MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Wichita, Kansas, February 21, 1995 Tuesday, 9:12 A.M. The City Council met in regular session with Mayor Broadfoot in the Chair. Council Members Cather, Cole, Ferris, Rogers; present. *Council Members Kamen, Reeser; absent. Chris Cherches, City Manager; Gary Rebenstorf, Director of Law; Patricia L. Burnett, Deputy City Clerk; present. The invocation was given by Rev. Greg Gathcamp, Lord of Life Lutheran Church. 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 February 14, were -- approved approved 5 to 0. (Kamen, Reeser; absent) PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Broadfoot presented the Proclamations that were previously approved. VISITOR RECOGNITION Recognition was given to Robert and Joan Stanton, visitors from Hertfordshire, England. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BID REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 111 PERTAINING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM BID REQUIREMENTS. (Continued from February 14, 1995.) Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law reviewed the Item. At the meeting of February 14, 1995, the City Council directed the City Attorney's Office prepare two alternative ordinances for consideration. The first alternative ordinance (Alternate "A") provides language "public improvements which are to be constructed as part of a convention hotel project or the ice rink project" as requested by Council Member Reeser. The second alternative ordinance (Alternate "B") has language added that, "provided further, that the provisions of this section may only be utilized if the governing body has, prior to the commencement of the construction of such public improvements, adopted an ordinance approving the said construction under the provisions of this Charter Ordinance," as suggested by Council Member Ferris. Council Member Kamen present. Motion -- Reeser moved that the Charter Ordinance, Alternate "A," be placed on first reading. Subst. Motion -- Ferris moved a substitute motion that the Charter Ordinance, Alternate "B," be placed on first reading, with the proviso that within the Charter Ordinance it be specifically stated that the simple ordinance would require a public hearing and public notification. Amendment -- Ferris, with consent of the second, amended the substitute motion to include that the simple ordinance would also require five votes. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris explained that a new charter ordinance for each project, with a 60 to 90-day time- frame could cause some problems; but, this is significant enough to add some charter ordinance type requirements without the 60 to 90-day process. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser stated that with the substitute motion, the assumption that local participation is required is shifted to the contractor to tell the city what is desired. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said the bid process does not guarantee local participation on a project and, in fact, can preclude local participation if the bidder is not from the Wichita area. By going through the process being discussed, the city has required that developers use local participation. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser explained that the convention hotel developers have people they have worked with in the past and the developers are very comfortable with those people. The construction can be completed without having to build new relationships with subcontractors and can rely on the quality of work being done. But, a wholesale change should not be made which would make this the standard on every project. Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers said he could support the substitute motion because the city could contractually make requirements desired. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot said the intent is to allow the city, in those extraordinary projects in a public/private partnership, to have some variations. The City, so far (as in the Ice Rink, Hotel, and Science Center) has made it clear that it is expected there will be subcontractors and local contractors used. -- carried Substitute motion carried 6 to 1. Reeser - No. CHARTER ORDINANCE A Charter Ordinance amending and repealing Section 4 of Charter Ordinance No. 111 of the City of Wichita, Kansas, pertaining to exemptions from bid requirements, introduced and under the rules laid over. (The Council proceeded with the time certain item and later returned to the following Item which is shown in Agenda order.) PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACQUISITION OF A VACANT LOT LOCATED AT 1141 NORTH GORDON - INFILL HOUSING PROJECT. Continued from February 14, 1995, for additional information. Chris Cherches City Manager reviewed the Item. The higher price paid for the lot is due to the location which is in an area where the homes are priced higher. The infill housing will also bring a higher price at that location. Motion -- Rogers moved that the budget be approved; and the Contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried 7 to 0. NEW BUSINESS ART MUSEUM BOARD PUBLIC HEARING: ART MUSEUM BOARD. As requested at the February 14, 1995, meeting, proposed charter ordinance and simple ordinance changes were prepared which would allow the City Council to create vacancies on the Wichita Art Museum Board and appoint new members. Under existing ordinances, individual members of a board or commission may be removed prior to the end of their term only for cause, including such grounds as nonresidency or nonattendance. The City Council has the discretion, however, to amend the ordinances relating to term of office to cause an expiration of terms of all members of a board at any time. In drafting the proposed ordinances, a prime legal consideration is to ensure that there is no effect on the continuing existence or continuity of an established board. Only the members of the board and not the board itself are affected. Under the proposed ordinances, the terms of the current members of the Art Museum Board are set to expire upon the date set by the Council. The Council then appoints (or reappoints) new members to serve on the Board. To avoid any lapse between old and new members, the City Council members shall serve as members of the Art Museum Board in the interim until a quorum of the new members have taken office. Upon the effective date of the Charter Ordinance, the Board becomes a nine-member body. Seven members are appointed by the Council, two members are appointed by the Council upon nomination from the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum. Prior to the effective date of the Charter Ordinance, the Friends' members serve in an ex officio capacity. All Art Museum Board members' terms expire June 30, 1995, as do the terms for all other boards and commissions. A number of options need to be selected under each component of the ordinances: A. Expiration of term of current members. The standard June 30, 1995, expiration date of the terms (2.12.020(1)) is replaced to cause an earlier termination. Options: 1. effective date of the ordinance (passage and publication) 2. a date to be set by Council 3. effective date of the ordinance and after the appointment and qualification of new members. Except under Option 3, the Council is designated to serve as the interim board until a quorum of the new board is appointed and qualified. B. Appointment of new members. New board members may be appointed immediately for a term to expire June 30, 1995. Thereafter board members will serve two-year terms in the manner currently existing. The notice and vacancy procedure is waived and the Council may immediately fill the Board vacancies at any meeting. C. Membership of Board. The Charter Ordinance is amended to allow all future decisions on board size and make-up to be made by simple ordinance. The new size will not be effective until the Charter Ordinance is effective 61 days after publication. The two Friends appointees, however, could serve as ex officio members until the Charter Ordinance is effective. Options: 1. 9 member board, 7 appointed by Council, 2 appointed by Council upon nomination from the Friends of Wichita Art Museum. The names are submitted for each vacancy by the Friends a. at least one name b. not less than ___ names. An additional option is to give the Council the right to reject all names and request more names from the Friends. 2. 7 member board, 5 appointed by Council, 2 appointed by Council upon nomination from the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum. This option would not require a charter ordinance amendment. (Council may choose to leave the Board make-up in the Charter Ordinance, however, by moving the simple ordinance proposal in to the Charter Ordinance.) Additional options may be identified by the Council. The ordinance may be adopted on first reading by declaration of an emergency. The ordinance could also be placed on first reading and the options selected placed in the final draft for adoption on second reading. