04/19/10 Approved City Commission minutes

MONDAY

APRIL 19, 2010

The Governing Body of the City of Pratt met in Regular session in the Commission Room located in City Hall.

PRESENT: Bill Hlavachick Mayor
Jeff Taylor Commissioner
Willy Peltier Commissioner
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Steve Holmes Chief of Police
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
Bruce Pinkall Recreation Director

CALL TO ORDER:

The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Taylor. The Mayor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.

Mayor Taylor reminded the staff and audience that this meeting may be taped and/or recorded.

MINUTES:

A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve the minutes of the April 05, 2010 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.

CERTIFICATION OF APRIL 06, 2010 CITY COMMISSION ELECTION:

City Clerk Kramer read the certification of the April 06, 2010 City General election that had been sent by County Clerk Sherry Kruse indicating that Mayor Jeff Taylor and Mr. Gary Skaggs had received the majority of the votes; therefore, voted in as City Commissioners.

Presentation to Commissioner Nystrom:

Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall quoted ‘Anything is Possible If at First You Dream’ and stated that the beginning of the Green Sports Complex may not have been a dream of Commissioner Nystrom’s, but he was very instrumental in what happened there. Mr. Pinkall commented that they had captured that on film and presented Commissioner Nystrom with a frame containing pictures of him as Mayor throwing out the first pitch. Commissioner Nystrom was congratulated by the other Commissioners and staff.

OATH OF OFFICE GIVEN TO NEWLY ELECTED CITY COMMISSIONERS:

City Clerk Kramer gave the oath of office to Mr. Gary Skaggs and Mayor Taylor. Commissioner Skaggs and Mayor Taylor signed the City’s oath of office before continuing the meeting.

PRESENTATION OF MAYOR’S PLAQUE:

City Manager Dave Howard presented outgoing Mayor Taylor with a plaque and stated that he and the staff appreciated his leadership and direction the past year. Mayor Taylor commented that this had been one of his easiest tenures as Mayor as far as things working in the City. Mayor Taylor commented that that was attributed to the City staff and it had taken us several years to get where we are today. Mayor Taylor added the City was a fine run City due to City Manager Howard and the staff.

REORGANIZATION OF PRATT CITY COMMISSION:

1. NOMINATION FOR MAYOR:

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to nominate Commissioner Hlavachick to serve as Mayor. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs and carried unanimously. Mayor Hlavachick took his place at the dais as the Mayor for 2010/2011.

2. NOMINATION FOR VICE-MAYOR:

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to nominate Commissioner Taylor to serve as Vice-Mayor. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs and carried unanimously.

3. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL CITY DEPOSITORIES – THE PEOPLES BANK, FIRST NATIONAL BANK, FIRST STATE BANK AND TRUST:

A motion by Commissioner Taylor to approve The Peoples Bank, First National Bank and The First State Bank as the official City depositories. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs and carried unanimously.

4. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL CITY NEWSPAPER – THE PRATT TRIBUNE:

A motion by Commissioner Taylor to approve The Pratt Tribune as the official newspaper for the City of Pratt. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

OPEN AGENDA:

Finalizing the Sale of Property to Southern Baptist Church:

Rev. Bob Fleener reminded the Commission that they had sold property to the First Southern Baptist Church a couple of months ago and he was curious as to what the time line was to finalize that sale. Rev. Fleener commented that they have the money in hand and an architect ready to do a site plan. City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum commented that he had prepared a contract and sent it to Mr. Ernie Richardson. City Manager Howard explained that the plat had to be completed and approved to be able to sell the property and he thought he should have that this week. Mr. Howard added that the plat would then have to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval before coming to the City Commission for their approval, which would take approximately six weeks.

Mr. Howard commented that we could sign the contract that had been prepared, but we cannot sell the property until it was plated. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this was an additional six weeks. Mr. Howard stated that was correct.

Mr. Van Blaricum suggested that Rev. Fleener get with Mr. Richardson and he thought the next step would be to sign the contract. Commissioner Taylor questioned if Rev. Fleener had visited with Mr. Richardson. Rev. Fleener answered that he had and Mr. Richardson had said that it would not mean much until there was a legal description. Mr. Howard commented that he would get that as soon as possible. Commissioner Skaggs asked who did the plating. Mr. Howard explained that EBH Engineering did that and it was an engineered document. Mr. Howard added that the property was being divided into four separate lots. Commissioner Taylor questioned when the next planning meeting was. Mr. Howard stated that the next meeting was Thursday, but they were looking at a special call if it comes in.

