MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Wichita, Kansas, February 27, 1996 Tuesday, 9:05 A.M. The City Council met in regular session with Mayor Knight in the Chair. Council Members Cather, Cole, Gale, Rogers; present. *Council Members Ferris, Kamen; absent. Chris Cherches, City Manager; Gary Rebenstorf, Director of Law; Patricia L. Burnett, Deputy City Clerk; present. The invocation was given by Richard Armstrong, Bishop, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 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 13, 1996, were -- approved approved 5 to 0. (Ferris, Kamen; absent) *Council Member Kamen present. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS The Toy Run Award was presented. UNFINISHED BUSINESS *Council Member Ferris present. WHITE GOODS PROGRAM WHITE GOODS PROGRAM AT BROOKS LANDFILL. Steve Lackey Public Works Director reviewed the Item. Agenda Report No. 96-083 A. On February 6, 1996, the City Council discussed a proposed White Goods Sorting Program at Brooks Landfill. A program to sort and recover white goods from Brooks Landfill was recommended by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, to be effective on or before June 1, 1996. This program was approved in concept by the City Council on October 10, 1995. The program presently being handled by Herzog Waste Management, the City's Landfill Contractor, provides a specific area near the working face where white goods are transferred to a roll-off box, and collected for removal by a recycling company. Under the Agreement with Herzog, the recycling company collects the white goods and processes them for recycling. Approximately 75 percent of the white goods coming in to Brooks are sorted out and recovered in this manner. The remainder are those are in a mixed load and would be difficult to sort in a safe manner, and are therefore allowed to be landfilled. While the program has minimal impact on landfill capacity (approximately 1/2 day of landfill capacity is saved per year), it helps environmentally and promotes recycling of resources. At the February 6, 1996 meeting, City Council Members discussed concerns related to the proper removal and disposal of environmentally sensitive components (oil, PCBs and mercury switches) on white good appliances. Since the present program for sorting and recycling white goods at Brooks does not address the handling of these components, the City Council directed staff to look into methods to assure the proper handling of these by-products, such as through a certificate telling where all the by-products go from the operator's site. Staff was requested to return with options for Council consideration that would resolve the concerns. Staff has investigated the present handling of these components by the recycler and has developed alternatives to address the Council's concerns. The present recycler handles white goods from several sources, including some outside Sedgwick County. The white goods currently recovered from Brooks (about 5 tons per week) make up only a small fraction (5 percent to 10 percent) of the white goods handled by this company. The recycler removes and markets CFCs from refrigeration and air conditioning appliances, and removes motors and capacitors from appliances prior to shredding the appliances. They do not attempt to disassemble and remove all the switches or thermostats. The by- products are sent to various markets, and the motors are marketed overseas. A small amount of by-product (called "fluff") is not marketable and is disposed of at Brooks or other landfills. To determine whether the fluff contains contaminants, samples were pulled and sent for testing. The results have not yet been returned on these tests. There is presently no certification to document where the Brooks white goods by-products are sent. The recycler indicated that a requirement to certify removal of all components from the Brooks white goods and manifest the destination of all the by-products would cause added work and expenses for processing appliances, although the amount is not known. Alternatives have been developed to best address the concerns of the City Council: 1) Require Landfill Contractor to strip all components from recovered white goods before recycling and certify proper disposal of hazardous materials. Require white goods "fluff" to be tested prior to acceptance at Brooks Landfill. Specify allowable levels of PCBs and mercury in white goods fluff for acceptance at Brooks. 2) Contract with recycling company taking white goods from Brooks to require them to certify removal of all components from white goods prior to recycling, and document destination of all components, including certification that hazardous materials are properly recycled or disposed at a hazardous waste disposal facility. Require white goods "fluff" to be tested prior to acceptance at Brooks Landfill. Specify allowable levels of PCBs and mercury in white goods fluff for acceptance at Brooks. 3) Implement the sorting program as originally proposed. Require that all white goods "fluff" is tested prior to acceptance at Brooks Landfill. Specify allowable levels of PCBs or mercury in white goods fluff for acceptance at Brooks. No additional requirements for documentation. The first two alternatives address the concerns of the Council to have a certificate or paper trail for all white goods recovered from Brooks. The third alternative protects Brooks from receiving the contaminants, but does not certify how the by-products are handled. The present program is administered by the Landfill Contractor at no additional expense beyond the tipping fee per ton. Implementation of any of the alternatives will have an impact on disposal costs for appliances. The cost impact of each alternative is uncertain. Staff is working with two vendors to get more information regarding expected costs. Based on guidance received from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) in a letter dated January 9, 1996, the current White Goods Sorting Program at Brooks Landfill is in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Regarding the separation and transfer of white goods by the contractor, the City is contractually indemnified from liability with respect to any violation or arguable violation of any environmental laws, restrictions or regulations. Federal environmental regulations require the removal of CFCs from white goods before they can be landfilled. Appliances such as air conditioners and refrigerators containing these substances are required to have them removed by EPA- certified technicians, and tagged prior to acceptance at Brooks (even though these appliances are no longer landfilled). Removal, specific handling, and storage of components containing hazardous or regulated material at the Landfill would fall under special permitting requirements under KDHE. As a small quantity hazardous waste generator, the facility would be required to meet special requirements for construction, and certification and training for Herzog employees would be required to meet federal and state regulations. Under KDHE regulations, it is legal for white goods to be buried with other waste at a landfill after the CFCs have been removed. The City is not under a legal mandate to ban or sort white goods. As part of a strategy to conserve landfill space and encourage recycling of valuable resources, the Solid Waste Committee recommended a White Goods Sorting Program. Steve Lackey Director of Public Works, responding to questions, said the tests showed trace amounts of metals and PCBs. The tests cost $175 per test for metals and $40 per test for PCBs. Staff felt Alternative #3 most practical. Regarding the parts per million, the Director of Public Works said, there is no law that sets criteria so research will have to be done to determine the threshold for banning this type of material from a facility. Approximately 60 to 90 days would be needed to gather data and work out the details of a plan to present to KDHE. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- Kamen moved that the program that has been set up be ongoing until Public Works returns to the Council with the information they have requested additional time to get, and that a decision be made at that time as to whether or not requirements be put on the testing of fluff. Council Member Kamen further clarified that he hoped all fluff coming into the landfill from other sources would be tested. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. Z-3183 Z-3183 - REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM "G" MOBILE HOME DISTRICT TO "BB" OFFICE DISTRICT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET SOUTH OF 47TH STREET SOUTH ON THE WEST SIDE OF MERIDIAN AVENUE. Continued from February 13, 1996. On February 13, 1996, failed to receive the required number of votes. The Council then reconsidered the Item and deferred the Item to today's meeting. Council Member Cather Council Member Cather stated that, on February 13, 1996, "The biggest thing that I talked about was the view of mine that this was spot zoning and counsel has prepared for us a Finding Number One that addresses the fact that this is spot zoning. There are also three other findings that we did, in fact, discuss - such as the Comprehensive Plan which is in Finding Number Three, suitability of the property which is Finding Number Two, and the fact that there was a protest that was made on this particular piece by an adjoining land owner." Gary Rebenstorf Director of Law, responding to a question, explained that the motion required only four votes to pass. Motion -- Cather moved that having reviewed the record of the MAPC hearing of November 30, 1995, and its reconsideration of January 25, 1996, and Agenda Report of the Metropolitan Area Planning Department in Zoning Case Z-3183, and in accordance with MAPC Policy No. 10 previously adopted by this Council, and having reviewed the factors contained therein, the following findings of fact be adopted: 1. Zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There are no other non-residential uses anywhere in the vicinity of the tract in question. The property is completely surrounded by tracts that are zoned in residential categories. Office zoning would constitute a "spot" that is unrelated to the surrounding pattern of zoning and uses. 2. Suitability of the property as currently restricted: The existing unit on the property is residential in character and can be easily converted and used as a dwelling unit in conformance with the existing "G" zoning. The property also could continue to be used under the existing zoning for an on-site sales office which is "accessory" to the manufactured home park being developed on the abutting property. 3. Conformance to plans or policies. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that most office uses can be developed on existing land already zoned for commercial uses, and in this case, there is substantial land nearby that is so zoned. The plan also suggests that office developments can serve as a buffer between higher intensity commercial use and residential use, but in this case, the property in question does not abut commercial-zoned land and does not buffer the single family unit to the north. 4. Opposition or support of neighborhood residents. The owner of significant acreage north and east of this request site has protested the rezoning at the MAPC hearings, and has filed a valid written protest petition for land which constitutes 85% of the land in the qualifying area. In addition, the CPO Council for this area recommended denial of the rezoning application. And based upon the record and these findings, that the application for rezoning is denied. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris stated that he would vote against the motion. "After seeing these reasons that are listed here, my suspicion that we were taking an inappropriate course of action is confirmed. "Number (1) - the zoning, uses, and character of the neighborhood. There is no other non-residential uses anywhere in the vicinity - it is not even a quarter mile to the corner. There are only two tracts of land between it and the light commercial. So, I do not believe that this, indeed, does constitute spot zoning. "Number (2) - the suitability of the property as currently restricted. That is probably true in every case that we look at and I think that while that may be true, it certainly is not going to be enough to sway, in my opinion, anybody that zoning should not occur. If that was the case, we probably would not have any zoning cases here. "Conformance to plans on policies - it talks about being a buffer and, indeed, there is no buffer between the light commercial on the corner and it is probably likely that this, in time, will serve as that. So, I do not believe that this zoning is in violation of the policies. "And, the opposition or support of neighborhood residents - there was one resident opposed and we have a petition from fifteen or twenty in support. So, to think that you can have used the opposition of the neighborhood as a reason to vote against it when the neighborhood, in fact, is for it - I do not believe is going to hold water." Council Member Cole Council Member Cole explained that her position on this has been, and does remain, that Number One (the fact that are no other non-residential uses anywhere of the vicinity of the tract in question) is most significant in this case. Motion -- carried Motion carried 4 to 3. (Ferris, Gale, Knight - No) ZONE/SIGN CODE REPORT ON PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO PROPOSED UNIFIED ZONING CODE/PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AMENDMENTS TO SIGN CODE. Mayor Knight momentarily absent with Vice Mayor Kamen in the Chair. Marvin Krout Director of Planning reviewed the Item. On February 13, 1996, the City Council received public comments on the proposed new Unified Zoning Code, voted to defer action for two weeks, and instructed staff to prepare a response to the concerns expressed at the meeting. On February 14, 1996, the County Commission received many of the same comments at their hearing on the new code, and the County also deferred this item for two weeks. Staff reviewed the concerns and then met on February 17 with citizens who raised concerns. Staff recommended the following additional changes in the proposed code: - an addition to the purpose statement for PUDs, - an increase in the time for appealing actions of the MAPC on CUPs from 10 to 14 days, - a reference to criteria for reviewing CUP adjustments, - a minor change in the wording on adjustments to height in CUPs. - clarifying wording to the definition of mobile home, and - deletion of part of the purpose statement for the Rural Residential zoning district. February 17 discussion: 1. PUDs. