|
CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007
7:30 P.M.
The Council of the City of Augusta, Kansas met in regular session on September 17, 2007, with Mayor Kristey Williams presiding. Council present were Holly Harper, Douglas Marr, Michael Huddleston, Michael Wallace, Tom Leffler, Mike Rawlings, Robert Griffith, and Roger Chrislip. Also present: City Manager Bill Keefer, Assistant to the City Manager JJ Allen, City Attorney David All, City Inspector Dan Allen, Director of Electric Utility Bill Webster, Airport Manager Tim Reid, and City Clerk Erica Jones. Visitors present were: Michael McDermott, Bill Morris, Julie Roller, Kelli Scott, Elaine Thomas, Sharon Sudduth, Jennifer Eberhardt, Martin Yeager, Gene Moser, Carol Moser, Barbara Patterson, Joey Patterson, Kevin Unruh, Renee Harrison, Lee Miller, Lynn Smith, Bill Eberhardt, Don Patterson, Elmer Simon, Bobbie Dixon, Gary Agard, Norma Agard, Eric Christinat, Dixie Christinat, Al Brungardt, and Martin Goedecke.
Prayer: Reverend Ron Dow, First Christian Church gave the invocation.
Minutes Council: Minutes of the September 4, 2007 council meeting were reviewed. Marr made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 4, 2007 council meeting. Harper seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Appropriations:
September (9): Council considered appropriations in the amount of $247,576.71. Huddleston asked why the Safety Department’s fuel purchases are broken down and paid to Conoco. Keefer stated that the Safety Department purchases fuel from Conoco so they can have 24 hour access to fuel. The other departments use the fuel that is purchased from Southwind Oil. Griffith inquired about the payment to Downtown Augusta, Inc. (DAI) in the amount of $2,500. Keefer stated that it is the quarterly payment the City gives to DAI. Griffith inquired about the payment to Solomon Corporation in the amount of $25,362.25. Keefer stated that they were paid to rebuild a number of transformers. Griffith made a motion to approve Ordinance 9 in the amount of $247,579.71. Chrislip seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Old Business:
American Pride Landscaping Inc.: Council considered a request from the property owner at 818 Ohio Street for the permanent placement of a large rock in the sidewalk/public right-of-way. This was tabled from the September 4, 2007 meeting. Williams thanked Staff for preparing reports on the issue and citizens for the comments they have given in regard to this issue. Williams asked Jason Bradley if he obtained the permit for his sidewalk. He stated that he had. Keefer stated that he had purchased the Home Occupation permit that he was requested to purchase sixteen months ago, but that he had not purchased the permit for the work to his sidewalk. Bradley stated that the City Inspector was not in the office but that he told the receptionist he needed to get a permit and this is the one she gave him. Dan Allen stated that he had spoken to his secretary and she stated that Bradley asked for a permit for his house so she gave him the Home Occupation permit that he had not yet obtained. Williams asked Bradley if he had checked with his homeowner’s insurance. Bradley stated that he had and that everything was okay. Williams asked Bradley if he would like to address the Council. Bradley stated that he did not because he had made his position very clear. Bradley stated that he did not need to put in a curb or handicap ramps, but that he had made the decision to do that on his own. Huddleston asked Bradley why he chose that spot to place the rock. Bradley stated that it is the center location where the two sidewalks intersect. Huddleston asked if Bradley thought the intersection of two sidewalks was the best place to put the rock. Bradley stated that he did. Wallace read a statement that he had prepared, stating that the work Bradley completed was very good but that the process he followed in the project and previous issues was not acceptable. Wallace stated that Bradley has ignored State, Federal, and Local laws and shown an unwillingness to work with City Staff on these issues. Wallace stated that what is at stake is that the Council will be setting a precedence that laws and decrees do not apply to everyone. Williams read a statement she had prepared, stating that Bradley has done a lot to improve the appearance of his property and that concerns about the liability if the rock were hit should also apply to streetlights and signs and then the issue would be on the driver and why the vehicle left the roadway. Williams stated that the rock should be allowed to stay. Wallace stated that he knows a contractor that had someone trip on a sidewalk and is now suing for six figures. Griffith stated that the Council had a letter from the City’s insurance carrier stating that the rock would be a liability for the City. Huddleston stated that the City has tried to cooperate with Bradley about the sidewalk and has offered to supply the equipment to remove the rock at no cost, but that Bradley has been unwilling to compromise or work with the City on this issue. Griffith made a motion to deny a request from the property owner at 818 Ohio Street for the permanent placement of a large rock in the sidewalk/public right-of-way and require the removal of the rock within two weeks with the City extending the offer to help move the rock within a reasonable distance. Chrislip seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Gene