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot inquired if anyone wished to be heard. Dan Skubitz Dan Skubitz, President of the Wichita Art Museum Board (WAMB), speaking as a concerned citizen, said the issue is who governs the Wichita Art Museum. The answer should be the people of the City, through the elected Council, the assisted Board of Directors, and through the Director. In this case, there is a private corporation (Friends of the Art Museum Board (FAMB)) whose stated purpose is to raise money for the support of the Wichita Art Museum. This corporation is not subject to the City Council. The idea of dissolving the current board and expanding the membership does not face the problem. The only thing the City Council can do relates to the WAMB. The City Council has no control at all over the FAMB. The museum director is placed in the position of having to go on bended knee to the FAMB to request funds. That situation is not going to change. The current board has spoken with a single voice and the City Council should ask why. The City Council should call in their appointees and ask them the hard questions and then take action. Donald Byram Donald Byram, ex-officio of the Wichita Art Museum Board and of the Friends of the Art Museum Board, said the issue is not that of changing museum management but that of inclusion. The following questions might identify the major problems: Are you creating a group to govern the museum? Are you only adding two additional members to a city Art Board or are you creating a truly new board? Will the new board reflect an us and us approach or an us and them approach? Will the programming partnerships with area and national organizations such as the Wichita Public Schools, the Kansas Art Education Association, area colleges, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, and the Metropolitan Museum in New York be further developed or scrapped? Will the director and museum staff be encouraged to explore new and exciting ways to present the visual arts to the public? Mr. Byram encouraged the Council to create and mold a new board that will provide the leadership to build and even more impressive museum for the citizens of Wichita for the next sixty years. Cheryl Hamilton Cheryl Hamilton, Chair of the Programming and Education Committee for the Wichita Art Museum, said that previous to two years ago, there were five programs. Now, there are fifty-four programs. Ms. Hamilton urged the City Council to consider inclusion aspect to make sure that all the kinds of programs that involve businesses, public and private schools, and children are involved. Delma Klocke Delmar Klocke, Chair of the Friends of the Art Museum Board, said the FAMB has supported the Wichita Art Museum for thirty years in soliciting contributions, works of art, and providing volunteer services for the betterment of the Museum. The FAMB still support the Wichita Art Museum as outlined by the FAMB Bylaws. The FAMB support the City Council action that will bring a spirit of cooperation and harmony to the Art Museum. Richard Mater Richard Mater, 224 North Belmont, previous member of the Friends of the Art Museum Board, said the real problem is one of perception. There are many museums in the United States whose Friends money is kept separate from the operating accounts of the museums. What happens in those cases is that the museum directors meet regularly with the friends or support group and, at the beginning of each fiscal year, the director of the museum presents to the friends group a list prioritized of the unfunded needs of the museum for the following year. Then, together, decisions are made on which ones the friends group can support and pay fully. The difference in Wichita is that the Director of the Museum views that as having to beg for money rather than seizing it as an opportunity to work closely with a citizen based support group. The city board seems not to trust the Friends group. Over the years, the FAMB has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Museum and has provided for the acquisition of over $3 million worth of art. "To say they cannot be trusted is just beyond belief." The proposal to enlarge the WAMB, change the membership some, is a good idea. What is now needed is a board that can approach this issue of the separation of the funds in a dispassionate way, consider all of the options, and select the one to make this the best museum. Boyd Howard Boyd Howard, member of the Friends of the Art Museum Board and a member of the Wichita Art Museum Foundation, said he hoped an eye would be kept on how to promote the museum and how to use it as an asset for the City. Mr. Howard ask the Council to make the decision to leave the board as is and to tell all volunteer groups that the day-to-day running of the institution ought to be done by the Wichita Art Museum Board and that if the City Council is unhappy with the way the WAMB is proceeding, the solution is to let their terms expire and then to appoint someone whose thinking is more in line with the current opinions as to how the museum ought to operate. This would avoid possible complications such as an injunction or campaign issues. The City Council ought to say to the WAMB that the WAMB is going to be allowed to run its affairs unless there is a gross error in judgment. Leon Moeder Leon Moeder said the last draft of the Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by the WAMB should be a part of the solution. The existing members should be allowed to finish the work they have started and to proceed to the end of their term. The City Council should not cave in to special interest groups. Who controls the money is at issue and this should be settled by the City Council. Diane Koeppel-Horn Diane Koeppel-Horn, Director of Education for the WAMB, said the politics of inclusiveness, not divisiveness, are needed. The Art Museum is at risk of returning to service for a few. In 1993, the art collection, practices, and public programs at the Art Museum were sadly lacking; and there was very little commitment to extend a hand to expand the Art Museum reach into the community. The Art Museum did have a new Director who said she was committed to making the museum central to the lives of its citizens. In the time Diane Koeppel-Horn has been in Wichita, colleagues and constituents have been gathered, forty- nine new programs have been formed, and public involvement has rapidly grown. Ms. Koeppel-Horn urged the Council to look beyond the personality of the players and examine the philosophical differences between what the Wichita Art Museum Board has charged her with and what the Friends of the Art Museum Board, philosophically, controlled the Museum. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot said emotion would have to be put aside for the sake of the Art Museum. "In all of the meetings I have sat in, I have felt that both sides have been trying to come to a middle place or a common ground, at least those that we have been talking with in those terms. I would suggest to you that if the budget process did not work well in the past, if policies were not developed and enforced in the past, perhaps some of the blame lies in the leadership of the Director of the past. "Now, you have a Director who is attempting to address those in a very different way. And, you have two groups who need to, and I believe are trying to, come on board in terms of the vision of this Museum. That is different. That is a different dynamic. That takes time for people to come along, if you would, with that vision. I am not sure that all best efforts have been made to bring people along on that vision, and that needs to be improved." Spirit of cooperation, harmony, best-faith effort, good intention, and trust all have to be in place no matter what the City Council decides. If they are not, then nothing will happen beyond today. "What I heard, in all those meetings that I sat through, was a willingness to admit that in the past, perhaps, not all best efforts and continuous and constant efforts were made in terms of membership or sponsorship; but that there are good faith efforts now and best of intentions to correct that and to move forward and to try to embrace that new vision of the Art Museum. Both entities have to accept that of one another. That is where the trust comes in." Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers, clarifying his position, said programming has nothing to do with the policy of the City Council. "In my opinion, the Wichita Art Museum Board is the body that provides for the implementation of the programs of the Museum. The Friends raise the money, look after some volunteer activities and some coordination and some articulation with the Board. But, the body held responsible by the Council and the citizens is the Wichita Art Museum Board." "My intent, from the beginning, has been to see how the operation could be more functional, more effective, and could eliminate, by policy, some of the confusion that appears to exist." The City Council wants the Friends to have something to say to the Art Museum Board on an ongoing basis so that all of the functions of the Museum can be effective. "Everything, from my discussion, has been in terms of the operation of the Museum and how to enhance it and what Board would be most effective in terms of its structure, not the individuals." Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser said he was optimistic that, if restructured, the Art Museum would be stronger and the momentum of positive aspects would be continued. Motion -- Reeser moved that the Declaration of Emergency be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign; and the Ordinance, with the option of the nine-member board (seven members appointed by City Council and two members appointed by the City Council from nominations submitted by the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum Board), pertaining to the expiration dates of terms of the office of the Wichita Art Museum Board, appointment of members of the Board, and membership of the Board be placed on its passage and adopted on the date of its introduction, all in accordance with K.S.A. 12-3001. Amendment -- Reeser, with consent of the second, amended the motion to add that there would be a minimum of six nominations from the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum Board. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole expressed preference for a nine-member board and the Council being able to review and interview, if necessary, the nominations from the Friends; and for retaining or being able to reappoint her present appointee. A formal memorandum of agreement still remains critical to the peaceful cooperation of these two groups. The lack of a MOA is largely responsible for the present situation because there was never anything written to indicate an agreement on the roles played. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot agreed that at least the last version of the memorandum of understanding should be a beginning point for the new Board. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said all participants in this issue have good intentions and want the Museum to succeed. Hopefully the Board will be representative of the Friends and the Wichita Art Museum Board and everyone else who wants the Art Museum to be a success. Council Member Cather Council Member Cather said a study titled Conservation Assessment for the Wichita Art Museum and dated November of 1994, reads in part, "...reorganization is fundamental to the future well-being of the Museum and collections," and, "Strong factions have created bitter divisions and, as a result, precious energies are wasted when they should be directed exclusively to well-directed, stimulating, and scholarly presentations of the collections." There may be a loss of collections and volunteer support from the community. The crisis cannot linger. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris, addressing the Friends of the Art Museum Board, the future Wichita Art Museum Board, said "in the past" needs to be eliminated from discussion. The passion and emotion will probably continue and prevail but it is hoped that that emotion and passion can be directed into healing and accomplishment, and that the promise and future of the Wichita Art Museum meets the expectations of those who love the Museum. Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law clarified that if the terms of the current members are designated to expire Friday, February 24th, the date the ordinance is published, then the City Council could appoint members to the Board on Tuesday, February 28th. Between Friday and Tuesday, or whenever a quorum is appointed by the City Council, the City Council would serve as the interim Board. The simple ordinance will recognize the adoption of the Charter Ordinance to have the nine members. The two additional members will be ex-officio until the Charter Ordinance is effective. Motion restated -- Reeser moved that the Declaration of Emergency be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign; and the Ordinance, with the option of the nine-member board (seven members appointed by City Council and two members appointed by the City Council from nominations submitted by the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum Board), expiration date of current members to be Friday, February 24th, 1995, pertaining to the expiration dates of terms of the office of the Wichita Art Museum Board, appointment of members of the Board, and membership of the Board be placed on its passage and adopted on the date of its introduction, all in accordance with K.S.A. 12-3001; appointment of the new Board Members be placed on the Agenda for Tuesday, February 28, 1995. Included would be the amendment previously made to add that there would be a minimum of six nominations from the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum Board. -- carried Motion, as amended, carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCE NO. 42-615 An Ordinance pertaining to the expiration date of terms of office of the Wichita Art Museum Board, appointment of members of the Board, and membership of the Board. Reeser moved that the Ordinance be placed on its passage and adopted on the date of its introduction, all in accordance with K.S.A. 12- 3001. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. Motion -- carried Reeser moved that the Charter Ordinance be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. CHARTER ORDINANCE A Charter Ordinance of the City of Wichita, Kansas, pertaining to membership of the Art Museum Board amending Charter Ordinance No. 119, Section 4, and repealing the original of said Section, introduced and under the rules laid over. Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law, responding to a question, said the appointments made Tuesday, February 28th, would expire June 30th, 1995. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser clarified that the Friends of the Art Museum Board would need to have six nomination recommendations to the City Manager's Office by Friday, February 24th. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot asked that Delmar Klocke be the one to submit the names on behalf of the Friends Board. Clarification was made that the Council would not be bound to select appointments from the six names submitted by the Friends. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen asked that some of the philosophy and background information be submitted for the six nomination recommendations. INVESTMENT POLICY INVESTMENT POLICY. Agenda Report No. 95-141. In September, 1991, the City Council adopted the first formal investment policy for the City of Wichita. This policy still serves as the guide for investment activities for City funds. In 1993 the state legislature revised several statutes relating to idle fund investments municipalities may use. In the same year, the City Council approved an amendment to the Investment Policy allowing for investments in the Municipal Investment Pool operated by the State Treasurer. Other investment powers authorized by the statute changes have not been used pending a complete revision of the policy. The Finance Department has begun producing an annual treasury and investment report. Each year, the report will review the general market environments for the prior year, report investment performance and dollar earnings. The report for 1994 is submitted for the Council's review. Proper investment management consists of five steps: 1) setting investment objectives; 2) establishing investment policy; 3) selecting the portfolio strategy; 4) selecting the assets; and 5) measuring and evaluating performance. Investment activities functioning without completing steps one and two tend to focus on performance while placing a lower emphasis on assuring the asset selection and strategy merge with the goals and culture (acceptable risk levels) of the organization. The proposed investment policy clearly outlines the City's investment objectives and establishes operating policy. Additionally, it defines basic portfolio strategies, guidelines for asset selection and minimum reporting requirements. The investment objectives defined by the policy, in priority order, are: 1) security of City funds and investments; 2) preservation of capital and protection of principal; 3) maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet operating needs; 4) diversification of investments to avoid unreasonable risks; and 5) maximization of return on the portfolio within the above constraints. Investments authorized in the policy and by statute are: 1) U.S. Treasury securities; 2) repurchase agreements; 3) certificates of deposit; 4) our own temporary notes or no fund warrants; 4) State of Kansas Municipal Investment Pool; and 5) multiple municipal client investment pools. All of these investments are restricted to a maximum maturity of two years. State statute allows the City to obtain additional investment authority by having an adopted investment policy and obtaining approval of the policy through the State Pooled Money Investment Board. Following Council approval of the policy, Finance will be seeking PMIB approval. The PMIB expanded authority includes the use of U.S. Government agency securities and an increase of the maximum maturity to four years. State statute requires the City Council to adopt the investment policy by resolution in order to receive final approval from the State Pooled Money Investment Board. Ray Trail Director of Finance reviewed the Item. The Investment Program has made a lot of money every year. In the General Fund and Debt Service Funds combined, the only two funds of the City that involve property taxes, investment earnings made $3.2 million in 1994, allowing property