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is a new tool intended to encourage appropriate and sometimes innovative development that does not neatly fit into one of the existing districts. The Old Town Overlay district, which permits residential and industrial uses to coexist, reduces the standard parking requirements, and contains special design requirements, is a good example of how this concept could be used, either for one property or for a larger area with a number of properties. The PUD allows the governing body to "custom-tailor" the rules for uses allowed and development standards. It responds to concerns of developers for more flexibility by allowing a combination of standards that may not be available in any of the existing districts, but it can also protect neighboring property owners by containing special limitations or requirements. The concern expressed at the City Council meeting was that the PUD concept could be "misused"; that it might be used to allow uses that would otherwise be unlikely to be approved under the existing zoning code. Our general response is that, whether zoning requests are filed as PUDs or not, the MAPC and governing bodies should still focus on the relevant issues that are examined with any zoning request: is the use compatible with its surroundings, will it adversely affect nearby property or place strains on community facilities, can the property be used suitably under the current zoning restrictions, is there neighborhood support or opposition, etc. However, in order to help alleviate concerns, an addition to the wording in the last "purpose" statement of the PUD section (III-C.1.a, page 95) as follows is suggested: "4. Allowing deviations from certain zoning standards that would otherwise apply, if not contrary to the general spirit and intent of this Code." 2. Notification. Two concerns were expressed at the public meetings about notification. The first was that the radius/area for calculating protest petitions on zoning applications should remain the same as the radius/area for written notification by property owners, which is determined by MAPC policy and currently varies from 200 feet to 1000 feet in the City, depending on the size of the application (in the County, by state law, notification and protest petition areas are both set at a minimum 1000 feet). This was the recommendation of the MAPC. There was some discussion at the City Council about returning to the previous policy whereby protest petitions in the City were based on a 200 foot radius no matter how far the notification policy extended. Staff explained that this was an issue that was now up to the City Council to decide, and concerns could be taken up privately with individual members. The second concern dealt with the time frame between notification on zoning cases and the MAPC public hearing. These citizens are concerned that the current 31 days to MAPC hearing date from the filing deadline, and 20 days for advertising (the minimum time required by state statute) and mailed notices, is insufficient for neighboring property owners to become informed about the case and to organize opposition when warranted. Initially, citizens had been informed that this issue was a matter of MAPC policy -- that the zoning code did not prevent a longer time frame than 20 days for notification. That was true of the existing code; however, in reviewing the language in the proposed new code again, we now realize that the proposed language does put constraints on processing time. The proposed language (V-C.4, page 178) reads: "Promptly upon determining that an application is complete, the Planning Director shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission, notify the applicant of the meeting and hearing date and give at least 20 days' notice of the hearing....The initial public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be scheduled for the next meeting date for which it is practicable to give at least 20 days' notice." If either or both governing bodies seriously wish to consider establishing a longer time frame anytime soon, then it would be appropriate to delete the last sentence in this subsection. That way, the time frame can be adjusted without going through the process of amending the zoning code. However, the governing bodies would be reminded, as the citizens are reminded at the discussion, many applicants complain that existing time frames are already too long and stifle development. A committee of MAPC and CPO representatives met on this subject last year, and although the time frames were not lengthened, several new procedures were implemented. "Early warning" notices are now supplied to CPO and WIN, before the official notices are mailed. The notification letters have been modified to make them more understandable. Applicants are encouraged to make contact with affected neighbors before filing and/or before the MAPC hearing, and the MAPC has at times deferred hearings in order for the applicant and affected neighbors to get together and try to work out their differences. Rather than extending the time frame, staff agreed to the following suggestions: - "Affirmative action" will be taken to let citizens who contact the department know that they can be notified them of future meetings if they request it. - The sign in the MAPC's hearing room that asks speakers to sign-in will be changed to one that asks any attendees to sign in if they want to be notified of future proceedings. And - A statement will be added in our written notices on when staff reports will be available for review, so citizens know to obtain a copy in advance of the hearing to assist with their preparations. 3. Definitions, appeals, and adjustments. The letter received from Karen Rutherford dealt with six topic areas: a. Definitions. The letter suggested adding or clarifying definitions for 4 terms. Staff does not think that is necessary. The terms "adjustment" and "amendment" are used in different places in the code, and have different procedures and criteria detailed in each place. Although "adjustment" refers generally to administrative actions, and "amendment" to actions requiring public hearings, we feel that general definitions for these terms would just add to the bulk of the code and not be that helpful. There are many other terms that are not defined in the code that would fall into this category. The term "ornamental tower" is not defined in the current code; the proposed definition puts several new requirements on this type of structure that would limit its use as a building feature. The term "intensity" is defined in the proposed code, for purposes of placing a limitation on an administrative adjustment to a CUP to permit an unlisted use, as a use that is first permitted in a more restrictive district than any listed uses. The letter suggested that intensity is a more complicated matter, involving traffic generation and other factors, and the staff should not be adjusting a CUP to permit an unlisted use that is more intensive, in that more general manner, than listed uses. Staff agrees that intensity in the more general sense is an appropriate consideration on CUP adjustments, but we do not believe that the term can be defined in a way that avoids subjective judgment. Every use and the building that contains it represents a unique combination of "impacts": the building height and bulk, the density of people, the hours of operation, the traffic, noise, and/or odor generation, the visual appearance, and other elements. b. Appeal time frame. The letter suggests that most time frames for appeals are only 10 days. Staff clarified that appeals of administrative decisions are not governed by the zoning code, but by the bylaws of the two boards of zoning appeals, and today those are 30 days (City BZA) and 20 days (County BZA). Staff also explained that, regarding appeals of MAPC actions on Conditional Uses, the final recommendation of the MAPC in the proposed code was to expand the time frame from 10 days to 14 days, to coincide with the 14-day period for filing protest petitions which is established by state law. In reviewing the proposed code one more time, it is now thought it would reduce confusion if the time frame for appealing the MAPC action on a CUP (Community Unit Plan) was also increased from 10 days to 14 days, just like Conditional Uses. It is recommended that Section V-E.10 (page 186) be amended to read: "Appeals from the action of the Planning Commission on an application for CUP approval may be taken to the Governing Body by filing an appeal with the Planning Director within 14 days of the date of the Planning Commission hearing." c. Amendments and adjustments to CUPs. The general tone of the letter was that CUPs should be more difficult to change, particularly by administrative adjustment. Staff first pointed out that the current code has no limitations on administrative adjustments, other than that the change cannot be a "substantial deviation", and the proposed code does place some definite limits on adjustments. From a practical standpoint, CUPs impose a lot of special requirements on property owners, and over time, as market preferences change and land uses change in response, it is important to maintain some flexibility on development on these large tracts. It was pointed out that the appeals process is available for anyone who feels that an interpretation or adjustment is wrong. It was felt the suggestion to apply the criteria for obtaining a variance, e.g. proving that the property in question is physically unique, to CUP adjustments was too burdensome. But two wording changes were agreed to regarding CUP adjustments: - that the 4 criteria that are now laid out for approving "zoning adjustments" (limited deviations to height, setback, parking, etc. standards that are established in the zoning code) are also appropriate for the review of CUP adjustments. That would mean adding a reference under Adjustments to CUPS (V-E.14, page 187), that would allow the Planning Director to approve "...minor adjustments to approved CUPs, unless finding that the proposed development would have one or more of the negative impacts stated in Subsection V-I.6, a through d...."(this subsection is found on pages 192-193) - that the maximum height increase in this section (V-E.14.a) be modified from the current 20 percent to "a five foot or 10 percent increase in height, whichever is greater." This would permit an adjustment of up to 5 feet for a building limited in the CUP to 35 feet in height, as opposed to 7 feet. d. Appeals. The letter suggests that notification be provided to all property owners who were originally notified of a public hearing on appeals. We assumed that this would only be applicable to appeals of MAPC decisions on Conditional Uses and CUPs, and that this was not a request for notification on appeals of administrative decisions, where there is no original ownership list, because there is no notification. That was confirmed in the discussion. Staff explained that sometimes we have hundreds of names on an ownership list, and that it would take considerable staff time and cost to send out new notices on appeals. Instead, we suggested that we would send notices to all persons who spoke at the MAPC hearing on the matter or otherwise requested to be notified of future proceedings. That seemed to be acceptable to all participants at the discussion. e. Building permits. The suggestion was that no building permits should be issued, even if "conditional", when an appeal has been filed and is pending. Staff felt that stopping work in this type of situation should be the decision of the property owner, weighing all the risks and the financial implications of proceeding or stopping. When an appeal is filed, the applicant is informed of all risks, and the city/county would not be liable for allowing the construction if the appeal against the applicant is ultimately successful and some or all of the work must be removed. f. Planning Director. The concern in the letter was why these sections (VI-G.5 and 6, pages 200-201) on appeals of decisions by the Planning Director on adjustments do not also provide for appeals by other aggrieved parties. We explained that the purpose of these sections was to clarify that if an applicant's request for an adjustment is rejected, his recourse is to file an application for a variance or an amendment, as appropriate. The rights of other parties to appeal are provided for in other sections of the code. February 23 discussion: Staff from MAPD as well as the city and county code enforcement offices met with several representatives of the manufactured home industry, to follow up on concerns expressed by their spokesman at the County Commission hearing. Their primary concern was with the possibility of an Agricultural Zone. They are opposed to this concept, because it would set up a new requirement in some areas of the county for a public hearing and approval process before they could divide and sell 5-acre tracts. It was explained that the Agricultural Zone was still being discussed with various interest groups, but was not part of the code that was being considered by the governing bodies at this time. We indicated that if the Agricultural Zone had enough supporters to merit further hearings, possibly this summer, they would be notified of these hearings. Also explained was how the proposed code did not create any new requirements for their developments -- no new zoning requirements or platting requirements where there are none today. Some changes in terminology were gone over, e.g. a manufactured home park or subdivision in the county would now require rezoning to the MH district, rather than obtaining a conditional use permit as now required; and the installation of an individual mobile or manufactured home now requiring a "use exception" from the County's Board of Zoning Appeals will instead require a conditional use permit from the MAPC. In the course of discussion, two minor problems with the language in the proposed code were identified, and we agreed to propose these changes: - In the definition of mobile home (II-B.8.k, page 22), it should be clarified that this term includes a home that meets the requirements of a "manufactured home" (built to 1976 HUD code) "...when located in a mobile home park or subdivision." Without this addition, someone might interpret that only mobile homes (built prior to the HUD code) and not manufactured homes are allowed in approved mobile home subdivisions. - The last sentence of the "purpose" statement for the Rural Residential district (II-B.2.a, page 39) indicates that the RR district is intended for the unincorporated area, "...although not in areas containing prime agricultural resources." This statement was intended to contrast with the purpose stated for the proposed Agricultural District. Since the Agricultural District has been deleted from the proposed code at this time, we agree it would make sense to delete this portion of the sentence. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris, regarding the petition and notification area being the same, said he could understand the convenience but when super majorities are required the Council should not go back to that because of the dilution and the requirement that it should apply to that. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said those properties closest to the application area should make the decision. It is also hard to explain to the neighborhood what is going on. The notification may be confusing if the area is different than the protest area but, "I remain convinced, as you apparently have, that we really need to go with that smaller radius to make that a workable process for people who feel strongly about something." Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen said there needs to be motivation for the applicants to go out and talk to their neighbors. Council Member Ferris Council Member Ferris explained that if a 1,000 foot radius is required, the protest ability may be diluted so much, in a large development, that while there may be a large number in opposition - a protest petition may not be able to be done. With a 1,000 foot radius, everyone in a 200 foot radius could be in opposition and still not have a protest petition. Council Member Cole Council Member Cole said the new zoning code encourages applicants to go out and talk with neighborhoods. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard. Elizabeth Bishop Elizabeth Bishop, representing Wichita Independent Neighborhoods, said the notification process bears further study and work on the process. Regarding the time frame, almost every time people talk about these issues it is regarding insufficient time. Motion -- Ferris moved that the proposed unified zoning code, as recommended by the MAPC, be approved subject to the additional technical changes recommended by Staff and with the protest area being 200 feet no matter how large the notification area; that staff be directed to prepare a final ordinance for adoption by the Council on March 5, 1996; and that the sign code ordinance also be placed on first -- carried reading on March 5, 1996. Motion carried 7 to 0. FINANCIAL REPORT QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT. The Report is for the period ended December 31, 1995. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight said, "In looking at this report, I believe that we are assembling cash in excess of what we should to be prudent. I say that in the context that we have made some significant commitments, specifically to public safety, that are going to have to be absorbed and sustained in the out years - certainly in two or three years. I see no likely scenario, in looking at this, why anyone would even hint that there would be a property tax increase for the Municipal Corporation of the City of Wichita for 1997." "In the General fund, for example, we have a cash balance that is sixteen or seventeen percent. I think that is in excess of what would be prudent. But, what I want to be absolutely sure of is that anything that we do with respect to the budget is defined by policy positions of the City Council." Mayor Knight said he would the Director of Finance, the City Manager, and Staff bring back some options and assessments for the Council. "There are some things that are pretty clear to me. One is that the City Manager is doing a very good job in sitting on expenditures. I came from a culture, for two and a- half years, where you spend everything or you lose budget authority the next year. I do not say that as a criticism of state government but it is a very different way of looking at budgets. What I see is that the Manager has some up with something like $1.5 or $2 million dollars that was not expended which is a tribute to a very fine staff that works for this City. But, when you look through the cash, you have got a lot of cash in this City scattered throughout multiple accounts - some of which are pretty hard to track for lay people like myself and my colleagues. But, there are some that are excessively high. There may have been a reason at one time. If there is still a reason I think it ought to be brought back to the Council and allow the staff to make their case and we will decide if we want to maintain them at those levels. There may be some very compelling reasons to do that - maybe to soften '98, '99 - I do not know. But I really want to be sure that is a policy decision and it is not a decision that is made absent Council participation. "I do think, as one out of seven, that we can assure voters that there is no reason that there would be a property tax increase, as a result of City Government, for 1997." Mayor Knight said he thought the Director of Water and Sewer needs to give the Council the rationale for carrying the amount of cash the Water Department is carrying. "In looking at this, it would be hard to anticipate any support for rate increases unless there is an explanation to it." "What I would like you to respond to is a method to come back and start giving this Council an opportunity to work through some of these numbers and determine whether or not it makes sense to carry that much cash." "I wish there was a way to integrate, at least for purposes of the community, the school, the county, and the City in these taxing jurisdictions." "It seems like we would be kind of sharing this and, for the benefit of the taxpayer, for them to at least believe that there is coordination and a common purpose." "This is good news to the community if, in fact, they want some assurance that they are not going to be asked to dig deeper in their pocket next year. For those that want a little closer monitoring and a little bit more sophisticated judgment on taxes, I guess we have a little more work to do. At a minimum, we need to discuss it among ourselves, in conjunction with taxpayers, as to where we are at. I am not interested in depleting cash reserves but I do not think that we can probably defend some of the levels that we see, as far as I am concerned." Council Member Cather Council Member Cather said the City is getting ready to confront substantial expenditures with regard to the landfill, the Municipal Court is in grave need of infusion of funds to fix some problems, the Park Department has a reduced staff, and there are a lot of problems in other areas. Instead of carrying forward the amounts of cash in reserves currently being carried, perhaps some of the things like the crowded Municipal Court docket conditions could be addressed. There are also clerks in the Municipal Court Clerk's office who must share desks. It is hoped some of the balances being carried forward might be used as they are really intended to be used by the public. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight stated that he wants to have a thoughtful pattern, path, and structure to the City's financial nomenclature and it does not make sense to carry sixteen or seventeen percent cash balance in the General Fund. The Council needs to start talking about these things and making policy decisions as to where the City is going. Council Member Kamen Council Member Kamen spoke in support of speeding up the Municipal Court situation. An injustice is being done to those appearing in Municipal Court. Chris Cherches City Manager said the Municipal Court report will be on the March 5, 1996, Workshop Agenda. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight said the Director of Finance ought to have the professional freedom to share his view with the Council. Ray Trail Director of Finance said he had no exception to take with any of the comments that have been made. The Director of Finance said the City's Pension Funds also enjoyed a banner year and grew by over $100 million combined value - an increase of almost 25 percent in the entire port folio. It is expected to see those kinds of results translated for the Council's benefit in the form of ultimately lower employer rates of contribution into pension requirements. A variety of issues are being looked into regarding cash. The long-standing policy of the Council has to been to maintain cash, for example, in the General Fund of between five and ten percent and it is certainly above that level. The Financial Plan, which the City Council will be seeing by the end of March or the first part of April, will incorporate the year-end 1995 numbers, an update of where we think we are looking to be in the 1996 Budget, a projection of where it is thought the 1997 and beyond Budget will take the Council, and policy options as to tax rates, utility rates, and to other policy options. All matters regarding cash balances of the various funds will be addressed in that Financial Plan. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Report be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. URBAN RENEWAL AMEND. PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN RENEWAL AMENDMENT FOR EAST BANK. Marvin Krout Director of Planning reviewed the Item. Agenda Report No. 96-136. The "General Urban Renewal Plan for Wichita Neighborhood Development Program, Urban Renewal Area" was originally adopted on November 27, 1972, and has served since as the official basis for a number of redevelopment projects in the downtown and surrounding area. The plan contains a "General Land Use Plan" map, a description of predominant land use categories, planning standards, and a description of techniques to be used to achieve plan objectives. In general, plan objectives are "the creation of a physical character and environment meeting desirable planning standards, the provision of needed public services and amenities, and the improvement of social and economic conditions". Among the land use areas identified in the original plan and subsequent amendments is one for the "Civic Center" area (R-19) established in 1968. These areas have their own special provisions and are not affected by this proposed amendment to the general plan. According to K.S.A. 17-4750, any transfer of property by a municipality in an urban renewal area must be in accordance with the applicable urban renewal plan. It has been found necessary to amend the original plan from time to time to respond to changing needs. According to K.S.A. 17-4747, any amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan must be submitted to the appropriate planning commission for review and recommendation as to the amendment's conformity with the general plan for the development of the community as a whole. The City of Wichita is in the process of completing a development agreement for a proposed new hotel complex south and west of the City's convention center. The urban renewal plan is not consistent with the proposed hotel or the anticipated redevelopment of nearby city-owned property. An amendment to the "General Land Use Plan" map is therefore proposed for the land on which the hotel will be constructed, north of Waterman Street between the Convention Center and the river, as well as the remaining area south of the hotel and Convention Center, from Waterman Street to Kellogg and from Main Street to the river. The land inside the boundaries of the "Civic Center" renewal area is not affected by this proposed amendment to the General Land Use Plan. The area is currently designated as "public buildings" and "highway and service commercial" on the "General Land Use Plan" map. The use designations and the development standards for these categories are not reflective of the intended uses. The proposed redevelopment project contains uses broader than was contemplated in the "public" land use category, and future development to the south is expected to be of a nature that is not characterized as "highway or service commercial". The hotel and other future buildings in this area may well exceed the 0.5:1 maximum floor area and coverage ratios in the "highway and service commercial" category. Therefore, the amendment proposes that the area be redesignated to the proposed "Central Business District" category, which recognizes the special nature and higher intensity of anticipated uses. The officially adopted downtown element of the Comprehensive Plan (RTKL Plan, 1990) indicates that the area being considered for the proposed hotel was one of four "interchangeable development sites for office, hotel, or apartment towers" as part of the proposed redevelopment of the East Bank area. The downtown plan recommended "mixed-use development" for the general area south of the Convention Center to Kellogg, between Main Street and the river. State law (K.S.A. 17-4747) requires that the governing body must make the following findings in approving or amending an urban renewal plan: 1. That the urban renewal plan or plan amendment conforms to the general plan of the municipality. As required by state law, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment for the East Bank area on January 25, and they found (unanimously) that the amendment does conform to the general plan. 2. That a feasible method exists for the location of families who will be displaced from the urban renewal area in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families. There are approximately 25 dwelling units remaining in the East Bank area, all privately owned and operated. There are no current plans for City action to remove these units. But to the extent that any families will be displaced by any future project allowed under this amendment, there is an abundance of affordable rental housing in the general vicinity for any households which may be displaced; therefore no special City relocation efforts should be necessary. According to the 1990 Census, the two census tracts comprising most of the city's downtown area contained a total of 2,130 dwelling units, 1,588 of which were rental units. Of the rental units, 335, or over 20%, were vacant. The average rental rate for housing in these two census tracts was $272, and 269 of these units charged less than $200 rental fees. A more recent report of the rental housing market, confined to the more professionally managed projects in the city, indicates a 10.1% vacancy rate citywide, and 11.9% vacancy rate in the downtown area. 3. That private enterprise will be afforded maximum opportunity for rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area. The City of Wichita has entered into a development agreement with a private development company which will construct and operate a 300-room hotel with meeting rooms and a 450 space parking garage. A total of $21 million in private investment raised from equity and lenders will be spent on the construction. Earlier in the East Bank area, the City entered into an agreement with a private nonprofit corporation to lease a vacant warehouse building for renovation and use as a boathouse and meeting rooms. That group raised over $1 million in private funds for this project. As new opportunities arise on the East Bank, the City can be expected to continue to maximize opportunities for private enterprise to participate in development. Approval of these proposed amendments does not commit the City Council to the expenditure of any additional funds. Notification of the public hearing has been provided as required by state statute. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard and no one appeared. Motion -- Cole moved that the comments be received; the public hearing be closed; and the Resolution amending the Urban Renewal Plan, based on the findings in the staff report that a feasible method exists for relocation of households without undue hardship, that the amendments conform to the general plan, and that the intended plans provide maximum opportunity for redevelopment by private enterprise, be -- carried adopted and recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-061 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Wichita, Kansas, amending the General Urban Renewal Plan of November 27, 1972, for Wichita NDP Urban Renewal Area of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Cole moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. OFF AGENDA ITEM RENAMING OF EXPO HALL. Motion -- Knight moved that the rules be set aside and an Item be taken up off the Agenda. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight explained that it is his intent to bring up, for Council consideration in the next couple of weeks, the suggestion of renaming the Exhibition Hall in honor of former Council Member and Mayor Bob Brown. Mayor Knight stated that he is not interested in having this referred to a committee but would like to have Council Member thoughts over the next week or two. Bob Brown was directly and intimately connected with the facility being built. There is confusion as to the difference between the Expo Hall and the Convention Hall. The person who had a lot to do with getting the facility constructed would be honored and there will be some clarity made. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS PROCLAMATIONS. -- Professional Social Work Month -- Music In Our Schools Month -- Mental Retardation Awareness Month -- Youth Art Month -- National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 201 Food Drive Day Motion -- carried Knight moved that the proclamations be authorized. Motion carried 7 to 0. APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS There were no appointments made. CONSENT AGENDA Knight moved that the Consent Agenda, except Items 28 and 35, 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 20 AND 26, 1996. At 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 16, 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 2/20/96) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION: SEWERS, PAVING AND WATER MAINS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS 1996 Contract Maintenance Concrete Pavement Repair of Arterial Streets at various locations. (132357/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01-23-96) (District all) Barkley Construction - $319,600.00 (Engineer's Construction Estimate) Carr Avenue from the west line of the Maize Avenue Second Addition to Maize Road (south of Kellogg, west of Maize). (472-82433/762344/490337) Carr shall be closed for through traffic during construction. (Council approval date 02- 08-94) (District V) Asphalt Construction - $90,338.00 Drainage, Paving, Channelization, Signalization and Landscaping Improvements at the Intersection of Harry and Edgemoor. (468-82138/724179/420517 & 472-82668/706291/405183) Traffic to be maintained during construction with one lane, one way traffic at all times. (Council approval date 03-21-95 & 01- 09-96) (District III) Ritchie Paving - $773,010.75 (Total Lump Sum with Add. Alt.) 1995 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program - Reconstruct the 8" Sanitary Sewer in the alley west of Dodge Street from the first manhole south of Third Street to the end of the line south of McLean (west of Seneca, south of McLean). (468-82558/621235/533226) Third Street and alley to be closed to traffic. (Council approval date 07-18-95) (District VI) WB Carter Construction Co., Inc. - $49,000.00 Knight moved that the contracts be awarded as outlined above, subject to check, same being the lowest and best bids within the Engineer's construction estimates, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the contracts for the City. Motion carried 7 to 0. PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: MISCELLANEOUS FERTILIZERS, FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND INSECTICIDES (170274, 170282, 170258, 170266, 172155, 172015, 173310, 173609, 173286) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Item 1 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 430.40 (Total Net Bid) Item 2 - Garden Wise - $ 5,820.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 3 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 328.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 4 - Garden Wise - $ 1,967.50 (Total Net Bid) Item 5 - Estes, Inc. - $ 2,574.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 6 - Greenkeeper Co., Inc. - $ 2,560.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 7 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 1,260.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 8 - Outdoor - $ 2,287.20 (Total Net Bid) Item 9 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 406.40 (Total Net Bid) Item 10 - United Horticultural Supply - $ 1,032.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 11 - Robison's Lawn & Golf, Inc. - $ 3,000.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 12 - Robison's Lawn & Golf, Inc. - $14,100.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 13 - Andale Farmers COOP - $ 1,800.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 14 - Grass Pad, Inc. - $ 1,790.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 15 - Estes, Inc. - $ 616.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 16 - Estes, Inc. - $ 5,216.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 17 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 5,076.10 (Total Net Bid) Item 18 - Garden Wise - $ 366.80 (Total Net Bid) Item 19 - Modern Distributing Co. - $ 2,328.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 20 - Grass Pad, Inc. - $ 390.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 21 - D & D Turf Supply, Inc. - $ 1,511.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 22 - D & D Turf Supply, Inc.- $ 4,289.80 (Total Net Bid) Item 23 - Modern Distributing Co. - $ 714.60 (Total Net Bid) Item 24 - Outdoor - $ 667.10 (Total Net Bid) Item 25 - Garden Wise - $ 444.42 (Total Net Bid) Item 26 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 330.77 (Total Net Bid) Item 27 - United Horticultural Supply - $ 2,420.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 28 - Grass Pad, Inc. - $ 2,034.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 29 - Grass Pad, Inc. - $ 2,640.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 30 - The Scotts Co. - $ 980.56 (Total Net Bid) Item 31 - The Scotts Co.- $ 427.70 (Total Net Bid) Item 32 - The Scotts Co. - $ 1,368.64 (Total Net Bid) Item 33 - The Scotts Co. - $ 388.22 (Total Net Bid) Item 34 - The Scotts Co. - $ 296.10 (Total Net Bid) Item 35 - The Scotts Co. - $ 736.96 (Total Net Bid) Item 36 - Garden Wise - $ 328.93 (Total Net Bid) Item 37 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 1,147.30 (Total Net Bid) Item 38 - Professional Turf Specialties $ 1,265.60 (Total Net Bid) Item 39 - Cornbelt Chemical Co. - $ 3,511.08 (Total Net Bid) Item 40 - Garden Wise - $ 1,501.14 (Total Net Bid) Item 41 - Garden Wise - $17,212.50 (Total Net Bid) Item 42 - Garden Wise - $ 9,436.40 (Total Net Bid) PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT: GRASS SEED (170258-170274-696039) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Item 1 - Professional Turf Specialties, Inc. - $ .83 per pound Item 2 - Garden Wise Distributors - $ .90 per pound Item 3 - Garden Wise Distributors - $2.08 per pound Item 4 - Royal Seeds - $5.75 per pound PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT: GRASS SEED (173013 & 173286)AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Item 1 - Valley Feed & Seed, Inc. - $12,312.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 2 - Garden Wise Distributors - $ 6,831.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 3 - Pennington Seed, Inc. - $ 5,200.00 (Total Net Bid) The Board of Bids and Contracts recommended that the contract be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Knight moved that the ontract be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Motion carried 7 to 0. At 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 23, 1996, 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 2/26/96) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION: SEWERS, PAVING AND WATER MAINS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS 1996 Contract Maintenance Asphalt Street Heater- Scarification at various locations. (132266/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01- 23-96) (District all) Cutler Repaving - $307,520.00 (Engineer's Construction Estimate) Lateral 1, Main 18, Southwest Interceptor Sewer to serve Hickory Creek Estates Addition (south of 13th, west of 119th Street West). (468-82562/742601/480352) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 01-23-96) (District V) Nowak Construction - $254,167.00 (Negotiated Engineer's Construction Estimate) Water Distribution System to serve Robbins Farm Fourth Addition (west of Broadway, north of 55th Street South). (448-88929/732982/470376) Traffic to be maintained during construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 10-17-95) (District IV) Nowak Construction - $29,995.00 Knight moved that the contract 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. PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT (785477 & 785378) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Item 1 - Iron Mountain Forge - $23,467.79 (Total Net Bid) Item 2 - Bergfeld Recreation Inc. - $ 324.00 (Total Net Bid) Item 3 - Iron Mountain Forge - $451.52 (Total Net Bid) Item 4 - Fry & Associates Inc. - $ 450.00 (Total Net Bid) WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT/WATER DISTRIBUTION DIVISION: WATERWORKS SUPPLIES (181222-5401) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Item 1 - Wichita Winwater Works Co. - $ 5,650.50 (Total Net Bid)# *** Item 2 - Water Products Inc. - $118.20 (Total Net Bid)# Item 3 - Water Products Inc. - $ 1,233.48 (Total Net Bid)# Item 4 - Ferguson Enterprises - $ 1,788.50 (Total Net Bid)# ** Item 5 - Wichita Winwater Works Co. - $ 948.50 (Total Net Bid)# *** Item 6 - Hajoca Corp. - $ 2,577.53 (Total Net Bid)# ## Item 7 - Water Products Inc. - $335.00 (Total Net Bid)# Item 8 - Water Products Inc. - $ 1,571.40 (Total Net Bid)# # Plus Applicable Sales Tax ## 2% - 10th ** 1% 30 *** 2% - 30 WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT/PRODUCTION & PUMPING DIVISION: RECONDITIONING AND REPAIR OF A DYNAMATIC LIQUID COOLED EDDY-CURRENT COUPLING (181677) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Wazee Electric Co. - $31,950.00 (Total Net Bid Plus Applicable Sales Tax) Knight moved that the contract be awarded as outlined above, same being the lowest and best bid. Motion carried 7 to 0. LICENSE APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES TO RETAIL CEREAL MALT BEVERAGES. Renewal 1996 (Consumption on Premises) Carol Bruff Residence Inn Marriott*411 South Webb Rd. Carol Bruff Residence Inn Marriott*120 W. Orme St. Kevin Raven Taco Tico* 460 N. West St. (Consumption off Premises) Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #321 6011 W. Central Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #371 2838 W. Central Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #349 1110 W. Douglas Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #343 242 S. Tyler Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #320 1021 W. 31st Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #373 1610 E. Lincoln Roy E. Brockmeier QuikTrip #391 730 N. Broadway Helen Lu KC Gas & Groceries1161 N. Broadway New Operator 1996 (Consumption on Premises) Wayne L. Pearson The Tropics Lounge*2705 N. Broadway New Establishment 1996 (Consumption on Premises) Stephen Craig Shaffer Golfland* 6655 E. Harry *General Retailer--beer sales derive less than 50% of gross revenues. Motion -- Knight moved that the licenses be approved subject to Staff review and -- carried approval. Motion carried 7 to 0. PLANS AND SPECS. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. a. 1996 Contract Maintenance Concrete Pavement Repair of Arterial Streets, Phase II at various locations. (132357/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01-23-96) (District all) b. 1996 Contract Maintenance Concrete Pavement Repair of Residential Streets at various locations. (131516/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01-23-96) (District all) c. Drainage Improvements to Gypsum Creek, west of Hillside. (468-82473/724211/420521) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 06-13-95) (District III) Motion -- Knight moved that the plans and specifications be approved and the City Clerk be instructed to advertise for bids to be submitted to the Board of Bids and -- carried Contracts by 10:00 a.m., March 8, 1996. Motion carried 7 to 0. SUBDIVISION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. a. Honeytree/Bluestem from South Line of Lot 1, Block 2, Smithmoor Fourth Addition, to northeasterly line of Smithmoor Fourth Addition; Brandon from southerly line of Lot 4, Block 2, Smithmoor Fourth Addition to south line of Bluestem; and Shiloh from southerly line of Lot 3, Block 3, Smithmoor Fourth Addition to south line of Bluestem, Smithmoor Fourth Addition (south of Harry, east of Webb). (472- 82538/763490/490452) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-29-94) (District 2) b. Bella Vista from the east line of Lot 1, Block F, to the east line of Lot 1, Block J, Sunridge Second Addition; Covington from the south line of Lot 11, Block G, and south line of Lot 9, Block I, to the south line of Bella Vista; Denise Marie from the south line of Lot 2, Block I, and south line of Lot 12, Block J, to the west line of Lot 12, Block G, and west line of Lot 7, Block F; Covington Court from the east line of Covington to and including cul-de-sac serving Lots 4 through 7, Block J, Sunridge Second Addition; and that sidewalk be constructed on both sides of Bella Vista from the west line of Lot 13, Block F, to the east line of Lot 1, Block J, Sunridge Second Addition, and on the west side of Covington from the south line of Lot 11, Block G, Sunridge Second Addition to the south line of Bella Vista, Sunridge 2nd & 3rd Additions (south of 21st, east of 119th Street West). (472-82641/763482/490451) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-07- 95) (District 5) c. Storm Water Sewer #467 to serve Sunridge 2nd and 3rd Additions (south of 21st, east of 119th Street West). (468-82514/750737/485109) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-07-95) (District 5) d. Storm Water Sewer #415 to serve Smithmoor Third Addition (south of Harry, west of Greenwich). (468- 82118/750745/485110) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 05-21-91) (District 2) e. Water Distribution System to serve Sunridge 2nd Addition, Phase 2 (south of 21st, east of 119th Street West). (448-88946/733014/470379) Traffic to be maintained during construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 11-07-95) (District 5) Motion -- Knight moved that the plans and specifications be approved and the City Clerk be instructed to advertise for bids to be submitted to the Board of Bids and -- carried Contracts by 10:00 a.m., March 8, 1996. Motion carried 7 to 0. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES. a. 1996 Contract Maintenance Preparatory Curb and Gutter Repair and Miscellaneous Concrete Repair at various locations - $302,500.00. (132258/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01-23- 96) (District all) b. Ralph Wulz Riverside Tennis Complex (Central and Nims) - $120,000.00. (472-82669/785493) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 01-05-96) (District VI) c. Water Distribution System to serve Smithmoor Fourth Addition (south of Harry, east of Webb) - $45,000.00. (448-88878/733022/470380) Traffic to be maintained during construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 11-29-94) (District II) d. Water Distribution System to serve Windwood and Hedge Apple Addition (south of 21st, west of Maize) - $167,000.00. (448-88961/733048/470382) Traffic to be maintained during construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 11-21-95) (District V) e. Water Distribution System to serve Windwood Addition (south of 21st, west of Maize) - $70,720.00. (448- 88957/733055/470383) Traffic to be maintained during construction using flagpersons and barricades. (Council approval date 11-21-95) (District V) f. Lateral 37, Main 12, Southwest Interceptor Sewer to serve Sunridge Second Addition (south of 21st, east of 119th St. West) - $19,000.00. (468-82487/742536/480345) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 08-15-95) (District V) g. Lateral 38, Main 12, Southwest Interceptor Sewer to serve Sunridge Second Addition (south of 21st, east of 119th St. West) - $37,000.00. (468-82513/742544/480346) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 11-07-95) (District V) h. North Shore Boulevard from 13th Street North to School Circle to and including cul-de-sac; Ponderosa from EL of the plat to EL of North Shore Boulevard; Warren Circle to and including cul-de-sac; North Shore Circle to and including cul- de-sac; Briarwood Circle to and including cul-de-sac; and Decel Lane on the south side of 13th Street North to serve North Shore Boulevard, Spinnaker Coves Hoskinson Addition (south of 13th, east of Ridge) - $666,740.00. (472-82612/763383/490441) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 07-25-95) (District V) i. Baytree, Britton, and Callahan from the south line of Sterling to the east line of Baytree, and Britton Circle, serving Lots 12 through 27, Block 1; Callahan Court, serving Lots 34 through 38, Block 1; and Baytree Court, serving Lots 12 through 16, Block 2, Sterling Farms Sixth Addition (west of Tyler, north of 21st) - $347,750.00. (472- 82631/763409/490443) Does not affect existing traffic. (Council approval date 02-06-96) (District V) j. 1996 Contract Maintenance Concrete Pavement Repair of Arterial Streets at various locations - $351,800.00. (132357/112000) Traffic to be maintained through construction. (Council approval date 01-23-96) (District all). k. Carr Avenue from the west line of the Maize Avenue Second Addition to Maize Road (south of Kellogg, west of Maize) - $125,370.00. (472-82433/762344/490337) Carr shall be closed for through traffic during construction. (Council approval date 02-08-94) (District V) l. Drainage, Paving, Channelization, Signalization and Landscaping Improvements at the Intersection of Harry and Edgemoor - $900,000.00. (468-82138/724179/420517 & 472-82668/706291/405183) Traffic to be maintained during construction with one lane, one way traffic at all times. (Council approval date 03-21-95 & 01-09-96) (District III) m. 1995 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program - Reconstruct the 8" Sanitary Sewer in the alley west of Dodge Street from the first manhole south of Third Street to the end of the line south of McLean (west of Seneca, south of McLean) - $65,000.00. (468-82558/621235/533226) Third Street and alley to be closed to traffic. (Council approval date 07-18-95) (District VI) n. Repair and replacement of the existing sanitary sewer at Seneca and Irving, in conjunction with the Seneca and McCormick paving project - $8,000.00. (621268/533237) Motion -- Knight moved that the preliminary estimates be approved and filed. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. PETITIONS PETITION FOR SANITARY SEWER TO SERVE MARSHALL ADDITION AND AN UNPLATTED TRACT (EAST OF MAIZE, NORTH OF KELLOGG). (District V) Agenda Report No. 96-137. The signatures on the petition represent 100% of the improvement district. The improvement district contains single-family homes on large, suburban lots. The area was developed outside the City on septic tank sewer systems. The project budget is $38,000. The funding source is Special Assessments. The method of assessment is the fractional basis. Assessments to individual properties range from $6,000 to $10,000 per lot. Motion -- Knight moved that the Petition be approved and the Resolution be adopted. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-064 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Lateral 26, Main 1, Cowskin Interceptor Sewer (east of Maize, north of Kellogg) Project No. 468-82573 in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. PETITION FOR STORM WATER SEWER TO SERVE WINDWOOD ADDITION (SOUTH OF 21ST, WEST OF MAIZE ROAD). (District V) Agenda Report No. 96-138. On November 21, 1995, the City Council approved a storm water sewer petition to serve Windwood Addition, a new single-family development on the south side of 21st, west of Maize Road. During the preparation of construction plans, it was determined that it is more cost effective to combine the project with a Maize Road drainage system to be built this year. A petition has been prepared which combines the two projects. The signature on the petition represents 100% of the improvement district. The Maize Road storm water sewer is part of a larger project to widen the street between 13th and 21st. Storm Water will flow east from Windwood Addition, along and under Maize Road, eventually entering a ditch 1/2 mile east of Maize Road. The project budget is $155,000, with $9,000 paid by the City and $146,000 assessed to the improvement district. The City's share is budgeted within the Maize Road improvement approved by the City Council on February 28, 1995. The funding source for the City share is General Obligation Bonds. Motion -- Knight moved that the Petition be approved and the Resolution be adopted. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-065 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing construction of Storm Water Sewer No. 468 (south of 21st, west of Maize) Project No. 468-82524 in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. BOARDS MINUTES MINUTES OF ADVISORY BOARDS. Board of Appeals of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, 2/6/96 Board of Code Standards and Appeals, 2/5/96 Board of Electrical Appeals, 1/5/96 CPO Coordinating Board, 2/7/96 CPO Southeast 3, 2/8/96 CPO Southwest 4, 2/8/96 Human Services Board, 1/25/96 Public Art Advisory Board, 1/11/96 Wichita Airport Authority, 2/5/96, 1/16/96 Wichita Art Museum Board, 1/25/96 Wichita Commission on the Status of Women, 2/7/96 Wichita/Sedgwick County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Board, 1/11/96 Wichita/Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 1/11/96 Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Minutes be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. EASEMENTS/DEDICATIONS EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS. a. Easement dated January 25, 1996, from Betty & Bernard Novick for a tract in the Northeast Quarter, Section 5, Township 28 South, Range 2 East (Private Sewer Project, Index #607861) (no cost to City). Has been filed and recorded. b. Drainage Easement dated December 1, 1995, for a tract in J&G Addition from George R. Tiller (Kellogg & Oliver, Index #700559) (no cost to City). Has been filed and recorded. c. Dedication dated January 31, 1996, from Randall C. Doerksen for a tract in Friends University Addition (Storm Water Sewer #471, Index #750752) (no cost to City). d. Easement dated January 19, 1996, from Rick Thompson for tracts in Pawnee Mesa Addition (Private Sewer, Index #607861) (no cost to City). Has been filed and recorded. Motion -- Knight moved that the documents be received and filed and the City Clerk be -- carried instructed to record with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried 7 to 0. STREET CLOSURES/USES CONSIDERATION OF STREET CLOSURES/USES. There were no closures/uses considered. WEAPONS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS DESTRUCTION. Agenda Report No. 96-139. The Police Department has requested authorization to destroy several weapons which have been confiscated in criminal activity and are no longer needed as evidence. City Code provides that weapons seized in connection with criminal activity shall be destroyed or forfeited to the Wichita Police Department. All transactions involving weapon disposal must have prior approval of the City Manager. A list of weapons being destroyed has been provided and includes a total of 194 handguns and 41 long guns. The destruction of the weapons will be witnessed and monitored by staff. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Report be received and filed. Motion carried 7 to 0. ARTS GRANT APPLICATIONS ARTS IN EDUCATION GRANT APPLICATIONS TO KANSAS ARTS COMMISSION. a. Cultural Arts Program/The Arc and Heartspring Agenda Report No. 96-140. The grant application will be for $4,280 to finance enhancements to the cultural arts programs which target youth in special populations, specifically children participating in YESS Camp offered by The Arc. b. Arts Center Art Education Program Agenda Report No. 96-141. The grant application will be for $14,311 to finance enhancements to cultural arts programs offered to youth between the ages of 6 and 15, double the number of third-graders served through the ArtReach program, and to reinstate the arts in schools service where city arts instructors visit area classrooms. Motion -- Knight moved that the applications be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried sign submission letters. Motion carried 7 to 0. BUDGET APPROVAL APPROVAL OF 1996 OPERATING BUDGETS. a. Approval of 1996 Operating Budget for Victoria Park Apartments, 612 E. Douglas. (District IV) Agenda Report No. 96-142. Victoria Park Apartments is a three-story building located at 612 E. Douglas. The City Council approved acquisition of this property from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on September 14, 1993. The acquisition was finalized on September 30, 19094. The property is improved with 20 apartment units in the upper two floors and commercial space on the ground level. The apartment units are subject to a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract. This contract provides rental subsidies and requires that the apartment s are leased to very-low income individuals. The property was offered for sale via a Request for Proposal (RFP) in 1995. No acceptable offers were received. During the 1995 budget cycle, it was projected that the property would be sold prior to 1996 so budget was projected for the property. An interim budget is now required to operate the property until the 1996 Revised Budget is approved. To this end the following budget is submitted for approval: Rental Income: $30,000 Utilities: $11,700 Maintenance: 7,300 Property Taxes: 4,400 Other Contractuals: 3,000$26,400 Commodities: 1,000 Expenses: $27,400 Income: $ 2,600 Victoria Park is managed as a self-sufficient special revenue fund. In 1995, revenues exceeded expenses by $11,747. Budgeted expenses are based on 1995 actual amounts. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the budget be approved. Motion carried 7 to 0. b. Approval of 1996 Operating Budget for City Hall Parking Garage. Agenda Report No. 96-143. The City Hall Parking Garage was approved and constructed during 1995. Public Works included the costs of physically maintaining the facility in the 1995 budget as a program option. Revenues and payroll costs were not included as the nature of the garage operations had not been determined at the time the budget was approved. Therefore, an interim budget approval containing these items is required. The following budget is submitted for approval. All expenses except payroll is based on the budget submitted by Public Works. The budget will be refined during the 1996 budget cycle based on actual operating costs. Income $400,000 Expenses Payroll $75,000 Utilities 31,200 Insurance 5,000 Maintenance 11,270 Commodities 3,700 -$126,170 Income $233,730 The garage is operated under a self-funding special revenue fund. Net proceeds from the garage will be used to pay the debt service associated with the garage construction. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the budget be approved. Motion carried 7 to 0. AIRPORT CIP CAPITAL PROJECT INITIATION - THE WICHITA AIRPORT AUTHORITY. a. Electrical Substation A Repairs. Agenda Report No. 96-144. The Electrical Substation A Repairs represents improvements that will be made to Mid-Continent Airport subject to further action and approval by the Wichita Airport Authority. The project has been included in a Capital Improvement Program of the City of Wichita. This action approves only the intent to use City of Wichita bonding authority in the future and does not specifically authorize the issuance of debt nor does it preclude the use of any substitute funding source. The total cost for the capital improvements, based on the best present information, is $50,000. Motion -- Knight moved that the project be approved and the Resolution be adopted. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-066 A Resolution declaring that a public necessity exists for, and that the public safety, service, and welfare will be advanced by, the making of certain capital improvements to the Wichita Mid-continent Airport facility operated by the Wichita Airport Authority of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. b. Terminal Chiller Conversion. The Terminal Chiller Conversion represents improvements that will be made to Mid-Continent Airport subject to further action and approval by the Wichita Airport Authority. The project has been included in a Capital Improvement Program of the City of Wichita. This action approves only the intent to use City of Wichita bonding authority in the future and does not specifically authorize the issuance of debt nor does it preclude the use of any substitute funding source. The total cost for the capital improvements, based on the best present information, is $67,000. Motion -- Knight moved that the project be approved and the Resolution be adopted. Motion -- carried carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-067 A Resolution declaring that a public necessity exists for, and that the public safety, service, and welfare will be advanced by, the making of certain capital improvements to the Wichita Mid-continent Airport facility operated by the Wichita Airport Authority of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. PUMP STATION REPAIRS PUMP STATION REPAIRS. Agenda Report No. 96-146 There are four pump stations located in the City of Wichita that pump water to the Wichita Valley Center-Flood Control Project during heavy rains. We have experienced mechanical and electrical operation problems with the Pump Stations since the Storm Water Utility took over maintenance responsibilities for the stations in 1993. These problems were intensified during the heavy rains of 1995. The pumps are all approximately 20 years old and in need of extensive repair or replacement. Without the pump stations all operating properly, several areas of the City are threatened by flooding due to local rainfall events which occur when the Flood Control Project is carrying heavy flows. A report regarding the current condition and necessary repairs to the four stations was compiled by City Storm Water Management staff with assistance from Pretreatment employees. Taking into consideration all of the information provided by the status report, it would be in the City's best interest to bring in an expert mechanical consulting engineer to assess the current flow rates, pump sizing, and condition of all existing components of these stations. The drainage basins have changed over the years and the pumps and components have aged. Without the opinion of an expert consultant, it appears, at the very least, the following immediate concerns need to be addressed at the stations: Professionally clean and test all electric motors and bearings Professionally clean and check all pumps and impellers Construct full perimeter catwalks to remove pumps Remove all greasers and use seal water instead Upgrade all exhaust vents to meet CFM requirements Check and replace as needed all motor controllers Check and recertify all hoists Therefore, the City should solicit Request For Proposals from Mechanical Engineering Consultants to assess the condition of the pump stations and recommend repairs. The analysis and necessary repairs should be funded from the Storm Water Utility operating budget. With all of the items that need to be addressed, it may be more cost efficient to look at the purchase of new equipment at the stations. In the 1996 Approved Revised Storm Water Utility budget, $43,000 is available in the contingency fund for pump station repairs and replacements. These funds need to be moved from the Contingency fund to the appropriate expenditure account. In the 1997 approved budget, $410,000 is designated in the contingency fund for pump station repairs. These funds will be moved from the Contingency fund to the appropriate expenditure account during the 1996 budget approval process. By making improvements to these stations, the Storm Water Utility will save overtime costs as staff is called out at all hours of the night to check and repair these pumps during rainfall events when the station alarms sound due to mechanical and electrical problems. Motion -- Knight moved that staff be directed to solicit RFP's, and use and transfer of the -- carried 1996 Storm Water Utility contingency funds be authorized. Motion carried 7 to 0. 33RD NORTH PAVING AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO PAVE 33RD STREET NORTH, FROM SALINA TO WOODLAND. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 96-147. Part of 33rd Street North is unpaved west of Arkansas Avenue. It drains poorly and is difficult to maintain. Adopting the Notice of Hearing resolution will set in motion the legal notification requirement prior to holding a public hearing on April 2, 1996. Prior to the public hearing before the City Council, a CPO meeting to discuss the proposed project will be held with affected property owners. The estimated project cost is $59,000 with the total assessed to the improvement district. Approving the Notice of Hearing of resolution and publishing it twice on consecutive weeks in the official City newspaper provides the legal notification required by state law. The Council is not approving the project at this time - only establishing the date of a public hearing. Motion -- carried Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96-068 A Resolution directing and ordering a public hearing on the advisability of paving 33rd Street North from the west line of Salina to the west line of Woodland in the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. PIPELINE AGREEMENT PIPELINE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT: 1995 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 96-148. On July 18, 1995, the City Council approved a program to repair and reconstruct failing sanitary sewer lines. One of the lines to be repaired is adjacent to the railroad tracks at 11th Street west of Main Street. The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company has prior rights to the right-of-way. An Agreement has been prepared which permits the City to work in railroad right-of-way. The permit fee is $2,000. Funds are available within the existing project budget. The funding source is the Sanitary Sewer Utility. Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. DESIGN AGREEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS. (District I) Agenda Report No. 96-149. On September 12, 1995, the City Council approved a program to replace 24 miles of deteriorating and undersized water distribution mains and authorized the Staff Screening and Selection Committee to select design engineers. In order to complete the plans in a timely manner, staff separated the design project into five groups. On November 28, 1995, the City Council entered into agreements with four engineering firms to design the five groups of water mains. Since that time, staff identified another group of water mains and on January 24, 1996, the Staff Screening and Selection Committee selected Young & Associates to design the sixth group. An Agreement has been prepared. Payment to Young & Associates, P.A. will be made on a lump sum basis not to exceed $16,580. Water Utility Funds have been designated in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for main replacement and unidentified mains (CIP Nos. W-65, W-66 and W-67). Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR FRIENDS UNIVERSITY ADDITION. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 96-150. The City Council approved the Friends University Addition development on December 12, 1995. The proposed Agreement between the City and Baughman Co., P.A. provides for the design of Storm Water Sewer No. 471 (south of Maple, east of Meridian). Because Baughman Co., P.A. provided subdivision engineering services for this addition, it can expedite construction plan preparation. Administrative Regulation 7a allows for the selection of Baughman Co., P.A. under these conditions. Payment will be on a lump-sum basis not to exceed $21,800 and will be paid by Special Assessments. Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE NORTHEAST TRANSMISSION FACILITY - PHASE I. Agenda Report No. 96-151. On July 18, 1995, the City Council approved the design of the Northeast Transmission Facility and on January 24, 1996, the Staff Screening and Selection Committee selected Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. (PEC) to design Phase I of the facility. This project is included in the 1996 Capital Improvement Program (CIP No. W-511). According to the Water Master Plan by Camp, Dresser & McKee, this project is needed to provide for additional transmission capacity from the water treatment plant to the Webb storage tank and pump station, and to help relieve a chronic low pressure condition in the area of 21st and Woodlawn. The project consists of design of approximately 13,000 feet of 48-inch water main from the Hess Pump Station to a location near Murdock and Piatt Street. Also as a part of this project, PEC will be required to determine optional routings and pipe sizes from Murdock and Piatt east to Webb Road. Payment to PEC will be made on a cost plus percentage of cost basis not to exceed $91,500 and will be paid from Water Utility Funds. Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR LINCOLN AND EDGEMOOR. (Districts II & III) Agenda Report No. 96-152. On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved intersection improvements at Lincoln and Edgemoor. On February 2, 1996, the Staff Screening and Selection Committee selected CM Engineering, Inc. (CM) to provide the design services. This project is included in the 1996 Intersection Reconstruction Program (CIP No. MS-412). The project consists of installing left turn lanes on Lincoln and upgrading the traffic signals. Within the project area, there are water mains that may need to be relocated due to conflicts with the paving design. An Agreement with CM to design the intersection improvements and necessary water line relocations has been prepared. Payment for the design of the intersection improvements will be made on a lump sum basis of $25,500 and will be paid by General Obligation Bonds. Payment for the design of the water line relocations will be made on a lump sum basis not to exceed $500 and will be paid by Water Utility Funds included in the 1996 CIP No. W-65 - unidentified Water Mains. Motion -- Knight moved that the Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. CONTRACT AMENDMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 - ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COMBINED CENTURY II/HYATT HOTEL HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 96-153. On October 10, 1995, the City Council approved a contract with Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. (PEC) for engineering services related to the replacement of part of the heating and cooling equipment that serves the Century II Convention Center, Expo Hall and Main Library. On February 13, 1996, the City Council approved Contract Amendment #1 to provide for design on a new combined energy plant to serve Century II, Expo Hall, the Main Library and the Hyatt Hotel. It has become apparent that the Hotel connection to Expo Hall will affect utilities in and around Expo Hall, requiring re-design and/or relocation of those utilities. Contract Amendment #2 increases the Scope of Services for PEC to provide for the architectural and engineering services needed to design and monitor the modifications to the utility changes that affect Expo Hall. Contract Amendment #2 increases the total contractual agreement with PEC by $11,900 to a total of $205,052. Motion -- Knight moved that the Contract Amendment be approved and the Mayor be authorized -- carried to execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. CHANGE ORDER #1 CHANGE ORDER #1 - BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL ENGINEERING SERVICES. Agenda Report No. 96-154. On October 16, 1995, BRB Contractor's, was given notice to proceed on Biosolids Treatment & Management Contract #2. A portion of Contract #2 specifies modifications to the four (4) anaerobic digesters located Sewage Treatment Plant #2. After City staff cleaned the digester in preparation for the construction modifications, it was discovered that a groundwater pressure relief plug had failed and had allowed groundwater and floor slab bedding material to enter the digester containment vessel. As a part of the specified modifications the digester cover will be replaced. As a result floor structural loading will be increased. This creates the potential for floor slab or containment vessel failure. Because of the risk involved Brown & Caldwell, Project Consultant, was authorized to conduct Impact Resonance Testing (IRT) on the floor slab to determine if voids existed under the floor slab that would compromise the structural integrity of the slab. The IRT work was done under a supplemental engineering services agreement for $12,750 executed by the City Manager under the public exigency provision of the purchasing ordinance. IRT was completed during the week of February 12. It was determined that voids existed under the slab and pressure grouting would be necessary to fill areas in which voids were found, in order to ensure the structural integrity of the digester. Brown & Caldwell and City staff recommend this be accomplished though a Change Order with BRB Contractor's to maintain the chain of liability for all work performed under the conditions of Contract #2 with the general contractor. The engineer estimates that the cost to perform the grouting and associated work will not exceed $27,250. It will also be