|
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 3, 2008
7:30 P.M.
The Council of the City of Augusta, Kansas met in regular session on November 3, 2008, 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, City Attorney David All, and City Clerk Erica Jones. Visitors present were: Michael McDermott, Martin Goedecke, Aaron Iverson, Elmer Simon, Stan Taylor, Larry Lago and Leon Hamilton.
Prayer: Pastor Curtis Cadenhead, First Methodist Church gave the invocation.
Minutes: Marr made a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 20, 2008 council meeting. Harper seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Appropriations:
October (10B): Council considered appropriations in the amount of $637,158.96. Rawlings made a motion to approve Ordinance 10B in the amount of $637,158.96. Leffler seconded the motion. Huddleston inquired about the payment to MKEC for “Dan” Rehabilitation. Keefer stated that it should have read “Dam” Rehabilitation. Motion carried without opposition.
Visitors:
Service Awards: Williams introduced Safety Officer Chris Schueber and Meter Reader Kyle Trebbe and recognized them for their 10 years of service with the City of Augusta. Williams presented them with certificates and thanked them for their commitment to service to the City of Augusta and to the community.
Old Business:
Lease Agreements: Council considered amending Lease Agreements with the Augusta Historical Society and South Central Mental Health Center for the use of public Right-of-Way. Keefer stated that it was recommended to remove “or such future occupant of the Augusta Historical Society property” from Section 2 of the lease agreement with the Augusta Historical Society and insert a similar phrase in Section 2 of the lease agreement with Butler County/South Central Mental Health. Marr stated that the desire is to limit the lease with the Historical Society to the Historical Society and not any future occupant. Marr stated that the lease with Butler County/South Central Mental Health would apply to them or any future occupant. Williams stated that the reason for allowing future occupants under the lease agreement with Butler County/South Central Mental Health is because there is a building involved. Huddleston stated that the reason he agreed to such favorable terms previously is because of the lessee. Huddleston stated that he probably would not have agreed to this lease if it were for a convenience store, etc. Huddleston stated that now we are suggesting that we obligate a future Council to these agreements, and asked why not allow them to make those decisions in the future. Huddleston stated that he would recommend leaving that sentence out of both agreements. Williams stated that we need to keep in mind that it may affect the future sale of the property. Huddleston stated that he would like to allow a future Council to make that decision. Wallace made a motion to remove “or such future occupant of the Augusta Historical Society property” from the lease agreement with the Augusta Historical Society. Rawlings seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Marr made a motion to amend the lease with Butler County/South Central Mental Health to include “or such future occupant of the property described in the lease”. Motion died for lack of a second.
New Business:
Zoning Regulations: Council considered approval of an ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations for the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles and Trailers. Dan Allen stated that staff was asked to do this by the Council due to concerns about recreational vehicles, travel trailers, and utility trailers parked in the City’s right of way. Wallace stated that item 5 references the minimum number of off street parking spaces required. Allen stated that three parking spaces are required for each residential unit. Wallace stated that a lot of properties in town may not have that. Griffith asked why you have to have it parked on concrete or asphalt. Allen stated that the definition for parking for automobiles is a hard surface, and does not necessarily apply to driveways. Griffith stated that he has been contacted by someone who has trucked in gravel to park their recreational vehicle on. Allen stated that the way this is written, the hard surface is exclusive of the driveway. Keefer stated that this is something we will have to clarify.
Williams stated that item 6 allows for storage in the side and back yard. Allen stated that is correct, and that it can be parked on any type of surface. Allen stated that it only has to be parked on a hard surface if it is in the front setback. Harper asked about situations in the past where a person has received permission from the previous City Inspector. Allen stated that as long as it is in the side or back yard and out of the right of way it is fine, but if it is in the front setback it has to be parked on a hard surface and out of the right of way. Harper stated that she is still unclear about the parking of her trailer on her property. She asked if it has to be asphalted or cemented. Allen stated that it does.
Larry Lago asked if he could park on gravel as long as it is not in the front yard. Allen stated that it would be permitted as long as it was out of the City’s right of way. Allen further stated that if anyone has a question about whether or not they are out of the City’s right of way, he would be willing to go and mark that out for them.
Stanley Taylor stated that he has a boat parked at the side of his front yard on grass. Taylor stated that he doesn’t know why he has to haul in gravel, and stated that it would be an imposition on him. Taylor asked what the difference is between grass and gravel. Allen stated that if it is parked in his front yard, then it has to be on a hard surface such as cement or asphalt. Taylor said that he understands if it is a run down yard that is not well kept, but that his yard is well maintained. Williams stated that the purpose of this is to be consistent. Chrislip stated that where Taylor takes care of and maintains his yard, there are many others that don’t. Taylor asked if he could have a gravel driveway leading to where he is going to park his boat beside his house. Allen stated that the concrete parking is exclusive of the driveway, so he could put in a gravel driveway. Allen stated that he would need to further clarify that.