Moser asked Wallace if someone were to trip on the sidewalk at Broadway and State, who would be liable. Wallace stated that is a legal issue and he would defer that comment to the City Attorney. Keefer stated that as a product of these discussions, several issues with sidewalks have arisen. Keefer stated that now that this issue has been brought up, issues with sidewalks throughout Augusta will be identified and addressed. Keefer stated that the governing body should be prepared to hear from the property owners, as they will be responsible for repairing the sidewalks and the cost of the repairs. Keefer stated that the sidewalk replacement program would be available for these repairs, but that there are several people that would not be able to afford the repairs even with that assistance. Moser stated that Wichita does not allow the sidewalks to get in this state of disrepair. Keefer agreed and stated that Wichita has a sidewalk program where they identify sidewalks in need of repair and give the property owners an opportunity to make the repairs. Keefer stated that if the property owners do not make the repairs the City of Wichita has the work done and places the cost of the repairs on the tax roles for that property, forcing it to be paid with the property taxes. Keefer stated that the City would not be exempt from this discussion because there would be sidewalks that would need to be repaired that will be the City’s responsibility. Moser thanked the Council for allowing him to come forward and stated that in the seven years he has lived here there has been no progress.
New Business:
Gateway Arch Donation: Council considered a proposal from Kevin Unrein and Augusta Health Care, LLC (Lakepoint) for a donation to construct a gateway arch for the downtown. Marr stated that seeing the room full of people worried about brick streets is a good thing. Marr read excerpts of the letters provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Augusta, Inc. (DAI) giving their stance on the construction of a gateway arch downtown. Marr stated that the Chamber letter reads “The Augusta Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors are in agreement that the Chamber offer its support for the concept of an entryway monument, not necessarily an archway, into Downtown Augusta and agree that it has the potential to further enhance the efforts already underway to improve facades and upgrades to sidewalks and landscaping.” Marr stated that the DAI letter reads “As a Kansas Main Street organization whose mission is to preserve the historical and cultural fabric of Augusta, Downtown Augusta, Inc. would like to express our endorsement of a defined gateway or entrance into downtown Augusta. We feel strongly that this gateway should be historically and architecturally consistent with Augusta’s heritage. Furthermore, we believe this entrance should be consistent with the current streetscape designs as not to detract from them.”
Marr stated that he wanted to make sure the information provided in the Council packet was a matter of record. Marr stated that Lakepoint has donated $30,000 and there is an additional $10,000 that is available to cover the cost of constructing the arch. Marr asked for clarification on where the $10,000 came from. Marr also stated that the S.O.S. website shows a conception of an arch that is different than the one that is being presented tonight.
Williams stated that the website shows an artist rendering from prior to the campaign beginning of what an arch could look like. Williams stated that it was never meant to be the official design or anything other than inspiration.
Kevin Unrein addressed the Council and thanked them for the opportunity to be at the meeting to present the concept of the arch for the historic Downtown District. Unrein stated that the photo provided in the packet is not intended to be the official arch and that he wants to work with the Chamber and DAI and all organizations of the downtown to design and arch that will work and fit the downtown historic Augusta. Unrein stated that the arch is totally open for design. Unrein stated that they want to make the arch as completely maintenance free as possible. Unrein stated that Lakepoint gave funds specifically for an arch and that in all of the funding material that S.O.S. provided they wrote that Lakepoint has donated an arch. Unrein stated that he has people that will volunteer their time such as an engineer, electrician, builder, etc. and that Lakepoint has excess stones from their project that can be used on the arch. Unrein stated that if the Council chooses to accept Lakepoint’s gift of an arch, the final design will come back before the Council for final approval. Unrein stated that he has heard the negatives about the arch such as it changing the appearance of the downtown, and that he agrees but that all of the projects going on downtown will change the look of the downtown. Unrein stated that he had heard that the arch is not designed right or constructed properly, but he stated that the arch has not been designed or built yet. Unrein stated that there were concerns about it being hit by motor vehicles, but that motor vehicles run into street lights, signs, and buildings all the time. Unrein stated that this is a gift from Lakepoint to the community and the downtown. Unrein stated that he had known that this would have been so difficult, they may not have chose to make this gift.
