in environmental regulations, to prepare our proposal. The cost of preparing the application proposal alone was approximately $900,000. Although the KDHE has not officially issued the permit to the City, they have communicated their expectations in draft form, and indicate the final permit will be issued in mid- 1995. Based on the communications to date, the proposed programs in the City's application will be required along with additional stormwater sampling of designated sites. The Permit, which will run for five years after issuance will be focused on: * Maintenance of the stormwater system * Street maintenance and cleaning * Adoption & enforcement of codes to stop illicit pollution * Public education * Sampling and testing of storm water for pollutants The Operations and Maintenance program funded by the Storm Water Utility is responsible for meeting the requirements of the permit. The requirements for increased maintenance of the storm water systems will be difficult to achieve even when the maintenance program is fully in place. Any reductions in Operations and Maintenance will make it impossible to comply with these requirements. Failure to comply with the required components of the permit by the prescribed dates can be considered a violation of the Clean Water Act, subject to fines and penalties. The law calls for fines of $2,500 to $25,000 per day for "negligent violations" and $5,000 to $50,000 per day for "knowing violations". The Storm Water Utility provides funding of $430,000 per year for correction of neighborhood drainage problems, referred to as "Drainage Hot Spots" by previous Councils. In addition, funding of $450,000 is provided for Inlet and SWS Rehabilitation, and Stream Restoration. Two very beneficial projects that have been completed in the past year are drainage improvements on Grove from 13th to 17th, and at Central and Mission. The inlet rehabilitation program has been very successful, with nearly 200 badly deteriorated inlets replaced in older areas of the city in the past year. Stream restoration will become an important part of the stream maintenance efforts which are being increased this year in the final phase of the maintenance program. Due to the debt obligations and the mandated maintenance programs, a 50% reduction in fees is not possible without transferring costs to another funding source. Some moderate reductions can be made through cuts in the Hot Spot and Restoration Programs, and through transfer of Delinquent Specials, and Franchise fees. More substantial cuts, however will require transferring debt service costs. Some of the options include elimination of the Franchise Fee. This is a policy decision, which would have an impact on the City's general revenue collections. Presently the Storm Water Utility's Franchise fees collected help offset the City's Storm Water Utility fees associated with City properties. Options which would reduce the maintenance program are not recommended, as they would place a heavy liability on the City for failing to comply with the Clean Water Act. In fact, funding will be needed in coming years to perform additional environmental studies and plans (such as retrofitting current facilities and alternative deicing methods). One consideration for the existing debt and future Capital Improvement Program is inclusion of the Drainage CIP in the City's General Obligation financing. However, the Storm Water Utility's Drainage Capital Improvement Program proposed for 1995-2004 exceeds $55 Million. The City's total proposed ten year program for all infrastructure is approximately $950 Million. However, only $177 Million is funded through General Obligation bonds. The remainder of the program is funded from other sources, such as State and Federal funding, utility funding, and Local Sales Tax, etc. These sources are dedicated to specific facilities, and are not available for substitution of projects. Transferring the $55 Million Drainage program into the General Obligation program will have a heavy impact on the funding of other needed capital improvements, unless the General Obligation financing is expanded significantly. One additional option which may be considered is to eliminate the Storm Water Utility and fund the programs through the General Fund or another source. If funded through the General Fund, the net mill levy increase would be approximately 3.3 Mills. This would eliminate some of the costs associated with the utility operation, but would also eliminate those properties that are tax exempt from paying for the storm water programs and improvements. The Storm Water Utility rate for the City of Wichita is not excessive when compared to other Storm Water Utility rates across the nation. A 1993 survey by Black and Veatch showed rates up to $9.00 per ERU in some locations, with the average falling in the $2.50 to $3.00 range. Wichita's rate of $1.66 ranked them under 80% of the other cities surveyed (#63 out of 78 cities). Topeka was 36th with a rate of $2.85 per ERU, and Tulsa, Oklahoma ranked 47th with a rate of $2.46. The survey also showed most Storm Water Utilities are designed to pay for both Operation and Maintenance and Capital Improvements. 77% pay for both, while only 17% of the respondents pay for O&M only. The options presented to reduce fees will impact either the General Fund or the General Debt and Interest Fund as shown on the summary. The options may be varied at the City Council's discretion to fund the programs at desirable levels. The courts, including the Kansas Supreme Court, have upheld the City's Storm Water Utility and it's fee structure and methodology. This resulted from a lawsuit brought on by the Kansas Taxpayers Network shortly after the implementation of the Utility. The Clean Water Act requires the City to provide maintenance and pollution control programs at the levels designated in the NPDES permit. This will require full funding of the Operation and Maintenance program. Failure to comply can subject the City to enforcement action and severe fines. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works, responding to questions, said the City will need to clean a certain number of inlets (curb inlets connected to the curb and gutter of the street system) annually and maintain 10 miles of channels (Gypsum Creek, Cowskin Creek, and other areas where there may be obstructions) per year. Additionally, there inlet and channel rehabilitation projects which are funded from cash in the amount of $450,000 on an annual basis. The City would have to find another way to fund these project - instead of cash they might have to be done in the CIP. At one point in time there was a committee of citizens which looked at a concept which was approved by the Council. There was a recommendation that the City charge $2.25 a month for the utility and contemplated reducing the general fund support that went to the flood control operation and the $525,000 in the maintenance area. The committee knew the $2.25 existed but was not a part of the decision making that resulted in the $1.66 final rate. The committee recommended that the general fund support would continue and that new development would continue to pay special assessments. Cities in Florida and Topeka, Kansas has the same basis as Wichita for figuring commercial property (ERU = a certain number of square for parking spaces and roof area). The firm that set up the methodology for Wichita was from Florida and cities such as Orlando and Topeka, Kansas, were set up the same way as Wichita was set up. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen pointed out that in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), in general, there are many issues the City has to prioritize with regard to funding. The $525,000 general fund amount at the present time cannot be changed. The 34.6 percent of SWUP for operations and maintenance cannot be changed because they are mandated Federal programs which cannot be changed and if they are not followed the City will be fined. Regarding the CIP debt service, could be reduced to 27.2 percent from 36.2 percent. If the Area K - Third Street project and the Rolling Hills/Westlink Project were continued throughout 1995 and possibly 1996, then the 36.2 percent could be reduced to 27.2 percent (reduce the ERU to $.45). Steve Lackey Director of Public Works, continuing to respond to questions, said that in order to eliminate the $.15 off of the $.60, only the Third Street Drainage Project (as approved last week) could be done. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said 35 percent could be eliminated and would not require any increase in property taxes. If a project came up in the future it could be looked at in the CIP budget and prioritized, or the City could go back to special assessments. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works, regarding Area K, said the Area K Project includes the Third Street Drainage Project and would need to be maintained to a higher level than at the present because the City wanted to lower the flow line and make the other systems more efficient. This project would have to be picked up in a maintenance mode of some type. The area from 10th Street to Douglas would eventually have to have stream restoration. A permit application process would have to be gone through and various agencies in the State would review the City's activities. In this case, the original design for the drainage canal involved gabions, different landscaping techniques, etc. Since there would be no funding for that type of project, the City would be in a maintenance mode and would remove debris from the channels and try to keep the stream clear of debris. There would not be channel widening or deepening. There is sensitivity to environmental issues through the permit process. The Water Department runs the billing system. The Water Department computer system was upgraded in order to place the fee on the water bill. There is a fee paid to the Water Department to pay for the computer upgrade, staff time to input data, and staff time to take telephone calls associated with the billing process. Ray Trail Director of Finance, answering questions, said the customer service area of the Water Department gets inquiries from customers in the community inquiring about billing. The $308,000 is about 15 percent of the total cost for operating utility billing services (Water and Sewer pays the remaining 85 percent of the total cost). The customer service clerk cost is about $65,000 of the $308,000. It takes two people to answer questions about the Storm Water Utility billings. This is a fairly new utility and the greatest amount of inquiries will be on the front-end. It is possible that as the utility matures there will be fewer inquiries and that portion of the cost may go down. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris asked that information be provided regarding the number of calls received in 1995 (to May 1st) with regard to only the Storm Water Utility rate on the water bill. Ray Trail Director of Finance stated that another component of the cost is the Storm Water Utility's share of the billing (printing, mailing, and inputting information on receipt of payment) in the amount of $163,000 annually. Computer charges are about $80,000 of the total cost. The computer system is amortizing the system upgrade and the on-going operating costs of the billing. Mayor Knight left the Bench; Vice Mayor Kamen in the Chair. The $130,000 charge to add a line to the bill includes the Storm Water Utility's share of the cost of printing, inserting, etc., of the bill. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said the reason the Water Department part was included was to save money. "I never intended that the Storm Water Utility would pick up a portion of the Water Department." Anything that costs extra is understood. But, the envelopes must be stuffed whether or not there are storm water fees on the bill. Ray Trail Director of Finance said the Storm Water Utility is paying the far smaller share of the total cost. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said that if the City decided not to have the Storm Water Utility, the Water Department would not be receiving that revenue but the costs would remain the same for the stuffing and mailing and printing. Ray Trail Director of Finance stated that the Water and Sewer Utility, as it is established and structured under bond covenants, functions like a separate business and, under the bond covenants, the Water and Sewer Utility cannot carry costs that are legitimately attributable to another operation. That is why, on a cost allocation basis, if a Storm Water Utility is added, the Storm Water Utility would be expected to pay a reasonable and fair share of the cost. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris asked that the Law Department provide a legal opinion that would say that the bond covenants would not allow for payment of just the extra costs incurred as a result of the addition of Storm Water Utility billing. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works, regarding delinquency of special assessments, said special assessments are still special assessment general obligation. The Utility has not taken up delinquents because at the time a new storm sewer is built in a new subdivision, it is assigned to the Storm Water Utility for maintenance. Storm Water Utility delinquents amount to $.02 per month. The hot spot amounts to $.13. Stuffing the envelopes, etc., if it were two-thirds of what is being paid, would be $.06 (the $308,000 equates to $.09). The franchise fee amounts to $.08. Continuing to respond to questions, the Director of Public Works, regarding the impact of the kind of reduction Council Member Kamen is recommending would be on the total system, said the biggest impact would be the fact that the CIP would not have a funding source. Council Member Kamen proposed doing all the projects ($14.2 million under way, and the Third Street Drainage amount of $3.2 million). The short-term improvements were previously identified as $28 million. The long- term improvements are an additional $170+ million. "I do not know where the money would come from to pay for the additional capital improvements in the future. There would need to be a funding source identified for that and that would be an impact on road improvements that we would be able to do in the future. South Seneca is an example; we would have never been able to four-lane south Seneca if it had not been for the utility paying for the storm sewers down there. West Maple, we would not have been able to pave West Maple without the Storm Sewer Utility fee at that point in time to fund the storm sewer. So, it is kind of a domino effect. If you limit your Capital Improvement Program on the storm sewer side, then it not only affects future handling of storm sewers and major drainage basins but it also impacts the paving of streets in the future as well in some areas." Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said projects would not be stopped; there are still projects ongoing. There would not be more debt accumulated, to any significant, amount if the reduction is made. There also needs to be a look at the comparison of the ERU used for residential as compared to the ERU as defined for parking lots and commercial property. There may be too large of a discrepancy. The whole system is spending the equivalent of 6 mills per year. That would be a large amount if it were property tax but it would be spread out equally. The problem can be changed by lowering the fee percentages or by changing the ERU. Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers said the disproportion issue has been omitted in the discussion and that if he could hear the disproportion he might have a better feel for it. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole, regarding the scheduled drainage CIP through the year 2005, inquired whether there could be any kind of commitment on a long-range basis. Council Member Cather Council Member Cather spoke against continuing the dredging of channels. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard. Ray Hinderliter Ray Hinderliter, Wichita Independent Business Association (WIBA), said the Storm Water Utility fee is a tax which has no relation to the value of property. The fee is unequal and disproportionate. Businesses would rather see a general tax increase than a disproportionate levy. When the plan was conceived, the full impact on business was not recognized. Businesses have moved to other cities because of the tax increase. Other businesses have not been able to increase employee forces. Carolyn Emery Carolyn Emery, Builder's, Inc., said priorities need to be set and funds found without special assessments. Charges have to be passed on to renters. Builder's has a six-story high-rise building with some impervious square footage and a large parking lot. The roof is only over one floor, not six floors. If Builder's were being charged for the impervious square footage, the bill would be far less than the $1.66 per door charge. It is important that the disproportionate fees be looked into. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said anything over four- plex size is not based on square footage. Also, people paying on special assessments and the Storm Water Utility fees are being double taxed. Tim Neff Tim Neff, Timber Products, Inc., said the business is on 5.5 acres and the building is 240,000 square feet. The charge is for 104.45 ERUs at $173.39 per month. The additional Storm Water Utility fee has increased his taxes by 54 percent. The lumber company has to absorb the charges in order to remain competitive with other companies serving Wichita who do not have to pay the fee. Rick Varney Rick Varney, St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton's Parish, said there are three retention/detention ponds within the drainage district which help minimize the effects of development on drainage conditions. Mr. Varney requested exemption from the fee because the basins control runoff. There is a need for a fee but not as high as it currently is. Larry Ross Larry Ross spoke against continued development in flood plain and wetland areas. There is a need for a comprehensive storm water drainage plan, wildlife habitat, and bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. There is concern that regressive government is trying to undo past government action. Karl Peterjohn Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director of the Kansas Taxpayers' Network and Treasurer of Wichitans' for Good Government, said the current Charter Ordinance the City is operating under was not adopted June 2, 1992, it was adopted right before Christmas, December 22, 1992. The ordinary Ordinance was adopted just over 60 days later. The ERU amount was actually established in a Resolution a week later. Mr. Peterjohn said it was his understanding that one mill will generate about 1.4 million dollars for the City based on the 1995-1996 budget. Prior to the adoption of the Stormwater Utility, the assessment districts had been set up in a way that the people within a geographic area who were beneficiaries would pay 50 percent and the general tax funds would pay 50 percent. Citizens would