taxes to be 2.3 mills lower than they would have been otherwise. Investments can make money but they can also run the risk of losing money if not prudently managed. If Wichita's funds had been placed in the same risky investments as Orange County, California, Wichita would have lost $30 million. Wichita did not lose one penny and, in fact, continued to earn interest even in the toughest investment market in more than half a century. The difference between Wichita and Orange County is the Investment Policy. In 1991, the City Council approved an Investment Policy, the first such formal and detailed policy adopted for the City. At the time, investment management had become more complex and it was timely to explicitly state the goals of the City and the priorities for investing public funds. The safety of those funds was, and remains, paramount. Second in importance is liquidity - the availability of cash to pay the City's bills when due and owing. Rate of return on investments comes only after safety and liquidity are assured. The Investment Policy also required regular disclosure of the status of the City's investments which has been done in the quarterly financial reports to the City Council. Finally, the Investment Policy ensured what we called internal control such that no single person is able to control all aspects of the investment program. In other words, there are checks and balances protecting the disposition of public funds at all times. It was the statements of City Council priorities in that 1991 investment policy regarding safety first and public disclosure that distinguishes Wichita's investments from those of more troubled governments. All investment managers need to be reminded of what is most important as they execute an investment program. The proposed Investment Policy is more restrictive than State Law in areas of collateral requirements and port folio diversification as well as others. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the Investment Policy be approved; the resolution supporting policy approval be adopted; and the 1994 Treasurer's Office Investment Report be -- carried received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-95-076 A Resolution approving adoption of the Investment Policy dated January, 1995, and approving of all policies outlined therein, presented. Broadfoot moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. (The Council proceeded with the remainder of the Agenda and returned to the following Item following the Executive Session. Action is shown in Agenda order.) (Council Members Kamen, Reeser; absent) RAILS TO TRAILS PUBLIC HEARING: RAILS TO TRAILS. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot explained that, due to the number of speakers who have signed up, each speakers time would be limited to three minutes and no extensions would be given to that amount of time. Council Members Kamen, Reeser; present. Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers said there are, as of the 1990 census, 403,662 people in Sedgwick County; in Wichita, there are 304,011. Three-fourths of the residents of Sedgwick County reside within the City of Wichita. There were three county hearings but none were held in Wichita. The City Council is making sure that the citizens of Wichita are heard on this issue. It is the responsibility of the City Council, as elected officials, to make sense out of what is in the best interest of the entire city. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris stated that the City Council has a right and a need to hear from the City of Wichita residents. Carolyn McGinn Carolyn McGinn, representing the Burlington Landowners' Association, gave the presentation in opposition to Rails to Trails. Janice McKinney Janice McKinney, Park Department, gave the staff presentation on Rails to Trails. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot inquired if anyone wished to be heard. The following persons spoke in favor of the project: Bill Ester, 1328 Lotus, Wichita Rosemary Weber, 915 N. Linden Ct., Wichita Marvin Fisher, 9423 Wyncroft Ct., Wichita Frank Akerman, 3321 E. Osie, Wichita Earlene Condiff, 25 Pony Meadows, Wichita John Hobbs, 116 S 14th, Newton E. DeEtte Huffman, 339 N. Rutan, Wichita Frank Smith, 831 Carter, Wichita Karol Schlicher, 139 Brendonwood, Wichita Eloise Melton, 436 S. Roosevelt, Wichita Lois Ann Newman, 2112 S. Topeka, Wichita Gary Wright, 4319 E. Waterman, Wichita Larry Ross, 346 N. Bluff, Wichita William Skaer, 1481 N. Stratford, Wichita Larry Overstreet, 920 E. 43rd So., Wichita Becki Jackson, 2712 Glacier Ct, Wichita Belyndae Johanningsmeier, 1034 Iverness Dr, Wichita Amber Vogle, Wichita Bill Andreas, 107 W. 23rd N., Newton Debra Foster, 400 W. Central #105, Wichita Jennifer Moore, 707 S. Rutan, Wichita Larry Daggett Marti Muncy, 830 Faulkner, Wichita The following persons spoke in opposition to the project: Paul Clark, 1374 Peterson, Wichita Ken Meier, Harvey County Commission, Newton Jack Garvey, Bentley Mary Garvey, Bentley Velma McDaniel, 1641 Pleasantview, Wichita James Strausberg, 1331 Morgantown, Wichita Bill Adsit, 3734 W. 81st N., Valley Center Carolyn McGinn, Rt. 2, Sedgwick Leslie Ward, 2452 Redbud Ln., Wichita Terry Rose, 2032 S. Pattie, Wichita Jim Ramsey, 2560 Greenleaf Ct., Wichita Sid Caldwell, 3125 Cromwell, Wichita Larry Harrington, 906 W. 3rd, Halstead Bill Grattan, 4404 W. 85th N., Valley Center Gregg Young, RFD 3, Burrton Jesse mcCurry, RR2, Sedgwick Ryan Blubaugh, 12906 E. Trailwest Rd., Burrton Bob Daniels, 145 N. Poplar, Wichita Bruce Seiler, 13940 W. 93rd N, Sedgwick Larry Dugan, 11912 Jennie, Wichita Dave Bayouth, 8420 Huntington, Wichita George L. Clark, 2551 Greenleaf, Wichita Jack Kountz, 9443 Thurman, Wichita Jim Shelton, 8001 N. Jacobs, Valley Center John Gray, Burrton Ron Campbell, 6513 Aberdeen, Wichita Marilyn Mason, 402 Jefferson, Sedgwick Duane Sanders, Valley Center Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said that if this were going to be a well-used park, $345,000 would not be a significant amount of money. Of significance is the fact that those persons living on farms have chosen a rural life style and that should be respected. There is also a responsibility to be a good neighbor and passage of this will probably not be perceived as Wichita being a good neighbor. This is not a high, important nature trail. The rail runs through a lot of open space, a majority of which is wheat fields. Wheat fields can be seen from K-96, county roads, and other ways. This rail is a long way from Wichita and it will only be the hard-core bicyclists will bike from Wichita to Valley Center and then bike another 30 miles. There will not be a very large majority of citizens in Wichita that will use the trail. While it would be a nice resource to have, it is unsure whether it would be that important. The property rights issue has been brought up over and over. One speaker also brought up the fact that while the Supreme Court has said this can be done, it has also said there may have to be some compensation for that land that is taken. Any cost of compensation is not calculated in any cost numbers seen. There has not been a wide public outcry for a need for a park 20 miles from Wichita. If this opportunity did not exist, there has been nobody in Wichita saying this is important. The biggest issue in the whole argument for Council Member Ferris is that the City has limited resources, whether ISTEA funds or other, and if there is a major need for a long bike trail that accesses the countryside, it would seem that there are other possible bike trails (i.e.; the "Big Ditch") that would have far more benefit to this community. Should the City spend its resources for a very small minority of the City's population who would chose to ride a long way from Wichita to access a trail or should those resources be focused into more of Wichita's own community? Probably not. What should be done is to seek ISTEA funds for another use to serve the majority of the community. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen stated that it did not matter whether or not it was a majority of citizens that would use the trail. Wichita should have a variety of quality of life issues. Janice McKinney Park Department, responding to a question, said it is proposed the connection with Valley Center would be via a recreation easement the City already has on the levee of the Big Ditch and then connect the Zoo Bike Path via the Valley Center Floodway. Bill Stockwell Chief Planner, answering questions, said that in public hearings attended in Bentley/Valley Center, talk was of connecting along Meridian. The Sedgwick County Commission has, in their Capital Improvement Program, the paving of Meridian to four lanes from the Wichita City limits north to Valley Center. It would be possible to gain sufficient room on one side or the other for a bike path (would have to be added to the project). Between Valley Center and Wichita is approximately six miles. The City of Wichita also has Meridian in the Capital Improvement Program (10 year). Fencing had not been planned. Where there were existing railroad fences, there would be an obligation to keep those fences. Large portions of this is unfenced. On the trail from Ottawa to Iola, fencing has been requested by some landowners and it is believed the fencing will be done. Barbed wire has been calculated for within Sedgwick and Harvey County only. The entire rail area does not have to be taken. Sections can be taken. Fire protection would be the responsibility of the responding fire units in the area - not City of Wichita. Regarding ADA/OSHA regulation requirements, it is believed the opponents were trying to say that whatever OSHA requirements are placed on private developers, the opponents would make sure those were also placed on the City as a developer during construction. Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law, regarding ADA accessibility, said the ADA would apply and the City would be able to use whatever reasonable efforts it could make to do so. It would not have to be ADA accessible for the whole trail. Parts of the trail could be made available for the disabled. Bill Stockwell Chief Planner, continuing to answer questions, said his cost estimates were prepared with the aid of the civil engineers of Sedgwick County as well as estimates of weed mowing costs from the Park Department. It is believed the Planning estimates of maintenance costs were reliable. The $4,100 maintenance amount is only for Sedgwick County. There would be a similar cost for Harvey County and others. It is believed (but not guaranteed) that the value of the land that would be conveyed to the City would have an obvious large value to Wichita which could be used as a match to the Federal grants. KDOT has indicated this has been done in other states and, therefore, it is legally possible for the federal government; however, each state does this differently. Whether KDOT would actually allow the City to use the land to match the federal grant is not resolved. Regarding trading of another piece of an affected property owner's land for a section of the rail property on the same owner's land, (i.e.; rail property within 50 to 100 feet of a house) the Chief Planner said that in conversations with the City Manager and others, it has been indicated that where there are severe problems, solutions of this nature will be looked at where possible. That would, of course, increase costs. Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law said permission would have to be obtained from the ICC to trade pieces of property. If claims were made to the federal government for taking, there is a possibility that the City could be held responsible in some fashion. This has not been resolved by litigation so far. Council Member Cather Council Member Cather, referring to the proposed Resolution, Page 2, Paragraph 2, called attention to the fact that, regarding costs, the Resolution does not obligate funds. "It says we will develop a plan." There are grants available, ISTEA funds, Rails to Trails Conservancy funds, private funds, in-kind contributions, and there is not some specific fiscal note attached to this. "We are obligating ourselves to make a trail out of this by this Resolution." This is a gift, a freebie. "If we, as a Council, are going to purchase land, to buy land for a park, does it not make a lot more sense for us to take this one that is being offered to us for free." This is an extension of the existing river bike path. Regarding morality and honoring agreements, Council Member Cather said the farmers made an agreement for an easement on the property. The City is asking that the farmers keep their agreement and that the existing easement be continued. The easement was sold and the railroad paid for the easement. The City will simply continue to use the easement. No one's land will be taken. The landowner will still own the land. There is no change except that instead of locomotives going through the property their will be bicycles. Bicycles are not louder, or produce more pollution, or necessarily require underpasses and overpasses than do locomotives. Wichita does not really have 60 miles of bike paths. What is being referred to is the fact that there are 60 miles of bike riding paths that have been designated on streets. Bike riders cross intersections and highways all the time without the benefit of over and underpasses. The Burlington Northern will be merging with the Santa Fe Railroad so the note that the Santa Fe would not permit this bike path to cross is not of concern since they will be the same railroad within a very short period of time. The value of the land is less than $1,500/acre but if it is irrigated it is probably worth $1,500/acre. This land may be worth $2,000/acre or more and may be worth substantially more if, in fact, it is developed with the trail. "This is not a takings under the takings clause of the United States Constitution. It just is not one. If it were, then in fact, a suit could be brought under the Constitution and payment be required. But, it is not one." Regarding the park desired by Bentley, there is considerable room to accommodate Bentley. Motion -- Cather moved that the Resolution be adopted. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said she was raised in Wisconsin where, in early history, great quantities of land was purchased and held until financial resources were available to develop a wonderful series of park lands and recreation trails. The land can be banked for use as future recreational corridors. It is also important to keep in mind that if the land is needed again for transportation corridors, taxpayers would not have to repurchase land that has already been paid for. As Sedgwick County chose to hear, primarily, from the adjoining property owners and not from the large metropolitan dwellers, the logic of their decision is understood. It is urban dwellers who look for recreational opportunities, generally, and in this process the urban dwellers were not provided a convenient opportunity to relay the desire to their County representatives. Research has shown that trails have brought urban and rural neighbors in very positive ways. The majority of the citizens of Wichita who took time to speak to the Council at this meeting expressed approval of the project and urged the Council to go forward. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said he still has some questions and needs to talk to staff. A vote today will be opposed. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said it has been learned that it is not the number of people who speak for or against a subject that it is important; rather, the substance is important. The real issue still comes down to dollars and cents and where the City's resources can best be spent. It is thought that the majority of the citizens of Wichita believe that the City's resources can best be spent in or very near the City and certainly not as far away as this trail is. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot stated that facilitators of several strategic planning sessions she has attended have often suggested that as strategic plans are developed, the vision, goal, and objectives should be understood because from time to time opportunities will come along that will seem very enticing but may not fit into that vision, goal, or objective. Wichita, as a community, has been in the process of developing a strategic plan or a vision - the Open Space Plan - and that has not been settled yet. This particular opportunity should be looked at within the context of the Open Space Plan. This is being looked at as a separate opportunity and not being fitted into the big picture because the big picture has not yet been designed. There are concerns over the cost. If local moneys are going to be expended, they would be better spent in the development of parks in Wichita. Subst. Motion -- Kamen moved a substitute motion that this Item be deferred two weeks. Substitute -- died motion died for lack of a second. -- carried Motion carried 4 to 3. Ferris, Kamen, Broadfoot - No. RESOLUTION NO. R-95-077 A Resolution of the City of Wichita, Kansas, pertaining to railbanking of an abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad corridor for use as a recreational trail, presented. Kamen moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 4 to 3. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Reeser, Rogers. Nays: Ferris, Kamen, Broadfoot. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ADDENDUM ITEM MCLEAN BOULEVARD MCLEAN BOULEVARD ROUTE OPTIONS. (Requested by Council Member Ferris) Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris, regarding a Workshop presentation on McLean Boulevard route options by a consultant for the Science Center said he was disturbed that the City would look at designing a road that did not work with traffic (i.e.; a yield sign on Second Street, a major arterial). No traffic engineer would want to design a road which would create a weaving pattern over the short distance where two or three lanes of traffic might have to be crossed over 100 to 150 yards, particularly on a major arterial. Council Member Ferris said he had asked Staff to consider an alignment that would move McLean as far west as it could possibly go and still create a McLean Boulevard that had a smooth flow of traffic; would have no problems as far as extra stop lights, stop signs, yield signs, weaving, etc.; and to provide the size site that would be available for the City of Wichita. It is hoped the Council will include this option with what is being sent to the CPOs, and the Traffic and Planning Commissions; and then, maybe, not consider the Science option for moving McLean to the west. This would provide a 15 acre site and could be done without any additional acquisitions other than what has been projected. This option would close down five acres of the site but some parking would be allowed on the other side of McLean for peak usage and employee parking. In a 15-acre site, there would be on-site parking for the normal day-to-day use, handicap parking, and off-loading for buses. A footprint of a 100,000 square foot building and parking for 300 to 400 stalls required approximately six acres. The remaining nine acres for park/green space would compare in size to Schweiter Park at Hillside and Lincoln or Harvest Park at Westlink and Harvest Lane. Part of the acreage to the south of Second Street could also be used if it was felt extra space for exhibits were necessary. It does not make sense to talk about a plan and to spend several million dollars on a plan that moves McLean in such an alignment that may be "a little dangerous." This proposal would not be dangerous, would be a smooth transition, and would create a site large enough for a very well developed museum. This roadway can be constructed with a tree-lined medial for under the budget of $5.9 million (exclusive of property acquisition). This is less than the original proposal. The major goal is that this be forwarded along with the other two plans for public discussion. A larger goal would be that, if the Council feels that the other proposal by the Science Center is not comfortable, two options would be given to the Science Center and sent to the public: (1) Move the Science Center to a 15-acre site; or (2) Leave Mclean where it is and put the Science Center on a 20-acre site. The option which would move McLean in an unsafe alignment would be eliminated. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works said the Science Center consultant option moving McLean, from an engineering point of view, does create a substantial safety concern in terms of traffic flow and safety. The plan had sharper curves and more points of conflict that this alternate. If McLean were left in its present location, and were improved, the cost would be $5.9 million. If McLean were moved west by the option offered by the Science Center Architect, the cost would be close to an additional $1 million. This alternate does not go quite as far west as the Science Center Architect's version. The current budget, approved in 1991, was $5.1 million. In order to compare todays alignment costs with what was developed based on 1994 and 1995 dollars, the cost of the current project was escalated so that one project could be compared to the other. That is why there was a $1 million difference. There is still a commitment to having to design the roadway at $5.1 million today, just like there would still be a commitment to design this proposal at $5.1 million. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said he had a problem moving to the 6.2 acres because it was where the amphitheatre was going to be built and if the Museum were to use the area for something above grade, it would block more of the river view than would otherwise be blocked. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works said the roadway could be fit in west of the current Westbank Stage which would not have to be removed initially. It could stay exactly the way it is now. If the plan is to reconfigure the stage and redevelop it and expand it, there would be a complete 6.2 acres to work with. This roadway would be able to be built and leave the current stage in tact. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser said the original two proposals should be taken to the public with this proposal taken in addition. This would show the progression of what the City Council has been shown and then what is being additionally proposed. The proposal Council Member Ferris would eliminate was the Science Center's ultimate design. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works clarified that the total cost (including buying the extra land) for the Science Center's proposal to move McLean would be $7.3 million. Motion -- Ferris moved that this presentation be included in those sent to the CPOs, the Traffic Commission, the Planning Commission, and be forwarded to the Consultants and Architects involved with the Science Center as to McLean realignment possibility. Amendment -- Ferris moved an amendment to the motion that only two options, the option presented today and the option of leaving McLean in its present alignment, be considered; and that the Science Center be told that the City Council is not interested in the option that would move McLean to a Handley alignment. Council Member Rogers Council Member Rogers said he would not vote in favor of a proposal when a safety problem is involved. Chris Cherches City Manager asked the difference between this proposal and the one approved by the City Council which followed the railroad corridor. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser said the Council also approved placing the Science Center on the West Bank and leaving McLean where it was. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris said the biggest difference was that when the realignment was approved, at the same time the west bank was being approved to be open space along this corridor. A greenspace would be created which would not have a building on it. Once a building is placed on the site, there is no longer the same feel, or same greenspace public access. The public hearing process is being started again on a new series of alignment designs for McLean. Formal action will have to be taken again when a decision is reached. Council Member Ferris clarified that his goal was not to provide a compromise but to provide two options, one moving and one not moving McLean. Council Member Kamen momentarily absent. Chris Cherches City Manager, responding to a question, said he would find out who would be doing the Science Center portion of the presentations. -- failed Amendment failed 5 to 2. Cather, Cole, Kamen, Reeser, Broadfoot - No. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENTS TO WICHITA PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION. Continued from February 14, 1995. Two appointments (Cather, Rogers) for terms to expire June 30, 1995. Motion -- carried Cather moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried 7 to 0. Motion -- carried Rogers moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION. Continued from February 14, 1995. One appointment (Cole) for a term expiring June 30, 1995. Motion -- carried Cole moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENT TO THE WICHITA COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN.\ Continued from February 14, 1995. One appointment (Kamen) for a term expiring June 30, 1995. Motion -- carried Kamen moved that the appointment be deferred two weeks. Motion carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. Continued from February 14, 1995. One appointment (Ferris) for a term expiring June 30, 1995. Motion -- Ferris moved that the appointment be deferred to later in the meeting. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. (Later in the meeting the Council returned to this Item.) Motion -- Ferris appointed Stan Sheldon and moved that the appointment be approved. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. OFF AGENDA ITEM APPOINTMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. Motion -- carried Reeser moved that an Item be taken up off the Agenda. Motion carried 7 to 0. Motion -- Reeser appointed Paul Cavanaugh and moved that the appointment be approved. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA Broadfoot moved that the Consent Agenda, except Items 2 and 6, 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 FEBRUARY 13, 1995. At 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 10, 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 2/13/95) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION: SEWERS, PAVING AND WATER MAINS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS 1995 Contract maintenance concrete pavement repair of intersections at various locations. (132423) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 12-20-94) (District all) Ferguson Paving - $106,400.00 (Engineer's Estimate) 1995 Contract maintenance asphalt street rejuvenation at various locations. (132266) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 12-20- 94) (District all) Cutler Repaving - $548,730.00 (Engineer's Estimate) Constructing Storm Water Sewer #450, Phase I, to serve Reflection Ridge Commercial Second and Lake Ridge Commercial Additions (along Ridge Road, north of 21st Street). (468-82378/750604/485096) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 03-08-94) (District V) WB Carter Construction Company, Inc. - $59,931.00 Constructing a water distribution system to serve Crest Ridge Addition (east of 127th Street East, north of Central). (448-88869/732503/470328) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-01-94) (District n/a) Hopper Construction - $25,368.00 Construction and relocation of a water line along 31st Street South (from K-15 to the Turnpike). (448- 88682/Index Code n/a/544000) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 01-31-95) (District III) Hopper Construction - $137,886.00 Improving North Shore Boulevard from the north line of 21st Street North to the north line of Lot 1, Blockk 1, North Lakes Addition (north of 21st, east of Ridge). (472- 82376/762294/490332) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 09-21-93) (District V) Ritchie Paving - $402,764.85 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. Broadfoot 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. HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT/HOUSING AUTHORITY: JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR GREENWAY AND MCLEAN MANORS, CLUBHOUSE AT ROSA GRAGG AND BERNICE HUTCHERSON FACILITIES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICE AS PER SPECIFICATIONS GROUP I: Immaculate Plus - $9,960.