Wallace asked if the money being gifted was only for an arch. Unrein stated that it is and if the arch is not built, the monies will be returned to Lakepoint. Huddleston asked when the materialization of the arch took place. Unrein stated that Williams approached him at the beginning looking for donations for S.O.S. for specific projects. Huddleston stated that he has looked at many of the promotional papers for S.O.S. and the arch was not mentioned until much later. Williams stated that ten percent of the donations from the beginning were earmarked for a gateway arch or for a park. Williams stated that Lakepoint made their donation and requested that it be specifically for a gateway arch. Huddleston asked why the initial idea of an arch was even formulated. Williams stated that it initially started with a phone call to Keefer and that as a citizen she wanted to do something proactive to help with the KDOT grant. Williams stated that in formulating a full scale idea of the plan an arch seemed like a great opposite feature to the round-about. Williams stated that at that point, it could’ve been anything, but that that Lakepoint decided they wanted to fund the arch. Williams stated that some of the design elements for the Streetscape project such as bump outs, round-about, cement tiles, facades, and the museum and a recreation center are not historically accurate of Augusta’s downtown either, but are enhancements.
Huddleston stated that the arch was not initially talked about and encompassed in any of the plans and that the Hyett-Palma report discouraged a gateway arch. Huddleston stated that the report said that consideration should be given to the use of the Depot as the grand entrance. Williams stated that in the City’s comprehensive plan there are many mentions for a gateway entrance. Huddleston stated that the Depot has been identified as the primary gateway to the downtown and that others should be smaller in scale or even a single element monument such as signage. Williams asked Huddleston if there is a negative comment in the report about having a gateway. Huddleston stated that the arch is not what sold the transportation grant. Williams stated that the arch is a gift being offered by Lakepoint and as Augustans we can have this partnership and embrace it and the relationship Lakepoint has with this community. Williams stated that there are many cities with arches and that Augusta is especially fortunate that there is someone to give this gift.
Unrein stated that most of the businesses downtown have said that something is better than nothing. Marr stated that he does not want to distract from the Depot. Marr stated that most subdivisions do not have an arch for a distinctive entrance, but have landscaping or center islands with waterfalls or rock features. Marr asked if the arch is not street wide would that be acceptable. Unrein stated that the sample design does not show the arch as street wide and the purpose for that was a cost savings and clearing the City’s utilities.
Harper asked Unrein if Lakepoint would be willing to be flexible or if the donation had to be for an arch. Unrein stated that from the beginning the gift has been advertised as an arch and was the focal point of the SOS campaign and that the members of Augusta Health Care, LLC. donated the money specifically for an arch and feel that is what the money should be used for. Harper asked if the funds would not be used to support future downtown projects. Unrein agreed and stated that Lakepoint would probably do something else with that money if it were not used for the arch. If the arch is not built, S.O.S. will be returning the funds to Augusta Health Care, LLC. Huddleston stated that the City has plans for a sculpture walk and that the arch would be a good entryway for that and asked Unrein if Lakepoint would consider that. Unrein stated that the arch was for downtown, not for a walkway but for the enhancement of downtown businesses.
Williams stated that Lakepoint is donating the arch to propel growth downtown and not just trying to donate one item for the downtown but build a future for the downtown. Williams stated that the arch would impact future applications to KDOT for the Depot or bike path in that Lakepoint would probably be more inclined to help with future projects. Williams stated that there are two sides to the debate, but that the side that is bringing funds to the table is the one that gets a little more weight. Williams stated that it is up to the Council and citizens to determine if the arch is a gift that they want. Williams stated that for the future of the community, she hopes they do. Rawlings stated that he is trying to stay neutral because he is a business owner and has a vested interest in the downtown.