Comments from Mr. Eric Nystrom:

Mr. Eric Nystrom addressed the Commission stating that on April 6th, over 2600 citizens cast their votes in the direction that clearly supports the majority of the Commission. Mr. Nystrom asked that the Commission not deviate from the path that they have followed. Mr. Nystrom stated that the citizens have spoken and have made it clear that they support our actions and he asked that they stay on that path. Mr. Nystrom wished the Commission good luck and for more good things to come to the City.

BUSINESS:

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR A MEMORIAL PLAQUE FOR THE PELICAN SCULPTURE AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY:

Ms. Westerhaus commented that Mr. Clyde Williams, who was on the library board, had suggested that there be a plaque documenting the history and artist of the pelican sculpture located at the library. Ms. Westerhaus commented that Parson’s Jewelry was not bidding on the plaque, but Larrison Mortuary gave a bid of $425. Commissioner Graf questioned why the bid was for $454 and she had said that it was $425. Ms. Westerhaus commented that she had forgotten to mention to Larrison Mortuary that they were tax exempt, so she had taken off the sales tax. Mayor Hlavachick commented that he thought that this was a good idea. A motion by Commissioner Skaggs to approve the purchase of a bronze memorial plaque for $425 for the pelican sculpture at the library. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PRATT PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD:

Ms. Rochelle Westerhaus, Secretary for the Board of Directors of the Pratt Public Library, explained to the Commission that there were two board members whose terms were expiring. Ms. Westerhaus commented that Ms. Nancy Neely’s term was expiring and the board was recommending Mr. Alan Hitz to serve on the board. Ms. Westerhaus explained that the board was interested in younger members to find out what young families need. Mayor Hlavachick questioned that they also wanted to reappoint Ms. Chris Himmelwright to an additional term. Ms. Westerhaus stated that was correct. A motion by Commissioner Taylor to appoint Mr. Alan Hitz to replace Ms. Neely and to reappoint Ms. Chris Himmelwright for four year terms. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ON THE PRATT COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN:

Pratt County Emergency Manager Tim Branscom explained that he was addressing the Commission to go over the recently approved Mulit-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Branscom commented that he had worked with Mr. Howard, Public Works, the Director of Electric Utilities, and the department heads to put this plan together for the City.

Mr. Branscom stated that this was a hazard plan that identifies the hazards that not only affects the City, but the County. Mr. Branscom commented that it gives them the strategy to look at loses such as property, life or monetary. Mr. Branscom explained that it was required by federal and state law that each jurisdiction have a hazard plan and that allows us to reach out for federal funding to recoup some of our money. Mr. Branscom added that it would also help work on projects to reduce those hazards.

Mr. Branscom commented that the multi-jurisdiction plan covers the City, the County, USD’s and the college. Mr. Branscom stated that there are also grant programs out there to help work on these items. Mr. Branscom commented that the plan had been in the works for over two years and was approved on March 23, 2010. Mr. Branscom explained that the County Commission had approved the plan and each sub-jurisdiction had to also approve it, which allows Cities, Counties and USD’s to reach out for federal funding.

Mr. Branscom commented that he had sat down with City staff to figure out what some of the biggest hazards were to the City and one was that there were no approved storm shelters in the City. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how often storm shelters would be used and if they would be open or under lock and key. Mr. Branscom commented that once the design phases are worked on, such places are used as Community Centers. Commissioner Skaggs asked if the City would be obligated to build these shelters if the plan was approved. Mr. Branscom stated that they would not and these were action items that can be worked towards. Mr. Branscom commented that the plan would be reviewed annually and if someone wanted to change the direction of the plan, it could be done by a consensus. Commissioner Peltier asked who would pay for these things if it was decided they were needed. Mr. Branscom answered that it could be through grant funding, which helps us apply for federal grant money.

Mr. Branscom used the example of Cullison looking for additional storm sirens and he had been in contact with the State grant programs and there was a possibility that they would give 75% of the money. Mr. Branscom clarified that one community would not be responsible for 100% of the costs. Commissioner Skaggs commented that he was in agreement with having a plan, but did not think that every time a siren goes off, people were going to go to a shelter. Mr. Howard commented that an example was that there were parks in town that do not have shelters and any applications would have to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Taylor clarified that we go along with the plan if funding were to be available. Mr. Branscom stated that was correct. Mayor Hlavachick questioned if no funding would be available if all jurisdictions were not on board. Mr. Branscom stated that one jurisdiction does not have to wait for everybody.