Williams stated that there appears to be two issues here tonight, the concrete slab and the issue of parking in the right of way. Williams stated that if the Council were to consider changing the definition of storage area then it would work, but if not then it doesn’t work. Taylor asked what the definition of storage is. Allen stated that the ordinance references parking or storage. Huddleston asked if the term could be changed to outdoor parking of recreational vehicles, trailers, etc.
Williams asked the Council about tabling this until the question about pavement is answered. Allen stated that has already been answered in the current ordinance, but that the question is whether you can have a gravel driveway up to it or not. Huddleston asked if another question would be the distance from the right of way to the front property line of the house. Allen stated that distance would vary throughout town due to the width of the streets. Huddleston stated that if this is tabled, what are we giving more consideration to?
Taylor asked if this is an attempt to get rid of unsightly trailers and recreational vehicles parked in front yards. Keefer stated that is partially the issue, but that it is also to get them out of the City’s right of way. Keefer stated that we do not currently have an ordinance in place that addresses those trailers, etc. that extend out into the right of way or all the way to the curb.
Williams stated that what happens today could affect those in the future, including the parking of cars specifically on the grass. Marr stated that the way this is written, if is referring to storage not driveways. Marr stated that if he were to tow a trailer, he can pull it in on a gravel driveway, but if he is parking in the front of his house it would have to be on concrete or asphalt so it looks decent from the street. Marr stated that it is a much bigger picture then just whether it is a paved pad between the front of the house and the right of way, from the standpoint of backing off of what the Planning Commission proposed. Marr stated that if we have some word smithing to do then we ought to entertain it, but if not then we should approve the ordinance based on the Planning Commission and Staff’s recommendation.
Leon Hamilton stated that he has four vehicles and a boat. Hamilton asked what would happen if he were to park one of them along the street. Allen stated that a trailer parked in the street has to be hooked up to a vehicle, and is only allowed to be parked on the street for 72 hours. Hamilton stated that he is not allowed to park on City property. Allen agreed. Hamilton stated that the City is going to force him to build a concrete pad to park in his front yard. Allen stated that he would not if he were to park in the back or side yard, but that if he parks in the front set back it has to be on a concrete or asphalt pad. Williams reminded everyone that item 6 says that storage in the side and back yard is allowed.
Lego asked if he can compact gravel in his front yard. Allen stated that if you have a gravel driveway, the right of way area has to be a concrete approach.
Wallace made a motion to table the ordinance and have staff fine tune it. Keefer stated that staff would like to have some clear direction about what to look into. Keefer stated that there are people out there that are parked in the right of way and will be in clear violation of this ordinance, and that it will be unfortunate. Keefer stated that some of them have been there for a long time, and that we will have issues that have to be addressed. Williams stated that the right of way issue does not change whether or not this is approved tonight or in two weeks, but that the hard surface driveway or pad is somewhat still questionable. Chrislip stated that a larger problem is that there are some people who have had trailers or recreation vehicles parked at the side of their house for 10 years or more that got an okay from the previous City Inspector. Chrislip stated that now we are going to tell them they cannot do this. Chrislip stated that is a problem.
Harper seconded the motion. Keefer stated that we need to be clear about parking in the right of way, and that he does not see how we can grandfather those in. Keefer stated that many of those existing ones are the cause of the problems we have before us tonight. Keefer further stated that it may take more than a couple of weeks to look into this and he suggested that we look at the hard surface issue. Marr stated that if you open that up you will never get the problem solved. Marr further stated that this is almost a parking issue not a storage issue. Allen stated that he would recommend changing it to read parking and/or storage.
Huddleston stated that he thinks the City would want to clarify the difference between parking and storage. Rawlings stated that he would like to see that those people that have parked there for ten years have 60 days to comply with the ordinance. Mr. All stated that could be part of the enforcement and be a direction to staff, but that it does not need to be in the ordinance.
Elmer Simon of the Planning Commission stated that he has been on the commission for 12 to 15 years, and that they have never allowed someone to put in a new driveway that was not a hard surface. Simon stated that there may be some out there, but that they were not allowed by the Planning Commission.