Rawlings stated that there are questions about the location because of the arch detracting from six to twelve parking spaces and that it may be in front of some driveways. Rawlings stated that no one has come up with a good location yet for the arch. Unrein again stated that the arch has not yet been designed and that in the process the utilities will have to be looked at. Rawlings stated that he understood that but that the Council is being asked to give a consensus and the okay to proceed with something that may not be able to be put there, and that there needs to be a definite location picked before going any further. Wallace stated that the issue tonight is whether or not we want the arch and if yes, then we need to pick out the spot and design it. Wallace stated that if the result was not feasible at that point, then the money can be returned to Lakepoint.
Marr stated that there are several elements to the gift that have been spoken of tonight and that the timeline of events indicates that there is some urgency and asked Unrein if this goes on for two or three years if that would be an acceptable timeline of events. Unrein stated that he is not saying the issue needs to be hurried up in any way, but that the City would like to know if the arch will be there when moving forward with the Streetscape plans. Williams stated that almost two years ago she had come before the Council and asked for direction and whether or not they would accept the gift from Lakepoint and that they were never able to pursue structural engineering or anything beyond the initial plan because they didn’t have an okay from the Council. Marr stated that brings up a very good point because there is a lack of understanding that says when you have donated labor, engineering services, and material then at some point that all has to be measured up against city code.
Marr asked what additional funding is included in the statement that says all funding is available. Unrein stated that they feel they can get the arch built for that. Marr asked what would happen if the cost is more than the $40,000 designated for the project. Unrein stated that if the project cost comes in really high then it would have to be looked at, but that would not be something that will be know until there is something on paper. Wallace stated that the Council’s next step is to say yes or no to this and the next step would be coming up with a design to present to the Council along with a cost estimate. Wallace stated that the Council would decide at that point whether or not to move forward with the project. Williams stated that Lakepoint is not asking the City or taxpayers to fund the project. Marr stated that he guarantees there will be tax dollars involved in the long run and that you cannot exclude that public money will be used for the arch. Williams agreed, but stated that what the arch brings and will generate to the activity in our City is well worth it.
Griffith stated that in the minutes from the meeting where Williams came before the Council on behalf of S.O.S. that a $30,000 donation would only apply to the entryway or arch and asked Unrein if it would be acceptable to him for a plan for an entryway other than an arch. Unrein stated that the Lakepoint ownership voted on this and would only be in support of the money being used for an arch. Marr stated that Unrein will have been with Lakepoint for ten years this December and thanked him for his investment in Augusta and for being a responsible business person and for the group that he represents.
Bill Morris, Chairman of the DAI Design Committee, came forward to speak on behalf of DAI. Morris stated that DAI thinks that it is a wonderful idea that Lakepoint would want to contribute these kinds of dollars to the community and that they have been very supportive of the downtown. Morris stated that DAI believes that the arch as a concept over State Street is misguided and that DAI has several reasons why they felt that the arch is not appropriate in this particular situation. Morris listed the reasons for DAI’s decision not to support the arch. The first reason is that the arch would block the vista from High Street all the way down to 3rd Street. Morris stated that has been there for many years, since the city was founded and developed northward. DAI feels the arch would block that vista and a very important part of Augusta would be lost. Next, Augusta is known for its wide streets and the proposed arch would visually narrow the streets. Then, the Main Street design manual addresses that we should not try to create something that never was.
Next, Morris stated, the design as an architectural element is incompatible and will overpower the streetscape plan. Morris stated that the comprehensive plan discourages the arch for this type of gateway and that for this type of transitional gateway it clearly calls for something of less stature than what was proposed tonight. Next, the arch will become somewhat of a traffic hazard.
Morris stated that the arch would visually block the entrance to the Depot because of the limitations for placement due to driveways and city utilities. Morris stated that there is no history behind an arch and that the Main Street manual states that the whole concept of Main Street is to enhance the history of the community. Morris stated that something more historically accurate would be like the entrance to Garvin Park or Elmwood Cemetery and that it would help carry that same theme throughout the city. Next, there are potential maintenance and liability issues. Morris stated that arches do deteriorate and require major maintenance. Morris stated that not only are there storm sewers along the proposed site, but there is the new waterline that was just put in. Morris stated that because the arch will be required to meet city code and would have to start out at a minimum of fourteen feet to clear fire trucks, there would be a problem with it being in scale with the rest of the architecture of the downtown.