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 1 - $ 540.00 (Per Month) Item 2 - $ 290.00 (Per Month) GROUP II: Immaculate Plus - $6,480.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 1 - $ 540.00 (Per Month) GROUP III: Professional Building Maintenance - $1,200.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 1 - $ 50.00 (Per Month)* Item 2 - $ 50.00 (Per Month)* *Tie Bid - Winner by Toss of a Coin GROUP IV: TayMax Industrial and Commercial Cleaning Company - $3,000.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 1 - $ 250.00 (Per Month) VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS/VARIOUS DIVISIONS: EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Koch Materials Company - $77,137.50 (Total Net Bid) Item 1 - $ .5895 (Per Gallon) Item 2 - $ .5895 (Per Gallon) Item 3 - $ .6585 (Per Gallon) WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT/PRODUCTION AND PUMPING DIVISION: LIQUID CHLORINE (BULK) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Advance Chemical Distributors, Inc. - $ .235 (Per Lb.) Plus Accessory Equipment - $4,845.00 The Board of Bids and Contracts recommended that the contracts be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Broadfoot moved that the contracts be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Motion carried 7 to 0. (ITEM NO. 2) Council Member Rogers left the Bench. LICENSE APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES TO RETAIL CEREAL MALT BEVERAGES. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser declared a conflict of interest and abstained from participation. Renewal 1995 (Consumption on Premises) Condy R. Newby Tenth Street Tavern 355 W. 10th Street (Consumption off Premises) Floyd Hlad K-S, Inc. 2700 N. Amidon Timothy S. Kellogg QuikTrip #321 6011 W. Central Timothy S. Kellogg QuikTrip #391 730 N. Broadway Timothy S. Kellogg QuikTrip #371 2838 W. Central Timothy S. Kellogg QuikTrip #343 242 S. Tyler Motion -- Ferris moved that the licenses be approved subject to Staff review and -- carried approval. Motion carried 5 to 0. (Reeser abstained; Rogers absent) (Council Member Rogers present) PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES. a. 1995 Contract maintenance concrete pavement repair of intersections at various locations - $117,070. (132423) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 12-20-94) (District all) b. 1995 Contract maintenance asphalt street rejuvenation at various locations- $603,820. (132266) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 12-20-94) (District all) c. Constructing Storm Water Sewer 450, Phase I, to serve Reflection Ridge Commercial Second and Lake Ridge Commercial Additions (along Ridge Road, north of 21st Street) - $126,068. (468-82378/750604/485096) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 03-08-94) (District V) d. Constructing a water distribution system to serve Crest Ridge Addition (east of 127th Street East, north of Central) - $56,000. (448-88869/732503/470328) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-01-94) (District n/a) e. Construction and relocation of a water line along 31st Street South (from K-15 to the Turnpike) - $197,546.40. (448-88682/Index Code n/a/544000) Traffic to be maintained through construction using flag persons and barricades. (Council approval date 01-31-95) (District III) f. Improving North Shore Boulevard from the north line of 21st Street North to the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, North Lakes Addition (north of 21st, east of Ridge) - $875,020. (472-82376/762294/490332) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 09-21-93) (District V) Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the preliminary estimates be approved and filed. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. STREET CLOSURES CONSIDERATION OF STREET CLOSURES/USE REQUESTS. There were no closures considered. PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. Agenda Report No. 95-143. The Infill Housing Project, approved by Council on August 30, 1994, will require the acquisition of vacant lots on which to relocate the houses. Several vacant lots were identified as suitable for the project. The owner of one of these lots has agreed to donate the property to the City. The property is located at 133 N. Madison and is described as Lot 36, Locust now Madison Ave., Park Place Addition and is currently owned by Hurricane Maintenance, Enrique J. Rodriguez. The owner of the lot has agreed to donate the property to the City in exchange for the City assuming back taxes and special assessments estimated at $3,191. This is in line with other properties acquired for the project. Funds for the acquisition of 32 lots at an average cost of $3,000 per lot was approved on October 18, 1994. Estimated cost for acquisition is $3,491 which includes $3,191 for back taxes and special assessments and $300 for closing costs, title insurance, survey, and maintenance expenses. Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the budget be approved; and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried 7 to 0. (Council Member Rogers absent) (ITEM NO. 6) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES. Council Member Reeser Council Member Reeser pointed out that this was for an important project that was moving forward. Chris Cherches City Manager said the project is scheduled for construction in the late summer. a. 1024 S. Seneca - Tract #2 (Seneca/McCormick Intersection Upgrade) Agenda Report No. 95-144. The Seneca/McCormick Intersection Upgrade Project, approved by Council on June 28, 1994, will require the acquisition of 4 total takes including 3 residential properties and 1 commercial property as well as 4 partial takes. One of the residential properties identified for acquisition, Tract #2, is located at 1024 S. Seneca (North 42 feet of the South 95 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 Block 3, in Franklin Yike's Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas) and is owned by Claude and Linda Golden. The property is improved with a single family residence. An appraisal has been prepared and reviewed which values the property at $27,000. The Golden's have agreed to sell it to the City for the appraised value. The property is currently leased. The tenant is eligible for relocation. Once the structure is vacant, it will be razed or moved as part of the project. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program as project MS-480 in the amount of $350,000. A budget of $38,500 in funds includes: $27,000 for acquisition, $4,000 for demolition, $5,500 for relocation, and $2,000 for closing costs, title insurance, survey, operating and maintenance expenses that are not offset by rental revenue. This is the second tract that the City had acquired for this project. Acquisition costs to date total $92,000 with closing, relocation, and demolition costs of $18,500 for a total of $110,500. Motion -- Reeser moved that the budget be approved; and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rogers absent) b. 1026 S. Seneca - Tract #1 (Seneca/McCormick Intersection Upgrade) Agenda Report No. 95-145. The Seneca/McCormick Intersection Upgrade Project, approved by Council on June 28, 1994, will require the acquisition of 4 total tracts including 3 residential properties and 1 commercial property as well as 4 partial takes. One of the residential properties identified for acquisition, Tract #1, is located at 1026 S. Seneca (South 53 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 Block 3, in Franklin Yike's Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas) and is owned by Joe and Marilyn Coleman. The property is improved with a single family residence. An appraisal has been prepared and reviewed which values the property at $27,000. The Coleman's have agreed to sell it to the City for the appraised value. The property is currently leased. The tenant is eligible for relocation. Once the structure is vacant, it will be razed or moved as part of the project. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program as project MS-480 in the amount of $350,000. A budget of $38,500 in funds includes: $27,000 for acquisition, $4,000 for demolition, $5,500 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs, title insurance, survey, operating and maintenance expenses that are not offset by rental revenue. This is the third tract that the City had acquired for this project. Acquisition costs to date total $119,000 with closing, relocation, and demolition costs of $30,000 for a total of $149,000. Motion -- Reeser moved that the budget be approved; and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rogers absent) (Council Member Rogers present) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES. a. A portion of 2060 East Tulsa - Tract #11 (31st Street South Project) Agenda Report No. 95-146. The right-of-way acquisition for the 31st Street South Widening Project, approved by Council on June 14, 1994, will require the acquisition of 11 easements or partial takings. Involved tracts include 5 residential properties and 6 commercial properties. One of the properties identified for partial taking, Tract #11, is located at 2060 East Tulsa and is owned by CORPAR, a Kansas General Partnership. Ron Cornejo is the managing partner. An appraisal has been prepared and reviewed which values the property at $4,090. The owner has agreed to give the easement to the City as a donation. The property owner may still be eligible for relocation benefits on personal property located on the site. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program in the amount of $125,000. A budget of $300 in funds includes: closing costs, title insurance, survey, operating and maintenance expenses. Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the budget be approved and the donation of property be -- carried accepted. Motion carried 7 to 0. b. A portion of 3164 S. Hillside - Tract #3 (31st Street South Project) Agenda Report No. 95-147. The right-of-way acquisition for the 31st Street South Widening Project, approved by Council on June 14, 1994, will require the acquisition of 11 easements or partial takings. Involved tracts include 5 residential properties and 6 commercial properties. One of the properties identified for partial taking, Tract #3, is located at 3164 S. Hillside and is owned by Quick Trip Corporation, care of Jack C. and Bonnie M. Humphreys. An appraisal has been prepared and reviewed which values the property at $300. The owner has agreed to give the easement to the City as a donation. No relocation benefits are involved as no personal property is located on the site. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program in the amount of $125,000. A budget of $300 in funds includes: closing costs, title insurance, survey, operating and maintenance expenses. Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the budget be approved and the donation of property be -- carried accepted. Motion carried 7 to 0. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPS VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES AT STP #2. Agenda Report No. 95-148. In April, 1990, substantial completion of advanced wastewater treatment facilities mandated by the Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDH&E) was effected. An integral part of the process are twelve (12) return activated sludge pumps that are controlled by variable frequency drives (VFD). Currently two (2) of the VFD units are in need of immediate replacement. Since the installation of the VFD equipment in 1990 the Emerson Company was sold to Control Techniques, who discontinued the Emerson line and associated product support. These variable frequency drives would normally be expected to have a 7-10 year life cycle. However, technologies have changed so rapidly, that product support has become a liability to many manufacturers. As a result, companies, such as Emerson, have restructured their operations to avoid product support. Since parts for the Emerson VFD's are no longer produced and are not available, staff recommends four (4) replacement units be purchased immediately. Two (2) of the replaced units will then be disassembled and used as spare parts for the remaining eight (8) units which will be budgeted for replacement in the 1996 budget. Given the expected life cycle of 7-10 years, the replacement of these drives would not have been included in the normal replacement schedule for sewage treatment plant equipment until 1997. Sewage Treatment Division electrical staff recommends the replacement units as manufactured by Allen- Bradley. Allen-Bradley is one of the largest suppliers of process control equipment. Operator interface and communication functions with Allen-Bradley VFD equipment are identical for motors from 0.5 horsepower to 500 horsepower, which minimizes staff training and reduces the minimum spare parts inventory. Allen-Bradley has a service and technical support base in Wichita and warehouse operations in Kansas City and St. Louis. Contact with Brown & Caldwell, the City's design engineer for biosolids facilities indicates Allen-Bradley is being specified as the VFD supplier of choice for the new biosolids treatment facilities. Staff is proposing Sewer Utility contingency funds be utilized for the purchase of four (4) Allen-Bradley variable frequency drives. It is anticipated the cost of this proposal will be approximately $16,000. Following this adjustment, the balance remaining in contingency fund for 1995 will be $134,000. Staff will also amend the 1996 budget to include the additional eight (8) VFD which will complete the retrofit. In order to complete the VFD replacement an estimated $33,000 will be requested for the 1996 revised Sewage Treatment budget. Because of KDH&E and USEPA regulations there is no acceptable alternative other than to provide continuous treatment of wastewater, thus avoiding the bypass of untreated and/or partially treated wastewater to the river system. Failure to do so could result in an enforcement action being taken against the City. The City Council must approve budget adjustments of more than $10,000. Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the 1995 budget adjustment of $16,000 for the Sewage Treatment Division be approved; and the purchase of four (4) replacement variable -- carried frequency drives be authorized. Motion carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCES SECOND READING ORDINANCES. (First Reading 2/14/95) CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 156 A Charter Ordinance amending and repealing Charter Ordinance No. 133, of the City of Wichita, Kansas; providing substitute and additional provisions on the same subject relating to exempting the City of Wichita, Kansas, from the provisions of Section 13-1024C, Kansas Statutes Annotated that relates to issuance of General Obligation Bonds to pay for public improvements, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Charter Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. ORDINANCE NO. 42-616 An Ordinance of the City of Wichita, Kansas, authorizing modifications and repairs to public buildings, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing the costs thereof; and supplementing Resolution No. R-92-412 of the City, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. ORDINANCE NO. 42-617 An Ordinance declaring it necessary to authorize improvements to Gypsum Creek Drainage Basin (Project No. 468- 82428), in the City of Wichita, Kansas; ordering and providing for the improvements thereof; and providing for payment of the cost thereof, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. 363 N. McLean ORDINANCE NO. 42-618 An Ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain private property, easements, and right-of-way therein, for the purpose of street improvements and to be known as the McLean Boulevard Realignment 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, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. 3205 E. 31st ORDINANCE NO. 42-619 An Ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain private property, easements, and right-of-way therein, for the purpose of street improvements and to be known as the 31st Street South widening 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, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. 3349 E. 31st ORDINANCE NO. 42-620 An Ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain private property, easements, and right-of-way therein, for the purpose of street improvements and to be known as the 31st Street South widening 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, read for the second time. Broadfoot moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Reeser, Rogers, Broadfoot. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion -- Broadfoot moved that the Council recess to executive session to consider consultation with legal counsel on matters privileged in the Attorney-Client relationship relating to pending and potential litigation and legal advice; and preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for public -- carried purposes; and the regular meeting be resumed at 1:30 p.m. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rogers absent) RECESS Council recessed at 11:36 a.m. and reconvened in regular session at 1:33 p.m. Council Members Kamen, Reeser; absent. Mayor Broadfoot Mayor Broadfoot announced that no action was necessary as a result of the executive session. (The Council returned to the Rails to Trails Item and action is shown in Agenda order.) Adjournment The City Council meeting adjourned at 5:33 p.m. Pat Burnett Deputy City Clerk JOURNAL 158 FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Page