necessary to amend Brown & Caldwell's contract to provide for additional engineering services including design and full-time inspection of the repair grouting. The engineer estimates the scope of additional work will not exceed $27,250. The total Sludge Treatment & Management Contract #2 is presently $17.999 million. The maximum cost of change order #1 and supplemental agreement #8 is $177,250. The actual cost will be based on the time and material required to effect the repairs. Brown & Caldwell's costs for design and inspection are also a not to exceed amount. Funds are available in the project budget to cover the increased cost. The Law Department has reviewed the scope of work and the City's change order policy and indicates it is clear that the scope of the remedial work is appropriate for a change order. Change orders in excess of $10,000 must be approved by the City Council. The Law Department has reviewed the change order and has approved it as to form. Motion -- Knight moved that the Change Order for an amount not to exceed $180,000 and the supplemental engineering services agreement #8 for an amount not to exceed -- carried $27,750 be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign. Motion carried 7 to 0. PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ACQUISITION OF 440 S. CRESTWAY (TRACT 7) FOR THE EAST KELLOGG/OLIVER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (District II) Agenda Report No. 96-155. The East Kellogg/Oliver Improvement Project received final approval and findings of no significant impact on all historic and environmental issues from the Federal Government in September 1995 and the City was given permission to begin active acquisition in the corridor. At the time of the granting of permission, there were 54 tracts not under contract. Council approved the hiring of Land Acquisitions, Inc. to negotiate the remaining property acquisitions and relocations. One of the parcels to be acquired is located at 440 S. Crestway (Lots 9 and 10 except the North 16.7 feet and except the South 65 feet thereof in Block 10, Lincoln Heights Addition to Wichita) and is owned by Dick J. Branstetter. The property has 7,745 square feet of land and is improved with a 1,253 square foot two-story, single-family home. The property is owner- occupied. The property was appraised at $72,000 and the review appraiser concurred with this value. This amount was offered to the owner and accepted. As this acquisition has been approved as part of the Kellogg/Oliver Interchange Project, Federal funds will be available to offset 80% of the the transaction cost. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The funding source will be General Obligation bonds paid by local sales tax revenues. A budget of $99,500 includes: $72,000 for acquisition, $5,000 for eventual demolition, $20,500 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs and title insurance. Motion -- Knight moved that the budget be approved, and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried 7 to 0. ACQUISITION OF 453 S. GLENDALE (TRACT 23) FOR THE EAST KELLOGG/OLIVER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (District II) Agenda Report No. 96-156. The East Kellogg/Oliver Improvement Project received final approval and findings of no significant impact on all historic and environmental issues from the Federal Government in September 1995 and the City was given permission to begin active acquisition in the corridor. At the time of the granting of permission, there were 54 tracts not under contract. Council approved the hiring of Land Acquisitions, Inc. to negotiate the remaining property acquisitions and relocations. One of the parcels to be acquired is located at 453 S. Glendale (North 10 feet of Lot 15 and all of Lots 17 and 18 on Glendale Avenue, in Highland View Addition to Wichita) and is owned by Jeffery D. and Melanie C. Swanson. The property has 8,250 square feet of land and is improved with a 1,227 square foot one-story, single-family home. The property is owner-occupied. The property was appraised at $65,500 and the review appraiser concurred with this value. This amount was offered to the owner and accepted. As this acquisition has been approved as part of the Kellogg/Oliver Interchange Project, Federal funds will be available to offset 80% of the the transaction cost. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The funding source will be General Obligation bonds paid by local sales tax revenues. A budget of $99,500 includes: $65,500 for acquisition, $5,000 for eventual demolition, $27,000 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs and title insurance. Motion -- Knight moved that the budget be approved, and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried 7 to 0. ACQUISITION OF 483 S. BLECKLEY (TRACT 27) FOR THE EAST KELLOGG/OLIVER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (District II) Agenda Report No. 96-157. The East Kellogg/Oliver Improvement Project received final approval and findings of no significant impact on all historic and environmental issues from the Federal Government in September 1995 and the City was given permission to begin active acquisition in the corridor. At the time of the granting of permission, there were 54 tracts not under contract. Council approved the hiring of Land Acquisitions, Inc. to negotiate the remaining property acquisitions and relocations. One of the parcels to be acquired is located at 483 S. Bleckley (Lot 20, Block 5, Lincoln Terrace Addition to Wichita) and is owned by Theodore A. Lovett. The property has 8,522 square feet of land and is improved with a 1,093 square foot brick, single- family home. The property is owner-occupied. The property was appraised at $68,000 and the review appraiser concurred with this value. This amount was offered to the owner and accepted. As this acquisition has been approved as part of the Kellogg/Oliver Interchange Project, Federal funds will be available to offset 80% of the the transaction cost. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The funding source will be General Obligation bonds paid by local sales tax revenues. A budget of $101,900 includes: $68,000 for acquisition, $5,000 for eventual demolition, $26,900 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs and title insurance. Motion -- Knight moved that the budget be approved, and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried 7 to 0. ACQUISITION OF 469 S. ELPYCO (TRACT 24) FOR THE EAST KELLOGG/OLIVER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (District II) Agenda Report No. 96-158. The East Kellogg/Oliver Improvement Project received final approval and findings of no significant impact on all historic and environmental issues from the Federal Government in September 1995 and the City was given permission to begin active acquisition in the corridor. At the time of the granting of permission, there were 54 tracts not under contract. Council approved the hiring of Land Acquisitions, Inc. to negotiate the remaining property acquisitions and relocations. One of the parcels to be acquired is located at 469 S. Elpyco (Lot 17, Block 4, Lincoln Terrace Addition to Wichita) and is owned by Carrol M. Palmer. The property has 9,900 square feet of land and is improved with a 1,380 square foot, owner-occupied single family residence. The property was appraised at $57,000 and the review appraiser concurred with this value. This amount was offered to the owner and accepted. As this acquisition has been approved as part of the Kellogg/Oliver Interchange Project, Federal funds will be available to offset 80% of the the transaction cost. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The funding source will be General Obligation bonds paid by local sales tax revenues. A budget of $90,900 includes: $57,000 for acquisition, $5,000 for eventual demolition, $26,900 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs and title insurance. Motion -- Knight moved that the budget be approved, and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried 7 to 0. ACQUISITION OF 461 S. GLENDALE (TRACT 22) FOR THE EAST KELLOGG/OLIVER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (District II) Agenda Report No. 96-159. The East Kellogg/Oliver Improvement Project received final approval and findings of no significant impact on all historic and environmental issues from the Federal Government in September 1995 and the City was given permission to begin active acquisition in the corridor. At the time of the granting of permission, there were 54 tracts not under contract. Council approved the hiring of Land Acquisitions, Inc. to negotiate the remaining property acquisitions and relocations. One of the parcels to be acquired is located at 461 S. Glendale (Lots 11, 13, & the South 15 ft. of Lot 15, on Glendale Avenue, in Highland View Addition to Wichita) and is owned by Roy F. Murphy and Elizabeth E. Murphy. The property has 8,938 square feet of land and is improved with a 1,062 square foot one-story, single-family home. The property is owner-occupied. The property was appraised at $66,000 and the review appraiser concurred with this value. This amount was offered to the owner and accepted. As this acquisition has been approved as part of the Kellogg/Oliver Interchange Project, Federal funds will be available to offset 80% of the the transaction cost. Funds have been budgeted in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The funding source will be General Obligation bonds paid by local sales tax revenues. A budget of $99,500 includes: $66,000 for acquisition, $5,000 for eventual demolition, $26,500 for relocation and $2,000 for closing costs and title insurance. Motion -- Knight moved that the budget be approved, and the contract be approved and the -- carried Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary documents. Motion carried 7 to 0. ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF PROPERTY FOR THE SCIENCE CENTER PROJECT: 500 W. DOUGLAS; 509, 515, 519, 521, 523, 547 N. HANDLEY; A VACANT LOT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HANDLEY AND KIOWA; AND A PORTION OF 820 W. SECOND STREET. Agenda Report No. 96-160. The Science Center Project and the associated realignment of McLean Avenue requires the acquisition of several parcels of property. The properties being acquired via this agenda report represent the final parcels required to be acquired for the project. The subject parcels represent five ownerships. These are described below. Site Owner Address SizeImprovements Clark Longenecker 500 W. Douglas-1 5,638 sfWooden kiosk Keeney Stevens 820 W. Second 726 sfNone Merrillee Brown NWC Kiowa/Handley 9,375 sfNone Richard Turnbull 509 & 515 N Handley 9,375 sf838 sf & 512 sf fr house James Goolsby 519,521, 523 & 31,250 sf 3-one story frame houses 604, 547 N. Handley 576 and 938 sf and one two story 1,325 sf house. 1) While Clark Longenecker is the owner of record, Mel Hambleton is the fee owner via an unrecorded deed. City staff has been attempting to negotiate a purchase of the identified properties for several months but has been unable to reach an agreement with the owners. The offer price and final owner-counter offers are shown below. All of the offer values , with the exception of 820 W. Second, were set by certified appraisals. No further progress is foreseen. CityCounter Owner Address OfferOffer Clark Longenecker 500 W. Douglas-1 $54,000$125,000 Keeney Stevens 820 W. Second $ 3,000No firm response Merrillee Brown NWC Kiowa/Handley $30,000$ 50,000 Richard Turnbull 509 & 515 N Handley $30,000$ 79,500 James Goolsby 519,521, 523 & $100,000$350,000 547 N. Handley The cost of these acquisitions will be paid for by the City at large. Motion -- Knight moved that the ordinance, providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property and directing the City Attorney to file the appropriate proceedings in the District Court to accomplish such acquisition, be placed on -- carried first reading. Motion carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCE An Ordinance providing for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property and directing the City Attorney to file the appropriate proceedings in the District Court to accomplish such acquisition, placed on first reading and under the rules laid over. (Item No. 28) MOU - CRIME COMMISSION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH WICHITA CRIME COMMISSION. Agenda Report No. 96-161. The Wichita Crime Commission has requested that the City approve a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the use and disposition of horses donated by the Wichita Crime Commission for the use of the Mounted Patrol. The proposed Memorandum is reasonable in scope, and is intended to ensure that the horses and any funds realized from disposition of horses remain dedicated to the use of the Mounted Patrol, at least so long as the City may elect to continue the Mounted Patrol. The primary financial considerations are to protect the donors' intent with respect to the horses and funds raised by sale of horses, while also avoiding any financial commitment of the City's own funds to support the Mounted Patrol. The Memorandum recognizes that the Mounted Patrol is not a regular or permanent police unit, and acknowledges that the City may elect to discontinue it at any time, with the proceeds from sale of horses, in any such event, to be returned to the Wichita Crime Commission for its corporate purposes. Bobby Stout Bobby Stout, Crime Commission, said a feasibility study is being done which is expected to show what is gained with the unit. It is hoped to continue to build the Mounted Patrol. Motion -- Cole moved that the Memorandum of Understanding be approved and the Mayor be -- carried authorized to sing. Motion carried 7 to 0. CDBG CONTRACT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONTRACT - INTERFAITH MINISTRIES, WICHITA, INC. Agenda Report No. 96-162. The contract, in the amount of $63,000 ($53,000 from 21st year, and $10,000 from 15th year CDBG funds) provides direct labor costs to contractors for the installation of an elevator, bathroom remodeling, and relocating the kitchen to the first floor. Motion -- Knight moved that the Contract be approved and the Mayor be authorized to -- carried execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. PROPERTY DISPOSITION SALE OF HOUSES LOCATED AT 353 N. SPRUCE AND 401 N. CHAUTAUQUA FOR THE INFILL HOUSING PROJECT. (District I and VI) Agenda Report No. 96-163. The Infill Housing Project, approved by council on August 30, 1994, will require that several houses be auctioned in "as is" condition for privately financed moves to other lots. Sealed bids on twelve properties, including