Williams asked Morris how many lanes of traffic will go through the intersections where the bump outs will be. Morris stated that there are two lanes. Williams stated that an archway entrance would not be less then that and stated that the arch and bump outs would work really well together. Morris stated that except that the arch is a vertical element and the bump outs are not. Williams stated that the bump outs, round-about, and the fountain would be new elements to the downtown. Morris stated that the round-about was specifically pointed out in the Hyett-Palma report as a way to lessen traffic problems and that the area of 4th Street is where we have historically made u-turns. Morris stated that to develop a historic background, they approached the museum about using the old Prairie State Bank clock as a focal point to tie the history into it.
Williams asked if DAI’s decision not to endorse the arch was a unanimous decision. Morris stated that it was not. Williams asked if prior to DAI making their decision concerning the arch, if they solicited opinions from the downtown business and property owners. Morris stated that a vote was not taken, but that the owners were aware of this issue. Marr stated that the letter from the Executive Director of DAI states that they are in favor of a form of a defined entrance, but are not in favor of an arch and that the information provided in the packet will take precedence in his decision making. Huddleston stated that it is not a fair question to ask Morris if he went door to door asking what each business or property owner thinks because that is not his job. Williams stated that is a fair question and one the Council would want to know what the citizens would like. Huddleston stated then maybe it should be put on the ballot and voted on. Williams stated that if DAI is going to represent the downtown, then they should get feedback from the downtown business owners. Harper stated that she has had a number of calls from downtown merchants stating that they feel they are almost being blackmailed into supporting the arch or their businesses will suffer. Williams stated that this issue should not be taken to a personal level.
Marr stated that his response to that would be depending on the height of the arch that any advertising that MI-TE Electric wants to hang out is going to be blocked from view until someone drives completely under the arch and is there a downside to any other downtown businesses. Marr stated that those are the kinds of things that need to be taken into account. Marr stated that the Depot was purchased with the understanding that it is one of the destination points and key transitions from 7th Street.
Don Patterson, residing at 416 Country Hills Drive and owning commercial property at 425 Walnut, came forward to address the Council. Patterson stated that he wants to commend Lakepoint for their interest in Augusta and the downtown area. Patterson stated that his question is who has the jurisdiction to accept the gift. Williams stated that the Council has the authority to accept the gift, but that it can be taken to the ballot if the Council so chooses. Mr. All stated that the gift belongs to the organization it was given to, in this case S.O.S. Mr. All asked if S.O.S. is incorporated. Williams stated that S.O.S. is not, but that they are working under the Augusta Historical Society which is. Mr. All stated that once the gift is delivered it can only be given back if the person receiving it gives it back. Mr. All stated that the use of the city streets of Augusta is a decision that belongs to the Council.
Williams reminded Patterson of the time limit. Patterson stated that none of the previous speakers had a time limit. Patterson stated that he gets a distinct feeling that there are certain individuals that are pushing for this project extremely hard and asked if we are building a monument to an individual. Patterson stated that he got an understanding from the legal aspect of it that the citizens are not involved in this other than their representation on the Council. Patterson stated that opposition statements have been given by other organizations and he supports that opposition. Patterson stated that the arch could be a traffic hazard from people driving on 7th Street and looking south to see the arch. Patterson stated that as an individual citizen he is in opposition of the arch. Williams stated that in no way does any gift want to be forced on a community that may choose not to accept it. Marr stated that the gift has already been accepted and that the Council has to vote on whether or not to approve the arch.
Sharon Sudduth, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and stated that the Chamber Board made a decision that they will support the concept of an entryway monument; however, the Chamber would support the concept of the arch if the Council so approves. Sudduth stated that the Chamber is aware that there are many unknowns and would like to see the City, DAI, S.O.S., and the Chamber get together to work on something that will be a good solution for the community. Sudduth stated that the arch would be visible and draw people to the area, but whether that is the solution is in the Council’s hands. Marr stated that according to the letter from the Chamber, they are in support of the concept of an entryway monument, not necessarily an arch, but what was just said is contrary to that. Sudduth stated that the entryway does not have to be an arch, but if the Council accepts the gift of the arch they would be open to that. Rawlings asked if there were members that do not support the concept of the arch. Sudduth stated that there are and that was why that comment was in the letter.