have the opportunity, as property owners within the area, to get enough signatures on a protest petition to stop a project. Citizen empowerment ought to be considered while the Council undertakes this issue whether it is set up on a 50/50 or some other ratio. Also, at the time the Stormwater Utility was adopted, there was discussion about the "Feds" requiring the City to get involved. Research was done at that time and the involvement was that the City had to set up monitoring. The monitoring costs for stormwater run off were a relatively small portion of the total revenue (less than 5 percent). Changes may have occurred in terms of agreements between the City and the Federal Government; however, other changes have been made nationally with regard to eliminating unfunded federal mandates. To the degree that a concern about federal mandates is implied, Mr. Peterjohn urged the Council to give careful consideration because part of the current system has the Stormwater Utility System paying franchise fees which does not generate any stormwater improvement for anyone. There is double assessment for those persons who have special assessments. Also, there are retention ponds set up for stormwater runoff. Mr. Peterjohn recommended a 58 cent per year reduction. Clark Lindstrom Clark Lindstrom, multi-family industry, said the disproportionate fees on multi-family residences affects those least able to afford the additional fees. The industry cannot pass on the increased fees to the residents. Mr. Lindstrom asked the Council to continue reconsideration of the issue. Bill Devore Bill Devore, business at 1101 East Central, said the fees are disproportionate and questioned the need for drainage improvements. Even when there is high water, it is not a major problem. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said there are currently CIP projects which have been approved and are under contract which amount to 60 cents. Fifteen cents is the cost of future CIP projects. It is unknown what can be done with the Water Department but whatever can be done should be done. The Water and Sewer Department should not be paid a percentage for a bill which has to be sent out anyway. The extra costs to the Water and Sewer Department could still be paid. There would be some deduction of the amount paid the Water and Sewer Department (between four and six cents). This absolutely should be done. Also, the franchise fee should be eliminated. The Stormwater Utility is different than the Water and Sewer Utility which is a supply and demand utility. The franchise fee concept for the Stormwater Utility is erroneous. The delinquent special assessments should also be taken out of the equation. The hotspot expenditures have had some good uses but in the future these projects can be evaluated as a capital need on a timely basis or can be funded if there happens to be some savings in the utility from a project coming in under budget. The hotspot expenditure amount should also be eliminated. Regarding the inlet and stream restoration, these must be repaired and managed properly or problems will be created. This portion should not be eliminated. The capital portion of the Utility should, perhaps, be done like the CIP program is done. It should not be rolled into the CIP program so that stormwater projects would compete with street projects. The stormwater projects can be looked at on an annual basis to determine whether or not another portion should be spent on an annual basis. The projects could be presented to the Council in the same manner as the Capital Improvement Projects. If it is determined certain stormwater projects are to be done, they should be funded by a corresponding increase in the ERU cost (on an annual or on a two-year program). Steve Lackey Director of Public Works said it would be important, for planning purposes, to know what projects could be done in a three to four year period. Also, from a structuring revenue bonds and projected revenues over a period of time, it would be important when the City goes to bond sale to know that proper revenues had been dedicated to fund the improvements. If this amount went up and down on an annual basis, it would be difficult. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said if a certain project were decided on, the fee would be increased by the necessary corresponding amount. A seven-year capital program could be created just as the Capital Improvement Program has been created. The drainage program should not be rolled into the Capital Improvement Program where drainage is competing with street projects because sometimes the projects go together and there are problems in the Capital Improvement Program anyway because the Capital Improvement Program is behind schedule because of actions the Council has taken. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said how future drainage projects are funded could be discussed later. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said she did not understand how a decision could be made without looking at the consequences of looking at that decision. Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers said he has no problem with specific reductions that might be made within the Storm Water Utility and no problem with looking at which reductions there ought to be within areas and why. If there is an unfairness built into the system then the Council ought to look at the unfairness. Motion -- Kamen moved that Staff be requested to bring information to the council in two to three weeks on: (1) The "relative values of the ERU as far as the commercial and residential to see whether they can be worked out;" (2) The effect on multi-family housing if the fee is changed to being based on impervious surface rather than a per unit charge (may take some time and have to be brought back separately); and (3) Looking at the result of: a) retaining the money that is presently in the general fund, b) retaining 100% of the money for operations and maintenance, c) reducing the CIP to 27.2%, d) eliminating the 7.6% hot spots, e) eliminating the 7.9% for inlet and stream restoration, f) eliminating the 5% franchise fee, g) retaining the delinquent special assessments (but information could also be brought back on eliminating this), h) omitting the 5.4% to the Water Dept.; Staff meet with Karl Peterjohn and go over his ideas for a 58 cent reduction and give the Council information on whether it is something the Council should look at; and that Staff answer questions regarding council problems with capital improvement funding. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight urged that the Chamber of Commerce and other constituencies be contacted to ensure their points of view are clear. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said that if an ERU decision is made, and multi-family is changed, there will be an impact; and either the ERU will have to be increased to everyone to compensate for the difference or something else will have to be eliminated. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion -- Knight moved that the Council recess to the Police Memorial Service, then move to lunch and executive session to consider consultation with legal counsel on matters privileged in the attorney-client relationship relating to pending litigation and legal advice; preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for public purposes; and matters relating to employer-employee negotiations; and the regular meeting be resumed at 1:30 P.M. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. RECESS Council recessed at 11:49 A.M. and reconvened in regular session at 1:32 P.M. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight announced that no action was necessary as a result of the executive session. Motion -- Knight moved that the Council recess to executive session to consider consultation with legal counsel on matters relating to legal advice; and matters relating to employer-employee negotiations; and the regular meeting be resumed at -- carried 2:15 P.M. Motion carried 7 to 0. RECESS Council recessed at 1:32 P.M. and reconvened in regular session at 2:15 P.M. *Council Members Kamen, Rogers; absent. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight announced that no action was necessary as a result of the executive session. (The Council returned to the Gypsum Creek item and action is shown with the Item in Agenda order.) Council Member Kamen present. RAILS TO TRAILS REPORT ON RAILS TO TRAILS. Council Member Rogers present. On April 18, 1995, Council voted to discuss this issue. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said the Rails to Trails Item was before the Council a few months ago and it was his opinion, at that time, that the Council was going in the wrong direction. By pursuing this option, the Council was going to cause the City to be in a situation that was detrimental. Letters have been received from Legislators who were very irate at the City's action. There has been a demonstration among Legislators against the City as a result of the action taken by the Council. One County Commission took action against a local business and later found out the action could not be taken and the action was reversed. Farm implement dealers and other suppliers of products to farmers will indicate that there have been repercussions against some of the local businesses as a result of the Council's previous action. The action previously taken by the City Council needs to be reversed. Motion -- Ferris moved that the City Council reverse its action on the Rails to Trails Project; that any interest the City might have in this particular stretch of railway be removed (although, in the future the City may want to revisit Rails to Trails on a case- by-case basis); that a letter be sent to Burlington-Northern that would reverse the City's previous position and ask them to no longer consider the City as an interested party. Council Member Cather Council Member Cather said the land under consideration would be worth about $800,000 at $2,000/acre; as a narrow corridor linking two cities, the land is probably worth about ten times that much - at least if the City had to condemn the property. If this opportunity is given up, the land owners need to realize the City is making a very substantial concession to them. Amendment -- Cather moved a friendly amendment to the motion that the City continue to investigate the possibility of new parks, greenways, and trails. -- carried Motion, as amended, carried 7 to 0. ALARM PERMIT FEES REPORT ON PERMIT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL BURGLAR ALARMS. Chris Cherches City Manager reviewed the Item. Revenue/Expense Summary The following table shows collections from 1994, 1995 year to date, and estimated collections for 1995 for alarm permit fees and false alarm fees. The actual numbers are from accounting system reports while the estimates are from Treasury budget submittals completed last month. ETEC is the private company hired to handle permit and false alarm billing. False Revenues: Permit Fees Alarm Fees Total 1994 Collections $ 50,200 $ 212,685 $ 262,885 1995 Collections to Date 48,356 44,025 92,381 1995 Projected Collections 144,000 192,000 336,000 Expenses: 1995 Est. Payments to ETEC $ 23,400 $ 23,600 $ 47,000 Permit Requirement The current ordinance requires alarm system owners to purchase a $10 permit that is valid for a two year period. The information from these permits is used to validate false alarm data prior to billing for the false alarm. Additionally, the permit data is used to track the once per year free false alarm the ordinance provides. The building and maintenance of the permit database is central to billing process for false alarms. Elimination of the permit requirement will make billing of false alarms nearly impossible to accomplish and greatly increase the error rates for false alarm billing. The lack of a central database will add to the contractual expense for administration due to postage, additional transactions and additional payment postings. The increased error rates create frustration for alarm system users and alarm companies. As an alternative to the City building a central database, the ordinance could be changed to have the alarm monitoring companies supply their customer database. They would also have to be required to call in alarms using their customer number, allowing the false alarms to be tied back to the customer information for billing. The alarm monitoring companies have resisted providing their data in the past due to concerns about their proprietary data becoming public information once the City receives it. Without a central database, the billing process cannot be completed in an accurate and timely manner. If the permit process is eliminated and no alternative is developed, the false alarm billing program would also be eliminated. Impact of Eliminating False Alarm Charges One public safety department, Police, was asked to report on the false alarm question. Their report on the operational impact of the alarm ordinance is outlined below. Other public safety departments (e.g. Fire, Emergency Communications) would be similarly impacted. The primary motivation for implementing the alarm ordinance was demand management. That is, the number of false alarms was determined to be too high due in part to the fact that there was no cost the alarm users for their false alarm. With the implementation of a response fee for false alarms, it was determined that the number of false alarms would be reduced because alarm users would take measures to ensure that their system produced fewer false alarms in order to avoid paying the response fee. The secondary motivation for implementing the alarm ordinance was cost recovery. Since alarms result in dispatching City personnel to the scene of the alarm, a cost is incurred by the City that would not otherwise be incurred. That is, the City must employ a certain number of personnel to, in affect, respond to alarms. In fact, in 1994 approximately 8,500 hours were spent responding to false alarms (e.g., 23,191 false alarms x two officers x 11 minutes), which is the equivalent of four full-time police officers being assigned exclusively to responding to false alarms. The following scenario demonstrates why the alarm ordinance is successful at demand management. Under the alarm ordinance, alarm users have two minutes to void an alarm after emergency communications has been notified of the alarm. By voiding the alarm, the alarm user does not have to pay the response fee and City personnel are not dispatched (or are least disregarded before arriving on scene). Without the response fee, the alarm user has no incentive to notify dispatch of false alarms and can simply wait for City personnel to arrive on scene and then notify them of the false alarm. Therefore, without the response fee thousands of additional alarms per year would likely by voided by City personnel after arriving on scene. That would result in an increase workload on Police over and above that noted in the preceding paragraph. Net revenues (after the administrative cost of billing and collection) are not sufficient to offset the cost of false alarms to the Police Department alone. If other public safety departments are included, false alarms occasion costs which would exceed the revenues derived from false alarm fees. Options [1] Retain the current ordinance and permit and false alarm fees; [2] Amend the false alarm ordinance to eliminate the permit fee (if alarm companies are required to provide a listing of alarm customers, addresses, and account numbers to allow construction of a data base for billing of false alarms); or [3] Rescind the false alarm ordinance and eliminate the program. On April 18, 1995, Council voted to request that Staff provide a report on issues regarding residential burglar alarm fees. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said the permit fee should be eliminated but that permits should still be required. One reason to retain the permit is that the City will get a better response if permits do not have to be paid for. Right now permits are not being turned in and the City does not know who has alarms until there is a false alarm. Also, not charging a permit fee will encourage more people to install alarms. Burglar alarm companies should be required to inform the City as to location, type, and owner of burglar alarms installed. Alarm companies originally argued against this because they felt there was a confidentiality factor and that other companies or burglars would get copies of customer lists. It is understood that the owner lists are not open to public access. Ray Trail Director of Finance, responding to a question, said that if information on burglar alarm systems could be obtained from the installing companies, the necessity of having the administrative overhead cost would to try to get the information at the point when an alarm occurs would be negated. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said false alarm fees should also be increased from $10.00 to $12.50. Alarm owners have control over false alarm fees. If owners have no false alarms, they will pay no false alarm fees. Increasing the false alarm fee to $12.50 will allow the City to gain back as much as what was lost in 1994. The burglar alarm companies, who will certainly be opposed to giving the City their records, should be given an opportunity to address the Council in the public. Motion -- Kamen moved that Staff be instructed to bring the Council information pertaining to elimination of the permit fee; requiring burglar alarm companies to inform the City as to location, type, and owner of burglar alarms installed; increasing the false alarm fee to $12.50; and that burglar alarm companies and other interested persons be allowed to give public comment. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said the Council is talking about manipulating a system to save $5 per year permitting cost. If things go well, each year there should be fewer false alarms and, therefore, a smaller amount of money to work with. If the data base were received from the alarm companies, would there be some cost? Ray Trail Director of Finance said that, if the motion passes, Staff would seek to have meetings to discuss these issues with alarm companies in advance. The understanding of the motion would be that Staff would return to the Council with impact data and revision to the ordinance that would make the provision of the list a requirement on the part of the alarm companies to the City as a condition of the alarm company's license to do business. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. FINANCIAL PLAN CITY OF WICHITA FINANCIAL PLAN. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight, regarding workshops, said he had received letters from citizens who feel they are being crowded out when workshop sessions are held in the Boardroom and are not televised. The financial plan is an essential feature of the Council's responsibility and Mayor Knight cautioned the Council to consider carefully what goes to the Boardroom for workshop sessions. Financial discussions should be in full view of public light. Citizens should have access to television coverage of financial discussions. Discussion was had and it was generally agreed that workshop sessions would be held in Council Chambers with television cameras. Motion -- Knight moved that the Report be received and filed and the Workshop Session be -- carried set for May 30th in the Council Chambers. Motion carried 7 to 0. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT TO WICHITA PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION. One appointment (Cather), for a term to expire June 30, 1995. Motion -- Cather moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. One appointment (Gale), for term expiring June 30, 1995. Motion -- Gale moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENT TO CONVENTION AND TOURISM COMMITTEE. One appointment (Gale), for a term expiring June 30, 1995. Motion -- Gale appointed Samir Haggar, 2389 North Richmond, and moved that the appointment -- carried be approved. Motion carried 7 to 0. PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION. -- Arson Awareness Month Motion -- carried Knight moved that the proclamation be authorized. Motion carried 7 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA Knight moved that the Consent Agenda, except Items 21 and 30, be approved in accordance with the recommended action shown thereon. Motion carried 7 to 0. BOARD OF BIDS REPORT OF THE BOARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS DATED MAY 8, 1995. At 10:00 a.m., Friday, May 5, 1995, pursuant to advertisements published, bids were received, publicly opened, read aloud and tabulated for the Board of Bids and Contracts: (Ref: Bid analysis report attached to Board of Bids Minutes 5/8/95) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION: SEWERS, PAVING AND WATER MAINS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Accel-Decel and Left Turn improvements at Central and Tyler to serve Four H and Tyler Acres 5th Additions (intersection of Central and Tyler). (472-82311/472- 82407/762195/762302/132282) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 03-23-93) (District V) Cornejo & Sons - $673,312.50 - (Lump Sum Bid Total w/Add Alt.) Water Distribution System to serve Prairie Woods Addition, Phase 1 (north of Pawnee, east of Maize). (448- 88900/732636/470341) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 03-21-95) (District V) Duling Construction Co., Inc. - $48,403.00 Lateral 345, Southwest Interceptor Sewer to serve Prairie Woods Addition (north of Pawnee, east of Maize). (468-82462/742247/480316) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 3-21-95) (District V) Utility Contractors - $124,306.00 The Board of Bids and Contracts recommended that the contracts be awarded as outlined above, subject to check, same being the lowest and best bid and within the Engineer's construction estimate. Knight moved that the contracts be awarded as outlined above, subject to check, same being the lowest and best bid within the Engineer's construction estimate, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract for the City. Motion carried 7 to 0. CITY MANAGER/CENTURY II: PROVIDE SIX (6) FOLLOWSPOTS DELIVERED AND SET-UP AS PER SPECIFICATIONS McDaniel Grip & Lighting, Inc. - $29,639.60 (Total net lump sum) $ 665.00 per each* (Option I) $ 290.00 per each* (Option II) *5% discount 5 or more The Board of Bids and Contracts recommended that the contract be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Knight moved that the contract be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Motion carried 7 to 0. LICENSE APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES TO RETAIL CEREAL MALT BEVERAGES.\ Special Event 1995 Kristi Parker Wichita Pride/PrideFest '95Cowtown (SW of Parking Lot) Renewal 1995 (Consumption on Premises) Kevin F. Raven Taco Tico, Inc.*3425 E. Douglas New Operator (Consumption on Premises) Alfonso F. Amaro Family Game Room*767 N. West Street *General Retailer--beer sales derive less than 50% of gross revenues. Motion -- Knight moved that the licenses be approved subject to Staff review and -- carried approval. Motion carried 7 to 0. PLANS AND SPECS. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. a. Buffalo Park access roadway, parking lot and boat ramp (Maize Road at Hardtner). (472- 82530/785345/440965) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 06-14-94) (District V) b. Brownthrush Park earthwork (north of Second between Tyler and Ridge Road). (472-82168/785089/440039) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 12-18- 90) (District V) c. Fairview from 1050 feet south of 29th Street (south of 29th Street, west of Broadway). (472- 82536/615336/811004) Traffic will not be carried during construction. (Council approval date 07-01-92) (District VI) d. Washington from 8th Street North to 9th Street North. (472-82507/706069/405160) Through traffic will not be carried during construction; only local access shall be provided. (Council approval date 10-25-94) (District I) e. 8" Water Main along 8th Street from Mosley to Washington Street, and in Washington from 8th to 9th Streets (along Washington, from 8th to 9th Streets). (448- 88913/633438/544570) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 12-14-93) (District I) f. Lateral 63, Main 5, Sanitary Sewer #23 to serve part of Meadow Oaks Addition (south of 29th, east of Oliver). (468-82340/742262/480318) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 07-13-93) (District II) Motion -- Knight moved that the plans and specifications be approved and the City Clerk be instructed to advertise for bids to be submitted to the Board of Bids and -- carried Contracts by 10:00 a.m., May 20, 1995. Motion carried 7 to 0. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES. a. Water Distribution System to serve Prairie Woods Addition, Phase 1 (north of Pawnee, east of Maize) - $88,000.00 (448-88900/732636/470341) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 03-21-95) (District V) b. Lateral 345, Southwest Interceptor Sewer to serve Prairie Woods Addition (north of Pawnee, east of Maize) - $212,000.00. (468-82462/742247/480316) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 3-21-95) (District V) c. Accel-Decel and Left Turn improvements at Central and Tyler to serve Four H and Tyler Acres 5th Additions (intersection of Central and Tyler) - $821,480.00. (472- 82311/472-82407/762195/762302/132282/490322/490333/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 03-23-93) (District V) d. Amended Preliminary Estimate - improving Webb Road between 21st Street North and 29th Street North - $730,000.00. (472-82291/705541/405108) Motion -- Knight moved that the preliminary estimates be approved and filed. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. STATEMENT OF COST STATEMENTS OF COST. a. (Final Statement of Cost) Park CIP Project, Watson Park Miniature Train Purchase - $104,585.00. (785436/440074) Motion -- Knight moved that the Statements of Cost be approved and filed. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. BOARDS MINUTES MINUTES OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Board of Appeals of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, 5/2/95 CPO Coordinating Board, 5/3/95 Wichita/Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 3/22/95 Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Minutes be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. (Item No. 21) STREET CLOSURES CONSIDERATION OF STREET CLOSURES. There were no street closures to be considered. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Item be stricken. Motion carried 7 to 0. CLAIMS ALLOWED REPORT ON CLAIMS ALLOWED - APRIL, 1995 Name of Claimant Amount Vickie L. Babb $223.09* Gerald Rice $182.95 Ernie Nelson $259.33 Anthony R. Rodriguez $351.38 Evelyn B. Hill $335.00 C. A. Langhofer $349.20 Charles F. McElroy $207.85 *Settled for lesser amount than originally claimed. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Report be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. WEAPONS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS DESTRUCTION. Agenda Report No. 95-399. Weapons seized in connection with criminal activity shall be destroyed or forfeited to the Wichita Police Department. All transactions involving weapon disposal must have prior approval of the City Manager. A list of weapons being destroyed has been provided and includes a total of 228 guns. Destruction of the weapons will be witnessed and monitored by Staff. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Report be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. TENNIS COURT COURT RESURFACING AT RALPH WULZ RIVERSIDE TENNIS COMPLEX. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 95-400. The 1995 Capital Improvement Program provides for resurfacing courts at the Ralph Wulz Riverside Tennis Complex (P-94). The existing asphalt court surfaces are badly cracked. Resurfacing will bring the courts back to tournament quality and preserve the center's revenue base. The estimated project cost is $80,000. The funding source is General Obligation Bonds. Motion -- Knight moved that the project be approved and the Resolution be adopted. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 227 A Resolution finding it necessary to make certain improvement to the Ralph Wulz Riverside Tennis Complex (472-82585) and authorizing the issuance of bonds by the City of Wichita at large to finance such improvements, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. CGP FY 1994, AMENDED AMENDED FY 1994 COMPREHENSIVE GRANT PROGRAM (CGP). Agenda Report No. 95-401. On August 25, 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development approved expenditures of Capital Improvements Funding on installation of air conditioning equipment in single-family, scattered site applications. These are currently 351 single-family units in Housing's inventory. The Comprehensive Grant program requires timely expenditure of funds. Unmet obligation and expenditure deadlines negatively impact future funding and are reported during annual submission of the Public Housing Management Assessment Report (PHMAR). The requested amendments to the 1994 Comprehensive Grant Budget are necessary due to time delays in the Rehabilitation of Development of KS16P004006 (Rosa Gragg Complex). This amendment was approved by the City of Wichita Board of Housing Commissioners on April 20, 1995. The requested amended budget will allow timely expenditure of funding and installation of air conditioning in scattered site locations previously rehabilitated and designed as air conditioning ready. The proposed renovation of KS16P004006 (Rosa Gragg Complex) will be addressed in the 1995 Comprehensive Grant Program Budget. Funding for the project will be available in August of 1995. The proposed changes to the amended FY1994 submission are within the guidelines of the CGP Handbook (74485.3). Timely expenditure of funding will continue to insure future funding will not be negatively impacted. The Comprehensive Grant Program is funded at $1,476,781.00 annually. Motion -- Knight moved that submittal of the amended FY1994 Comprehensive Grant Program be -- carried approved. Motion carried 7 to 0. EASEMENT AGREEMENT EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH WICHITA HOUSING ASSOCIATES (K-96 BIKEPATH) (District II) Agenda Report No. 95-402. The Comprehensive Bicycle Plan's number one recommendation was to build a bicycle path that follows the K-96 Bypass from Grove Park to the East City Limits. The project is in design and the preferred alignment of the K-96 bikepath requires the acquisition of an easement across a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Killarney Plaza 3rd Addition, which is on 32nd Street North approximately 1/8 mile west of Rock Road. The owners of the property have agreed to donate the needed easement at no cost if the City agrees to hold them harmless, be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the bikepath and provide that if the bikepath is abandoned that the easement can be vacated and revert back to their ownership. There are no costs to the City in connection with the Agreement. Motion -- Knight moved that the Easement Agreement be approved and the Mayor be -- carried authorized to execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. DESIGN SERVICES AGMT. DESIGN SERVICES FOR STORM WATER SEWER NO. 450 (District V) Agenda Report No. 95-403. The City Council approved the Lake Ridge Commercial 2nd Addition development on March 8, 1994. The proposed Agreement between the City and Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. (PEC) provides for the design of Storm Water Sewer No. 450 (west of Ridge Road, north of 21st Street North). Because PEC provided subdivision engineering services for this addition, it can expedite construction plan preparation. Payment will be on a lump-sum basis not to exceed $15,500 and will be paid by Special Assessments. Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACQUISITION OF AN EASEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR GYPSUM BICYCLE PATH EASEMENT CREEK BICYCLE PATH. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 95-404. The Gypsum Creek Bicycle Path is contained in the 1994 CIP as Project P-9303. The project calls for the construction of a bicycle path along Gypsum Creek form Towne East Shopping Center to Cessna Park. The project cost is being financed 80% with Federal funds and 20% with local funds. The path is being constructed on existing easements that the City has. Some of these easements are for drainage purposes only so it is necessary that the easements be modified to allow recreational uses. One such easement requiring modification is across Reserve A, Plant Kingdom Addition to Wichita which is owned by Luis Casado, et.al. Staff has attempted to negotiate a dedication of the identified property. The owners have voiced several concerns about the proposed project which staff has addressed. At this time, the easement is with the sellers' attorney for modification and has been for some time. The attorney has made little progress on the easement and has rejected suggestions that the City modify the easement for his review. The owners have shown little enthusiasm for the project and as negotiations have continued since January with little progress, eminent domain action appears to be the only recourse. All other easements needed for the project have been dedicated. The costs of this acquisition are to be paid by the City at large. Motion -- Knight moved that the ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property and directing the City Attorney to file the appropriate proceedings in the District court to accomplish such acquisition be placed on -- carried first reading. Motion carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCE An Ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain private property, easements and right- of-way therein, for the purpose of acquiring the site for the Gypsum Creek Bicycle Path Project in the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; designating the lands required for such purposes and directing the City Attorney to file a petition in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, for acquisition of the lands and easements therein taken and providing for payment of the cost thereof, introduced and under the rules laid over. SETTLEMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - ERIC J. MOORE. Agenda Report No. 95-405. Eric J. Moore was mistakenly identified in an affidavit prepared by the WPD, which subsequently lead to his arrest. Mr. Moore claimed that this mistake caused substantial damage including injury to his reputation, loss of income, and attorneys fees. After investigation of the claim and nature of the injuries, the risks associated with a trial were considered by all parties. Mr. Moore has offered to accept a total of $20,000.00 as full settlement of all of his claims against the City and the individual police officers involved. Because there is a risk that the judgment at trial would exceed this amount, the Law Department recommends acceptance of this offer. Funding for this settlement payment is from the City's tort claims fund. Motion -- Knight moved that payment of $20,000.00 as a full settlement of all possible claims arising out of the incident which is the subject of the claim be -- carried authorized. Motion carried 7 to 0. PROPERTY DISPOSITION SURPLUS PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KELLOGG AND BROADWAY AND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KELLOGG AND TOPEKA. Agenda Report No. 95-406. These properties were originally purchased from Phillip G. and Lynne A. Ruffin and Nickel Investments Corporation for the Kellogg flyover. The project has been completed and these properties have been identified as possible surplus. The exhibit shows legal descriptions, acquisition costs, current zoning, and the square footages of the land and buildings before and after the project. All City departments and local government entities have been notified and have expressed no interest in the property. Since there is no interest in retaining ownership, it appears to be in the best interest of the public to declare the property as surplus and offer it for sale to the general public. Total acquisition cost for these properties was $795,490. Some of the buildings and asphalt parking areas have been removed and some of the original square footage of the land was also utilized as right-of-way. Much of the acquisition cost is expected to be recovered. It is anticipated that any proposed use will partially determine the sale price. Motion -- Knight moved that the property be declared as surplus and designated as available for infill development use or for sale to the general public. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. (Item No. 30) CHANGE ORDER CHANGE ORDER FOR OLD TOWN, MOORE AVENUE SANITARY SEWER. (District VI) Council Member Kamen declared a conflict of interest and abstained from participation. Agenda Report No. 95-407. The City Council approved a project for construction of Moore Avenue on August 30, 1994. The City Council awarded a construction contract to Cornejo & Sons on April 4, 1995 in the amount of $279,956.50. The Water & Sewer Department has determined that a 6" slip-lined sanitary sewer pipe in Moore Street needs to be replaced with a new 8" sanitary sewer pipe to assure adequate sewer service to this redeveloping business area. Completion of the street improvements remains July 1, 1995 with no additional time given for the change order work. The Water & Sewer Department has agreed to fund the estimated $37,403.00 cost for replacement of the sanitary sewer pipe from Capital Improvement Program S-4 funds budgeted for sanitary sewer reconstruction. Motion -- Ferris moved that the Change Order be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried sign. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Kamen abstained) CONDEMNATIONS RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO CONDEMNATION OF DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE STRUCTURES. Agenda Report No. 95-408. On May 1, 1995, the Board of Code Standards (BCSA) held a hearing on the following twelve (12) properties. These properties are considered dangerous and unsafe structures, and are being presented to schedule a condemnation hearing before the Governing Body. Improvement notices have been issued on these structures, however, compliance has not been achieved. Pre- condemnation and formal condemnation letters were issued and the time granted has expired. No action has been taken to repair or remove the following properties. Property Address Property Address (1) 244-46 N. Ash (7) 1727 N. Spruce (2) 255 N. Grove (8) 1923 N. Chautauqua (3) 1133 N. Green (9) 2820 West Maxwell (4) 1311 N. Estelle (10) 1013-15 N. Madison (5) 1303 N. Lorraine (11) 1021 N. Madison (6) 1758 N. Kansas (12) 939 N. Wabash These structures have defects that under Ordinance No. 28-251 of the Code of the City of Wichita, shall cause them to be deemed as dangerous and unsafe buildings, as required by State Statute for condemnation and consideration. Motion -- Knight moved that the resolutions to placing this matter on the agenda for a Hearing before the Governing Body on July 11, 1995, at 11:00 a.m. be adopted. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 215 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lot 7, on Ash Street, in Park Place Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 244-46 North Ash, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 216 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lot 2, Grove Street, in Park Place Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 255 North Grove, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 217 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lot 26 and the south 25 feet of Lot 28, Block 5, Esterbrook Park Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1133 North Green, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 218 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 37 and 39, on Mabel Avenue, now Estelle Avenue, in Fairmount Park Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1311 North Estelle, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 219 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 45 and 47, on Lorraine Avenue, in Fairmount Park Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1303 North Lorraine, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 220 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lot 8 and the north 12.5 feet of Lot 10, Block 3, Kansas Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1758 North Kansas, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 221 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: the south 15 feet of Lot 23, all of Lot 25, Spruce Street, Logan Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1727 North Spruce, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 222 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 30 and 32, Block 2, in College Terrace Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1923 North Chautauqua, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 223 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 48, 50, 52, 54, and 56, Block 7, Orienta Park Second Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 2820 West Maxwell, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 224 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: the south 6.1 feet of Lot 31, and all of Lots 33 and 35, on Breckenridge, now Madison Avenue, in Solomon's Second Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1013-15 North Madison, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 225 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: the south 12.2 feet of Lot 27, all of Lot 29 and the north 18.35 feet of Lot 31, on Breckenridge, now Madison Avenue, in Solomon's Second Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1021 North Madison, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 226 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 9 and 11, on Wabash Avenue, in Moore's Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 939 North Wabash, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCES SECOND READING ORDINANCES. (First Reading 5/9/95) Brittain Machine ORDINANCE NO. 42-781 An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 42-154 exempting property from ad valorem taxation for economic development purposes pursuant to Article 11, Section 13, of the Kansas Constitution; providing the terms and conditions for ad valorem tax exemption; and describing the property of Brittain Machine, Inc., so exempted, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Position Class. ORDINANCE NO. 42-782 An Ordinance establishing position classifications for employees of the City of Wichita and prescribing pay rates by reference to position classifications in the schedule of pay ranges repealing Ordinance No. 42-567, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Pay Schedule ORDINANCE NO. 42-783 An Ordinance providing for a uniform schedule of standard pay ranges for all employees of the City of Wichita, repealing Ordinance No. 42-568, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Hillside Improvement ORDINANCE NO. 42-784 An Ordinance declaring Hillside, from 27th Street North to 37th Street North (472-82582) to be a main trafficway within the City of Wichita, Kansas; declaring the necessity of and authorizing certain improvements to said main trafficway; and setting forth the nature of said improvements, the estimated costs thereof, and the manner of payment of same, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. First Reading Ordinance. Motion -- Knight moved that the following ordinance be placed on first reading. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCE An Ordinance making a special assessment to pay for the removal of certain structures, being dangerous and unsafe buildings which have been declared a nuisance under the provision of sections 18.16.010 to 18.16.090 of the code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, introduced and under the rules laid over. PLANNING AGENDA V-1903 PUBLIC HEARING V-1903 REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF A BUILDING SETBACK IN AN AREA NORTH OF CENTRAL AND EAST OF BEBE. (District V) Agenda Report No. 95-409. Staff Recommendation: Approve vacation subject to limiting access on Central to one driveway. MAPC Recommendation: Approve vacation of building setback. Prior to the previous hearing on this Item, documents were not submitted for publication and proper publication of the legal notice did not take place. Rehearing of the case is necessary. Marvin Krout Director of Planning reviewed the Item for the City Council. The notice of hearing was published twice and no written protest had been filed. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard on this Item and no one appeared. Motion -- Ferris moved that the public hearing be closed, the vacation be approved as recommended by the MAPC, the Mayor be authorized to sign the Vacation Order, and a certified copy of the Order be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion -- carried carried 6 to 1. Cole - No. V-1911 PUBLIC HEARING V-1911 REQUEST TO VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED EAST OF TYLER ROAD AND SOUTH OF 21ST STREET NORTH. (District V) Agenda Report No. 95-410. Staff Recommendation: Approve vacation of utility easement. MAPC Recommendation: Approve vacation of utility easement. Marvin Krout Director of Planning reviewed the Item for the City Council. The notice of hearing was published twice and no written protest had been filed. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard on this Item and no one appeared. Motion -- Ferris moved that the public hearing be closed, the vacation be approved as recommended, the Mayor be authorized to sign the Vacation Order, and a certified copy of the Order be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. S/D 95-25 S/D 95-25 PLAT OF THE CREST RIDGE SECOND ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF CENTRAL AND EAST OF 127TH STREET EAST. Agenda Report No. 95-410. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. This plat is essentially the same as the Crest Ridge (1st) Addition platted in November, 1994. In order to correct a number of surveying measurements, however, a replat of the site has been employed. Required improvements and guarantees and other documents are being resubmitted under the Crest Ridge Second Addition title. A 100% petition has been submitted for the extension of Wichita water to the site and an outside-the-City water guarantee has also been provided. Sanitary sewer, drainage and paving petitions are being handled by the County. Both a City and County Certificate of Petitions has also been submitted. A restrictive covenant was required concerning the ownership and maintenance of reserves, off-street parking, and the use of street easements. This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Water Agreement Water Agreement from Crest Ridge Development, Inc. Certificates Certificates from Crest Ridge Development, Inc. Restr. Covenant Restrictive Covenant from Crest Ridge Development, Inc. Water 100 Percent Petition for Water Distribution System Number 448- 88869 to serve Crest Ridge Second Addition (east of 127th Street East, north of Central) ($56,000 S.A.) (Hold for development) Motion -- Kamen moved that the Petition be approved and the Resolution be adopted; the documents be received and filed and recorded with the Register of Deeds; the plat and Water Agreement be approved as recommended and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried sign. Motion carried 6 to 1. Cather - No. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 228 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Water Distribution System Number 448-88869 to serve Crest Ridge Second Addition (east of 127th Street East, north of Central)in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 6 to 1. Yeas: Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Nays: Cather. S/D 95-18 S/D 95-18 PLAT OF THE C.C.R. 3RD ADDITION LOCATED WEST OF ROCK ROAD AND NORTH OF 13TH STREET NORTH. (District II) Agenda Report No. 95-412. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. Petitions, all 100%, have been submitted for sanitary sewer, municipal water and storm sewer improvements. A Certificate of Petitions has also been submitted. This site is within the noise impact area of McConnell AFB and an avigational easement and restrictive noise covenant were required. A zone change (Z-3158) from "BB" and "C" to "LC" zoning has been approved for portions of this site subject to platting. This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Water 100 Percent Petition for Water Distribution System Number 448- 88881 to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) ($13,500 S.A.; $30,500 Water Utility W-65) (Hold for development) Water 100 Percent Petition for Water Distribution System Number 448- 88882 to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) ($42,000 S.A.) (Hold for development) Storm Sewer 100 Percent Petition for Storm Water Sewer Number 456, Project Number 468-82435, to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) ($40,100 S.A.) (Hold for development) Sewer 100 Percent Petition for Sanitary Sewer, Project Number 468- 82436, to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) ($40,000 S.A.) (Hold for development) Avigational Esmt. Avigational Easement from C.C.R. Associates, A Kansas General Partnership, and Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc., a Maryland Corporation. Certificate Certificate from C.C.R. Associates, A Kansas General Partnership, and Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc., a Maryland Corporation. Restr. Covenant Restrictive Covenant from C.C.R. Associates, A Kansas General Partnership, and Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc., a Maryland Corporation. Motion -- Kamen moved that the Petitions be approved and the Resolutions be adopted; the documents be received and filed and recorded with the Register of Deeds; the plat be approved as recommended and the Mayor be authorized to sign; and the associated zone change Z-3158 Ordinance be placed on first reading with publication of the Ordinance being withheld until such time as the plat has been -- carried recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 229 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Water Distribution System Number 448-88881 to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 230 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Water Distribution System Number 448-88882 to serve C.C.R. Third Addition in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 231 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Storm Water Sewer Number 456, Project Number 468-82435, to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 232 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Sanitary Sewer, Project Number 468-82436, to serve C.C.R. Third Addition (west of Rock, north of 13th) in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCE An Ordinance changing the zoning classifications or districts of certain lands located in the City of Wichita, Kansas, under the authority granted by Section 28.04.210, the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, introduced and under the rules laid over. Z-3158 S/D 94-54 S/D 94-54 PLAT OF THE WOODLAND HILLS ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF CENTRAL AND WEST OF 151ST STREET WEST. Agenda Report No. 95-413. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. This site is in the County and has been approved by the Health Department for the use of on-site sanitary sewer and water facilities. Suburban, gravel type streets will be provided for this site and the needed guarantee has been submitted to the County Engineer. Since this site is relatively close to Wichita and is expected to eventually develop with typical urban densities, the applicant has volunteered a covenant for an unusually large lot which restricts the division of the lot until such time as typical urban development may occur. The plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Restr. Covenant Restrictive Covenant from Eugene A. Falkowski. Motion -- Ferris moved that the Restrictive Covenant be received and filed and recorded with the Register of Deeds; and the plat be approved and the Mayor be authorized -- carried to sign. Motion carried 7 to 0. S/D 95-5 S/D 95-5 PLAT OF THE DOUBLE L ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET NORTH AND EAST OF HYDRAULIC. (District I) Agenda Report No. 95-414. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. Although this site is in the City it has been approved by the Health Department for the use of on-site sanitary sewer and water facilities. Municipal services are not presently available to the site. However, petitions have been submitted for the future extension of municipal water and sanitary sewer to this site. A Certificate of Petitions has also been submitted. This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Sewer 100 Percent Petition for Water Distribution System Number 448- 88923 to serve Double L Addition (north of 45th Street North, east of Hydraulic) ($10,699 S.A.) (Hold for development) Water 100 Percent Petition for Lateral 87, Sanitary Sewer Number 23, Project Number 468-82475 to serve Double L Addition (north of 45th Street North, east of Hydraulic) ($20,000 S.A.) (Hold for development) Certificate Certificate from David and Patricia Lehman. Motion -- Rogers moved that the Petitions be approved and the Resolutions be adopted; the documents be received and filed and recorded with the Register of Deeds; the plat be approved as recommended and the Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried -- carried 6 to 1. Cather - No. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 233 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Water Distribution System Number 448-88923 to serve Double L Addition (north of 45th Street North, east of Hydraulic) in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Rogers moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 6 to 1. Yeas: Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Nays: Cather. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 234 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Lateral 87, Sanitary Sewer Number 23, Project Number 468-82475 to serve Double L Addition (north of 45th Street North, east of Hydraulic) in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Rogers moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 6 to 1. Yeas: Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. Nays: Cather. S/D 94-55 S/D 94-55 PLAT OF THE ST. MARY'S MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF 17TH STREET NORTH AND WEST OF HYDRAULIC. (District I) Agenda Report No. 95-415. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. A 100% petition for paving of a turnaround to terminate Pennsylvania has been provided. A Certificate of Petitions has also been submitted. In order to guarantee the closure of a number of driveways required by the access control being dedicated by the plat, the applicant has submitted a letter of credit. To provide for sidewalks along existing streets, a sidewalk certificate has been provided. A temporary utility easement is being granted in order to cover an existing sewer line that will eventually be abandoned when actual development occurs on the site. This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Sewer 100 Percent Petition for Lateral 50, District T, Sanitary Sewer Number 12, Project Number 468-82476 to serve St. Mary's Missionary Baptist Church Addition located north of 17th Street North and west of Hydraulic ($4,500 S.A.) (Hold for development) Paving 100 Percent Petition for a paved turnaround on Pennsylvania Avenue, Project Number 472-82587, to serve St. Mary's Missionary Baptist Church Addition located north of 17th Street North and west of Hydraulic ($6,000 S.A.) (Hold for development) Easement Temporary Easement from William D. Hunter. Letter of Credit Letter of Credit to be submitted. Certificate Certificate from Philip J. Meyer, Baughman Company Agent. Certificate Certificate from William D. Hunter. Motion -- Rogers moved that the Petitions be approved and the Resolutions be adopted; the documents be received and filed and recorded with the Register of Deeds; the plat be approved as recommended and the Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 235 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Lateral 50, District T, Sanitary Sewer Number 12, Project Number 468-82476 to serve St. Mary's Missionary Baptist Church Addition located north of 17th Street North and west of Hydraulic in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Rogers moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-95- 236 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing a paved turnaround on Pennsylvania Avenue, Project Number 472-82587, to serve St. Mary's Missionary Baptist Church Addition located north of 17th Street North and west of Hydraulic in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Rogers moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting adjourned at 2:44 P.M. Pat Burnett Deputy City Clerk COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL 158 MAY 16, 1995 Page