the subject house, were solicited in December. No bids for these properties were received at that time. Subsequent to the bid opening, offers of $300 for 401 N. Chautauqua and $150 for 353 N. Spruce were received from Lined Trezvant. The houses are to be moved within the City limits. Other bids received from the December auction ranged from $10 to $1,900. The City will receive a total of $450 for the sale of these structures. The relocation of these structures within the City limits will place additional value into the tax base. Motion -- carried Knight moved that sale of the structures be approved. Motion carried 7 to 0. DETAMC CONTRACT CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DIVERSIFIED EDUCATIONAL, TRAINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. Agenda Report No. 96-164. On May 18, 1993, City Council allocated $370,000 for the purchase and renovation of homes under the Rehabilitation and Investment Program (RIP). The contract was extended one year by Council action on December 30, 1994, which reflected the original intent of the Council when the project was first approved. The current contract expired on December 29, 1995. The contract amendment extends the term of the agreement to April 1, 1996, so that the fourteenth home can be completed. No new funds are being requested. The original application for CDBG funds, green sheet, and approved minutes reflect funds that revolve into the project. The funds continue to revolve until either all funds are expended or the 14th home is completed. The existing budget has sufficient funds available to complete the final home. Before the contract expired in December of 1995, a potential 14th home had been selected and was negotiated by the City and DETAMC. However, the inspection and bid process raised the cost of rehabilitation beyond the financial ability of this program. The replacement home, if approved, is located at 1028 N. Piatt. It is an 824 square foot, two-bedroom, single-bath home with an attached garage. All negotiations are complete and await City Council action. Funds will continue to revolve back into the accounts after the sale of each home. Project estimates are that fourteen (14) homes will be completed, as stated in the original application. Motion -- Knight moved that the Contract amendment be approved and the Mayor be authorized -- carried to execute. Motion carried 7 to 0. PARKING FACILITY PETITION AND RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO ACQUISITION OF A PARKING FACILITY ON WACO PETITION NORTH OF DOUGLAS. Agenda Report No. 96-165. On January 30, 1996, the City Council approved the issuance of a Letter of Intent to Historic Hotel Partners of Wichita, L.P. relating to the acquisition and renovation of the Broadview Hotel. The Letter of Intent detailed the City's intention to issue industrial revenue bonds to finance the costs of such acquisition and renovation, the partial abatement of taxes on the property, and the acquisition by the City of the parking garage located across Waco Street from the hotel, financed by special assessments levied against the hotel property. Historic Hotel Partners of Wichita, L.P. has submitted the necessary petition required by state law in order to establish the improvement district for the purposes of assessing the costs of the garage acquisition project. The district is comprised entirely of the Broadview Hotel property. As such, the petition is a 100% petition and no further public hearing is required for the formation of the district. The City Council agreed in the Letter of Intent to purchase the parking garage for $1.6 million and to enter into a management agreement with the Broadview Hotel of operation of the garage as a public parking facility. Any net cash flow resulting from the operation of the garage will be shared 50-50 between the City and the Broadview Hotel. The hotel will be solely responsible for paying all costs of operation and maintenance of the garage, either from garage income or from other sources. Motion -- Knight moved that the Petition be approved and the Resolution be adopted. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 069 Resolution of findings of advisability and Resolution authorizing acquisition of a parking facility located on the east side of Waco from approximately 149 feet north of Douglas to approximately 467 feet north of Douglas, Project No. 472-82692 in the City of Wichita, Kansas, pursuant to findings of advisability made by the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. EASEMENT AGREEMENT LETTER OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST BANK CONVENTION HOTEL. Agenda Report No. 96-166. On December 28, 1995, the City Council approved various documents pertaining to the development of the Wichita Hyatt Regency Hotel and related improvements on the east bank of the Arkansas River in downtown Wichita, by Stormont Trice Corporation and East Bank Hotel Associates (EBHA). This step paved the way for completing the documentation for the private financing component of the project, namely a $15.9 million leasehold mortgage loan from the consortium of local lending institutions and a $5.1 million private equity contribution. The private debt and equity financings are now scheduled to close on February 27, 1996. In conjunction with this closing, the consortium of lenders, represented by Bank IV and Interest Bank, have requested the City's approval of a letter agreement pertaining to a reciprocal easement agreement regarding access between the Hyatt Hotel and the Century II Conference Center. The Hyatt Regency Hotel and the Conference Center are designed to be constructed with a common interior wall and free and ready access between the two facilities through open corridors. From the perspective of the leasehold mortgage lenders, the open access to the Conference Center is a crucial security feature for their loan, the absence of which would significantly damage the value of their collateral. Since the operation of the Conference Center is governed by a management agreement and not by the lease securing the loan, the lenders have determined that a reciprocal easement agreement is required, to reinforce this open access. The City is not being asked to approve the reciprocal easement agreement at this time, but rather to approve a letter agreement with the lenders and EBHA that it will negotiate mutually acceptable terms for a reciprocal easement agreement after the Hotel and Conference Center construction has been completed. It is necessary to wait until that time in order to use the as-built survey and legal description in the reciprocal easement agreement. There is no cost to the City relating to this item. Motion -- Knight moved that the Letter of Agreement be approved and the Mayor be authorized -- carried to sign. Motion carried 7 to 0. CONDEMNATIONS RESOLUTIONS SETTING HEARING FOR DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE STRUCTURES. Agenda Report No. 96-167. On February 5, 1996, the Board of Code Standards (BCSA) held a hearing on the following five (5) properties. These properties are considered dangerous and unsafe structures, and are being presented to schedule a condemnation hearing before the Governing Body. Improvement notices have been issued on these structures, however, compliance has not been achieved. Pre- condemnation and formal condemnation letters were issued and the time granted has expired. No action has been taken to repair or remove the following properties. Property Address Council District (1) 2231 N. Chautauqua 1 (2) 435 N. Dodge 6 (3) 1018 N. Jackson 6 (4) 924 S. Water 6 (5) 2229 S. Emporia 3 These structures have defects that under Ordinance No. 28-251 of the Code of the City of Wichita, shall cause them to be deemed as dangerous and unsafe buildings, as required by State Statute for condemnation and consideration. Motion -- Knight moved that the resolutions to placing this matter on the agenda for a Hearing before the Governing Body on April 9, 1996, at 11:00 a.m., be adopted. -- carried Motion carried 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 056 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: the east 140 feet of Lot 54, Hillside Gardens Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 2231 North Chautauqua, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 057 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 127 and 129 on Dodge Avenue in McCormick's Third Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 435 North Dodge, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 058 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 915 and 917, Jackson Avenue, Wm. Greiffensteins Seventh Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 1019 North Jackson, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 059 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 51 and 53, on Water Street, March's Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 924 South Water, in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. RESOLUTION NO. R-96- 060 A Resolution fixing a time and place and providing for notice of a hearing before the Governing Body of the City of Wichita, at which the owner, his agent, lienholders of record and occupants of the structure located on land described as: Lots 23 and 25, in Block 3, in Eldridge's Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, known as 2229 South Emporia in said City may appear and show cause why such structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished as a dangerous or unsafe structure, presented. Knight moved that the Resolution be adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. IRB - LINCOLN MEADOWS CONSENT TO SUBLEASE IRB FACILITY (LINCOLN MEADOWS, INC.). (District II) Council Member Rogers left the Bench. Bond Counsel requested this Item be pulled and placed on the March 5, 1996, Agenda. Motion -- carried Knight moved that this Item be deferred to March 5, 1996. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rogers absent) (Council Member Rogers present) ORDINANCES SECOND READING ORDINANCES. (First Reading 2/13/96) ORDINANCE NO. 42-996 Disclosure Undertakings An Ordinance amending Section 2.05.010 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, establishing a master undertaking to provide ongoing disclosure in connection with general obligation bonds issued by the City of Wichita, Kansas, for distribution in public offerings, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCE NO. 42-997 An Ordinance amending Section 2.05.020 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, establishing a master undertaking to provide ongoing disclosure in connection with general obligation temporary notes issued by the City of Wichita, Kansas, for distribution in public offerings, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCE NO. 42-998 Alarms An Ordinance amending Sections 3.40.020, 3.40.070, 3.40.090, 3.40.100, and 3.40.105 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, pertaining to definitions, operational practices of alarm businesses, and response fees, and repealing the originals of said sections and also Sections 3.40.081, 3.40.082, 3.40,083, 3.40.085, 3.40.086, and 3.40.087 of the Code of the City of Wichita, pertaining to user permits for alarm systems, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCE NO. 42-999 Salary Adjustment An Ordinance pertaining to the compensation of the City Manager and repealing Ordinance No. 42-246, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. ORDINANCE NO. 43-000 A-96-3 An Ordinance including and incorporating certain blocks, parcels, pieces, and tracts of land within the limits and boundaries of the City of Wichita, Kansas, and relating thereto, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. A-96- 3. ORDINANCE NO. 43-001 A-96-4 An Ordinance including and incorporating certain blocks, parcels, pieces, and tracts of land within the limits and boundaries of the City of Wichita, Kansas, and relating thereto, read for the second time. Knight moved that the Ordinance be placed upon its passage and adopted. Motion carried 7 to 0. Yeas: Cather, Cole, Ferris, Gale, Kamen, Rogers, Knight. A-96- 4. PLANNING AGENDA V-1947 V-1947 - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE PORTION OF A BUILDING SETBACK IN AN AREA NORTH OF CENTRAL AND EAST OF 143RD STREET EAST. Agenda Report No. 96-168. Staff Recommendation: Approve vacation of building setback. MAPC Recommendation: Approve vacation of building setback. Marvin Krout Director of Planning reviewed the Item for the City Council. The notice of hearing was published twice and no written protest had been filed. Mayor Knight Mayor Knight inquired if anyone wished to be heard on this Item and no one appeared. Motion -- Knight moved that the public hearing be closed, the vacation be approved as recommended, the Mayor be authorized to sign the Vacation Order, and a certified copy of the Order be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried -- carried 7 to 0. S/D 95-73 S/D 95-73 - PLAT OF THE CARLEY ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF MAPLE AND WEST OF WEST STREET. (District IV) Agenda Report No. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. (unanimous) This site is located in a developed area of the City and needed facilities are already available. A zone change (Z-3166) from "AA" One-family and "B" Multiple-family zoning to "LC" Light Commercial zoning has been approved for this site subject to platting. This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and recording within 30 days. Motion -- Knight moved that the plat be approved as recommended and the Mayor be -- carried authorized to sign; and the associated zone change Z-3166 Ordinance be placed on first reading with publication of the Ordinance being withheld until such time as -- carried the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. Motion carried 7 to 0. ORDINANCE An Ordinance changing the zoning classifications or districts of certain lands located in the City of Wichita, Kansas, under the authority granted by Section 28.04.210, the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, introduced and under the rules laid over. Z-3166 S/D 96-4 S/D 96-4 - PLAT OF THE EAST BANK DEVELOPMENT ADDITION LOCATED EAST OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER AND SOUTH OF DOUGLAS. (District VI) Agenda Report No. 96-170. Staff Recommendation: Approve plat. MAPC Recommendation: Approve plat. (unanimous) This plat includes the site for the planned downtown hotel development. Also being included in the plat are portions of the areas platted previously for the Century II and Expo Hall convention facilities. The platti