Leffler asked Williams if there was anyone present representing S.O.S. besides herself. Williams stated that there was. Leffler said his question was in regard to the letter submitted to the Council by S.O.S. listing reasons why they are in favor of the arch, and why there are only seven signatures when S.O.S.’s website states that there are eleven people on the steering committee. Williams stated that the steering committee is different then the S.O.S. team which is incorporated with representatives of the Historical Society, Chamber, and Theatre. Williams stated that the S.O.S. team is a smaller group. Leffler stated that there are all kinds of twists and turns about who’s on the committee and where the money goes. Williams stated that if Leffler is questioning S.O.S. then she’d be more than happy to meet with him and that S.O.S.’s treasurer is present at this meeting and could answer any questions he has, but that today is not about S.O.S. but whether or not the Council will accept the gift of an arch. Leffler stated that he is just addressing the letter that was presented to the Council by S.O.S. and asking for clarification. Williams stated that she would be happy to elaborate.
Marr stated that one item that would need to be elaborated on is the difference between the $30,000 and $40,000 gift amount. Williams stated that there are other businesses that donated specifically to the arch and that the amount totals $10,000 in addition to the $30,000 donated by Lakepoint. Marr asked if it was fair to say that if the $30,000 is withdrawn then there is still $10,000 that can be used for a gateway or monument. Williams stated that would be a question for S.O.S. Marr stated that would need to be addressed. Gary Agard, #2 Belmont Court, stepped forward to represent S.O.S. Agard stated that it would be addressed when the Council gets off its duff and decides whether they want the arch or not. Agard stated that if the Council chooses not to accept the arch then S.O.S. would figure out what to do with the $10,000.
Marr stated that further clarification of S.O.S.’s comment that “…all funding will be available…” is still needed. Williams stated that if the cost of the arch would be more then the funding that is available then the options would be to tone down the design or for Lakepoint to make up the difference. Williams stated that when she came before the Council in January 2006 she stated that if the arch could not be afforded then there would be the option of reducing the project to something more feasible. Marr stated that the question was asked to Unrein before about reducing the project and it was not agreed to. Williams stated that was correct.
Renee Harrison, 21 Taylor, addressed the Council. She stated that she is on the DAI Board a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the S.O.S. Committee. Harrison stated that Lakepoint designated this money specifically for an arch and that she cannot speak for them, but that if the cost were above the current funding she could see Lakepoint funding the difference. Harrison stated that the Council needs to decide if they want the arch or not and if not, then S.O.S. would decide what tot do with the funding. She stated that one of the options would be to give the funding to the City for the Depot. Marr asked that even though there has been discussion tonight that some type of entryway is needed, would S.O.S. pull that funding. Harrison stated that if the funding were pulled then it would be because they were not allowed to do it. Marr disagreed and stated that the arch is not the question. Marr stated that the difference is that the Council says yes, and then they will go off and work on their own pace and come up with a solution that the Council is supposed to love. Wallace stated that the only thing that is needed tonight is to decide if the Council wants the arch and if so, then the plans would be brought back to the Council for their approval or denial at that point.
Wallace made a motion to accept the concept of an entrance archway. No second was received for the motion, so the motion failed. Leffler stated that the Lakepoint’s gift is very commendable and while he doesn’t entirely agree with tying strings to the gift, it is their prerogative to do so. Leffler stated that if the Council approves the arch tonight, they will be approving something that they don’t even know what it will look like. Leffler stated that he would be more in favor of looking at the idea of an arch if there was a design and a plan of where and how it would be constructed. Williams stated that the Council does not have more details because of the cost.
Marr stated that there are four steps to the process of community design and the process of cooperation. It requires an existing condition map, site analysis, site plan, and character analysis drawing. Marr stated that if you look at the arch given in tonight’s material it says Johnna Smith has provided a drawing of the arch being considered for the entryway and that when he shows that picture to people they love it. Marr stated that from the standpoint of understanding what the Council is voting on tonight there is not a clear understanding of what is being requested, so he is a little bit nervous. Williams stated that all that is being asked is will the gift of an arch be entertained. Williams stated that if it is not wanted then they do not want to waste anyone’s time.