Huddleston stated that the issues to look into are the matter of the hard surface, the definition of storage and parking, and a directive about enforcement. Marr stated that the statement “such as concrete or asphalt” does not dictate that it has to be concrete or asphalt.
Motion carried with Marr and Leffler opposing.
2007 Audit: Council reviewed and considered accepting the 2007 Audit. Aaron Iverson reviewed the financial statements and pointed out the changes from previous years, specifically that now the negative numbers mean you are under budget. Iverson stated that the City had no budget violations for 2007. Iverson stated that during the audit, it was discovered that the City’s deposits were not adequately secured during the month of June, which is a violation of K.S.A. 9-1402. Rawlings asked how the City would now that and Huddleston asked who is responsible for monitoring that. Iverson stated that the City is responsible. Iverson stated that the City receives monthly reports from the bank, and that he has advised Staff to notify the bank when there will be a large deposit that is out of the ordinary. Jones stated that Staff is now notifying the bank of any deposits in excess of $100,000. Iverson stated that this was the only statutory violation. Marr stated that what he heard Iverson say is that the way to address this is not by the audit, but by management through staff. Iverson agreed.
Iverson reviewed the Management Letter. Iverson stated that the issue with the bank reconciliation is a repeat of last year, but that according to Staff it is reconciled as of today. Iverson stated that the item referring to the balancing of the Municipal Court bonds is an item that he wants to bring additional light to, as the clerk was unable to produce a list of the outstanding bonds. Iverson stated that the City had previously dealt with fraud in this area and had issues with the outstanding bonds. Iverson stated that it is very important that the bond list be kept up to date. Iverson referred to item #4 in the Management letter and stated that staff has made a good effort, and that he has seen an improvement. Iverson stated that he did not increase his fee, but that not all of the items were completed and accurate. Iverson stated that the bank reconciliation was the most critical of these items.
Iverson reviewed the SAS 112 letter. Iverson stated that the material weakness refers to the journal entries that we have recommended be made. Iverson stated that he is required to say that the financials were not materially correct because these journal entries were required.
Iverson discussed the SAS 114 letter and stated that he is required to send it directly to the Governing Body. Iverson stated that Staff has not seen that letter, but that most of the points mentioned in it have been discussed earlier because they were also included in the Management Letter or the SAS 112 letter. Iverson stated that the main thing to point out in the SAS 114 letter is that we have to assist you in understanding the estimates of encumbrances and compensated absences. Iverson stated that it also addresses a few of the note disclosures that are sensitive, such as pledged securities, capital projects, and long-term debt. Iverson stated that it also addresses any difficulties they had handling the audit, such as the bank reconciliation. Iverson stated that he believes staff understand the importance of that also. Griffith stated that every year there is an issue with reconciliation, and asked what if anything new has been done to address this issue. Jones stated that the biggest issue with the reconciliation is that it has never reconciled. Jones stated that last year she broke the payroll out into a separate account and that it balanced each month. Jones stated that because that worked, she opened a new operational account in 2008 and that the new account has reconciled every month. Jones stated that the old General account has not had any new activity, and will be closed prior to year end 2008. Griffith asked if Jones felt the time needed to reconcile it is a problem. Jones stated that she does not think that is an issue and is now reconciling it by the 15th of each month.
Wallace made a motion to accept the 2007 audit. Rawlings seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition. Marr asked staff to provide information for the next meeting on the steps being taken to improve the balancing and reporting of the Municipal Court.
Change Order: Council considered approval of Change Order #1 for the 2008 Street Sales Tax Projects. Huddleston stated that he thought we could only use sales tax funds for curbs, guttering, and streets. Goedecke stated that maybe he shouldn’t have suggested paying for the sidewalk and drive out of sales tax monies. Huddleston asked staff if they agreed that the ballot was very specific about the use of the sales tax funds. Keefer stated that he knows it discussed the streets and maintenance, but that he cannot remember whether it covered curb and gutters. Huddleston asked if we could look that up and remove those items from here if they were not covered in the ballot. Keefer stated that it is up to the Governing Body. Keefer stated that if you are going to remove those items from the Change Order, then he suggests that it is done now instead of bringing it back later so that we can move forward while the weather is permitting. Goedecke stated that when the projects were approved, $60,000 was set aside for street maintenance and approved under the 2008 Street Sales Tax Program. Goedecke stated that it has not all been spent yet. Goedecke stated that we are coming up on November and the streets are open. He stated that we would like to get that done before winter comes on and causes more problems. Huddleston stated that he does not want us to approve something that is in violation of what was passed. Marr asked if those are funds that are competing to be used for the downtown. Keefer stated that these are dollars out of the Sales Tax fund. Keefer stated that the direction he got previously from the Governing Body was to wait to see what cash balances are at the end of December above and beyond our approved projects. Williams stated that we have an obligation to maintain our streets to the best of our ability, and if there is money in this fund for that purpose then it should be done. Huddleston made a motion to approve Change Order #1, eliminating item #3 and Item #5 unless they are not in conflict with the ballot’s Street Sales Tax description. Wallace seconded the motion.