Leffler made a motion not to accept the gift of an arch for the downtown area. Chrislip seconded the motion. Motion carried with Wallace opposing and Rawlings abstaining from the vote. Williams apologized to the citizens of Augusta.
Transportation Enhancement Grants: Council considered authorizing Staff to prepare applications for Transportation Enhancement Grants for restoration of the old Frisco Depot and a walking path, connecting the downtown to the Whitewater River along the old railroad right-of-way. Bill Morris described the plans for a sculpture walk that would extend from the west side of State Street across from the old Frisco Depot to the Whitewater River. Huddleston asked if any portion of the walking path would be lighted. Morris stated that a security lighting system would be provided for in the funding of the project. Huddleston asked if the City could provide the lighting outside of the city limits of Augusta. Keefer stated that it would be in Westar territory and would be a question that would have to be addressed. Huddleston asked if the area could be policed by foot or bicycle. Huddleston asked if it would make sense to start out further east and keep the path within the limits of the city. Morris stated that was an option. Huddleston asked how the flood project would affect the path. Morris stated that the path would have to be built up and go over the levee and that a bridge could also be considered. Marr asked if the scope of the work could be changed if the grant was awarded. Keefer stated that the State is looking for a clearly defined start and end point and that they will look to see that the walking path is connecting two established areas when considering the application. Huddleston stated that he was concerned about what jurisdiction the walking path would fall under. Keefer stated that if the County donated the property to Augusta, it could be annexed so that it will fall under Augusta’s jurisdiction.
Morris stated that the second grant application option is for a full restoration of the old Frisco Depot. Marr asked if there was a proposed plan for any walkway in front of the Depot. Morris stated that there had been some discussion about that. Wallace stated that the City’s share of the Depot project would be around $96,000 where the City’s share of the walking path project would be around $450,000. Wallace stated that the work inside the city should be done first and then work their way out. Keefer agreed that the cost of the walkway surprised him and that if the walking path were considered now there would be a need to redefine the scope of the work. Leffler asked how much more expensive it would be if the Depot sits there untouched and the City is forced to complete the improvements later as opposed to doing the work now. Morris stated that everyone is aware of how a vacant building will decline, but stated that there is a decent roof on the building now even if it is not historically accurate and that it could sit for some time before repairs would be needed. But, Morris agreed with Leffler that the expense could be higher if forced to make the repairs at a later date. Leffler asked if there would be funds available to do the Depot project if the grant were awarded. Keefer stated that there would be funds available for the initial design work and that there would be a possibility of more grant monies from the County. Keefer stated that there are Capital Improvement funds that could be allocated to this project. Williams asked if there was a way to submit both applications and list one of the projects as a priority. Morris stated that the State indicated they could look at the applications separately or jointly. However, Morris stated that it would look bad in the State’s eyes if a grant were awarded and the City decided it could not move forward with the project. Wallace made a motion to authorize Staff to prepare an application for a Transportation Enhancement Grant for restoration of the old Frisco Depot and include the walking path in a future capital improvement plan. Leffler seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition. Williams stated that the Chamber has voiced their interest in being involved with the Frisco Depot restoration project.
Bids: Council considered bids for the Street Patching and Crack Filling portion of the 2007 Street Sales Tax Program. Marr made a motion to accept the bid from APAC-Kansas, Inc. in the amount of $43,164. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition. Huddleston asked Goedecke to specify where the work would be done. Goedecke stated that there were several locations throughout Augusta that would be repaired under this project and listed a few of those locations, including 12th Street east of Osage, 6th Avenue, Oak, the Lakepoint 1st area, and other areas that may come up before the project is complete. Marr asked Goedecke to provide a comprehensive list of locations for the next informational memorandum.
Zoning: Council considered an Ordinance amending the Zoning classification for 1010 Osage Street from Assembly District to R1A Single Family. Marr asked if the Planning Commission stipulated a date that the curb cut would be removed by. The property owner, Al Brungardt, stated that he did not believe the Planning Commission had stipulated that to him, but asked the Council when they felt it should be removed. Marr made a motion to approve amending the Zoning classification for 1010 Osage Street from Assembly District to R1A Single Family with the understanding that the curb cut will be removed by the owner as specified in the Planning Commission minutes. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Adjustment of Bills: Council considered approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances as it pertains to adjustment of bills. Huddleston asked why the term of one year was used in the proposed ordinance. Jones stated that it was a starting point for discussion by the Council. Huddleston asked where Jones found the language that was used in the ordinance. Jones stated that she had checked with Wellington, Winfield, and Mulvane and those communities do not have a written ordinance that addresses billing errors, so she searched the internet and used language from the only ordinance addressing these issues that she was able to locate. Wallace voiced his concern that the ordinance did not address errors due to fraud. Jones stated that fraud or illegal hookups were addressed in another ordinance. Keefer stated that theft or fraud is illegal and is governed by State and Federal law. Huddleston stated that he believes the ordinance should state that refunds of over payments will be given for two years and back-billing for under charges will not exceed a period of one year for commercial customers and six months for residential customers.
Huddleston stated concern that if the ordinance is passed and the current under billings are waived, that if an error is found in two months that person would be required to pay it back under this ordinance. Jones stated that if the billing error occurred prior to today’s date it could be handled like the ones that are being considered for waiving tonight, but if the error occurs after today’s date it would fall under the new ordinance. Jones stated that regardless of when the error was found, the date the actual error occurred should be considered when determining if the ordinance will apply to the issue. Wallace made a motion to approve Ordinance 1951 with the following changes: refunds for over payments will be given for two years, back-billing for under charges will not exceed a period of one year for commercial customers and six months for residential customers, and a section will be added stating that this ordinance does not apply to billing error caused by fraud. Rawlings seconded the motion. Motion carried with Harper, Marr, and Chrislip opposing.
Under-billed Utilities: Council considered waiving the under billed amounts for electric usage for five commercial utility customers. Marr made a motion to waive the under billed amount for Heartstrings, Lakepoint, Patterson Racing, Personalized Homes, and D J Engineering and giving a monthly credit to D J Engineering for the portion they have already paid back to the City. Rawlings seconded the motion. Motion carried with Huddleston and Wallace opposing. Wallace stated that he was concerned about the 180 degree turn the Council has taken on this issue and the perception that because of whom the businesses that were found to be under billed are that they are now willing to waive the charges.
Street Sales Tax Committee: Council considered approval of the appointments to the Street Sales Tax Committee. Harper made a motion to approve the appointment of Jeff Regier, Rick Rawlings, Kevin Visor, Melvin Alford, Dalton Patterson, Karl Winter, Harry Gilliand, Dave Bisagno, Eric Christinat, Wayne Mathias, and H.V. Chapin to the Street Sales Tax Committee. Chrislip seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Informational Memorandum & Questions:
Griffith – Griffith stated that he was contacted about a bush clocking the view at the intersection of Shirley and Moyle.
Williams – Williams reminded the Council of the work session scheduled for Monday, September 24th, at City Hall to review and discuss the preliminary plans for the Streetscape Project. Williams stated that Park Superintendent Cy Ricker has a list of volunteer opportunities for groups or individuals interested in volunteering their time. Williams stated that if anyone is interested they should contact her or Cy. Williams stated that there is a preliminary visioning meeting scheduled for October 22nd. Williams stated that she would like to have a Strategic Planning Session and asked if anyone on the Council would be interested. Marr, Harper, and Leffler indicated they would be interested in a Strategic Planning Session.
Wallace – Wallace stated that he is interested in attending the Kansas Main Street Annual Banquet. Wallace stated that the work of removing the elm trees at the cemetery is coming right along, but that there was extensive damage to the flag pole and flower boxes caused by the falling trees.
Huddleston – Huddleston inquired about why the property on Summit is not on the substandard housing report. Dan Allen stated that the property owner has pulled the proper permits and has plans to complete the work but is running behind.
Marr – Marr asked for clarification on why the information about the Kansas Open Meetings Act was included in the Informational Memorandum. Keefer stated that it was information that was provided by the County that was passed on to the Council. Marr asked that personal remarks be held when considering the documents being included in the Informational Memorandum.
Adjourn: At 10:30 p.m. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Marr seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
|
.jpg)