Griffith asked why we are paying for the repairs on 7th Street. Goedecke stated that their contract was for the overlay. Goedecke stated that the concrete buckled up, but that it is not the contractor’s responsibility. Goedecke stated that as concrete gets older it can creep and grow and that hot weather causes it to buckle up.
Motion carried without opposition.
Marr asked what the balance in the maintenance fund will be after this project. Keefer stated that looking at the cash balance and carryover, there will be approximately $260,000 left in the fund. Keefer stated that an extra $100,000 above what was budgeted for the Streetscape Project had already been allocated out of the Street Sales Tax monies.
Engineering Services Agreement: Marr made a motion to approve an amendment to the Engineering Services Agreement with Aqua Tech Engineering Consultants for the Relief Sewer Project. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Mutual Aid Program: Council considered approval of a Resolution authorizing the City of Augusta’s participation in the Kansas Mutual Aid Program. Huddleston stated that Article 9 says the Participating Utility shall bear the risk of its own actions, but that Article 7 says the Requesting Utility shall assume the defense of, fully indemnify and hold harmless, the Responding Utility. Huddleston asked if these articles contradict each other. Mr. All says the Participating Utility shall bear the risk of their own actions. Mr. All stated that he does not think they are a contradiction of each other. Huddleston asked why Article 9 would say that the Participating Utility will be responsible for its own actions, but in Article 7 it says they would be held harmless.
Rawlings stated that the way it was explained to him by a contractor/sub-contractor relationship, is that Article 9 is there to keep the Participating Utility from acting carelessly and recklessly. Huddleston stated that Article 7 states that it fully indemnifies and holds harmless the Responding Utility from all claims, so if Augusta was the Participating Utility and incurred some liability would it be our insurance or the Requesting Utility’s insurance that would cover the claim. Mr. All stated that would be one of those things that sometimes gets litigated.
Huddleston asked if we would have to worry about being under-insured in a situation if we are the Participating Utility. Mr. All stated that all of these utilities are going to be governed by the Tort Claims Act of the State of Kansas which limits liability to $500,000 if they are involved in a matter such as utilities. Mr. All stated that on mutual aid, he would not be certain about the Tort Claims Act’s extension to this.
Mr. All stated that Article 9 is requiring the Participating Utility to have insurance like they would for their day to day responsibilities in any other situation. Article 7 protects the Responding Utility. Mr. All stated that these are not contradictory at all. Motion carried without opposition.
Channel 7: Council considered approval of a Policy updating the use for Channel 7. Wallace inquired about information such as Butler Community College doing little historical snippets to be aired on Channel 7. JJ Allen stated that would fall under the section of the policy that states the Council may approve other information that is beneficial to our citizens, utility customers, and the general public. Huddleston stated that he thinks it is important that everyone understand this is the City’s channel and that they have no entitlement to the channel, only at the City’s discretion. Williams stated that those wanting to use Channel 7 have to allow ample time for the Council to review their request. Huddleston made a motion to approve a Policy updating the use for Channel 7. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
Williams stated that she hears complaints from time to time about being able to hear the audio of the council meetings on Channel 7. Williams stated that she is meeting with someone from Park City to discuss their equipment. Williams also stated that it had been discussed that the School and City could pool our resources to help with Channel 7.
Informational Memorandum & Questions:
Marr – Marr referenced the property at the NE corner of 4th and State and stated that we want that plan accepted. Keefer stated that it would be, unless Staff is instructed otherwise by the Governing Body.
Williams – Williams stated that she was glad to see that the City has solicited bid proposals for the City’s website.
Final Comments:
Wallace – Wallace stated that he spoke to the TAG about the levee, and that sometime today they were going to be talking to the FEMA Director.
Williams – Williams reminded the Governing Body of the Recycling meeting scheduled for next Monday at 7:00 p.m. Williams stated that at the last joint meeting of the School and City the parking concerns at the Middle School were discussed. Williams stated that she wanted to assure the Governing Body that as they are moving forward on the construction, they are looking into that issue first.
Adjourn: At 9:25 p.m. Marr made a motion to adjourn. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried without opposition.
|
.jpg)