Mr. Branscom commented that in visiting with Public Works Director Russell Rambat, they felt that it was hard to keep the roads open during last year’s snow storm, so looking for a road grater or snow plow would be a possibility. Mr. Branscom added that those could come in handy during a wind storm where they could be used to clear roadways for emergency vehicles.

Mayor Hlavachick questioned that the County had already approved the plan. Mr. Branscom stated that they had and that there were things that could be worked on that did not cost any money. Mr. Branscom stated that he had had outstanding help from Mr. Howard, Mr. Rambat and Mr. Hemphill and that there had been awareness meetings at the Community Center to bring awareness to the public to reduce the impact of a summer storm.

Mayor Hlavachick questioned if the City would be looking at one or a series of shelters. Mr. Branscom stated that would be one of the things to discuss. Mr. Howard commented that the financial resources would have to be available from all parties to do this. Mr. Howard added that if an event were to happen, FEMA has to have this plan. Mr. Branscom commented that Greensburg did not have a mitigation plan in place and technically the federal government did not have to give them any money, but they did on the first round and after that they gave them one year to get a plan around and adopted.

Commissioner Peltier asked if we would be at risk for any federal money if we do not have a mitigation plan, should we be hit like Greensburg was. Mr. Branscom commented that he did not think so, because the County had a plan. Finance Director Diana Garten commented that if we had had a plan in place during the ice storm, we could have received an additional 5% reimbursement. Mr. Branscom added that during the last snow storm he had worked with public works to get reimbursed for some of their expenses and even though we did not have an approved plan, it was in the works.

Mr. Branscom commented that he had given a copy of the plan to Mr. Howard if the Commission wanted to review it in more detail. Mr. Rambat added that he also could e-mail them a copy of the Mitigation Plan if that would work for them. Mr. Branscom stated that he would like for the Commission to look it over and ask any questions. Mayor Hlavachick and Commissioner Taylor commented that they would like to look it over before it was approved. Mr. Howard commented that it could go on the agenda a month from now. The Commission thanked Mr. Branscom for his time.

Rev. Fleener added that they would be providing a facility for this kind of thing and he would like to build a large basement for disaster relief. Rev. Fleener added that churches in California provide spaces for cots, phones lines, etc., so he asked that they keep the church in mind.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF BID FOR HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AT THE FIRE STATION:

Fire Chief David Kramer commented that, with assistance from Inspector Brad Blankenship, they had gone out for bids for heating and air to be installed in the office and training area at the fire station. Chief Kramer reminded the Commission that heating had already been installed in the bay area.

Chief Kramer stated that they had received four bids back ranging from $16,601 to $13,690 and they would recommend the low bid from inteGreen Services for $13,690. Mayor Hlavachick asked if they were from Pratt. Chief Kramer stated that they were. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the specs from inteGreen talk about a 3 ton a/c unit, but nobody else referred to and Westhoff’s bid referred to an 80,000 BTU furnace that was also not referred to by anyone else. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if we were talking apples to apples. Mr. Blankenship answered that they were and explained that on the heating cycle there are 3 ton units that could be 80,000 BTU and some that could be 90,000 and air conditioning goes by tonnage. Commissioner Skaggs commented that they were going to have to rely on him that they were bidding the same thing.

Commissioner Peltier asked if there was any difference in Lennox and the others. Mr. Blankenship commented that Consumer Guide had Trane as the top heating and air company, then Carrier and Lennox were 2A and 2B, with American Standard coming in at three or four. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if these were commercial units. Mr. Blankenship commented that there were not differences in commercial and residential. Mr. Blankenship explained that on a split system, there was not a real difference.

Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this was 80,000 BTU for each unit. Chief Kramer stated that it was for about a ¼ of the building as the bay area was not being cooled. Commissioner Taylor asked how often these units would be on. Mr. Blankenship stated that that was why they had asked for two units instead of zoning and that with zoning, you have to have five to six ton units. Mr. Blankenship explained that they did not want to put anymore on the roof. Chief Kramer commented that the conference room was big enough for fifty people and they would need to adjust that according to capacity.

Commissioner Skaggs questioned if there was going to be anyone sleeping there. Chief Kramer answered that there was a weekend person that was there from 7 a.m. Saturday morning to 7 a.m. Monday morning. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that none of this would apply to the bay area. Mr. Blankenship stated that was correct. Chief Kramer commented that this was a different style of heating unit and they had kept the ten ton unit that was about seven or eight years old and could be used as a back-up. Mr. Blankenship added that it could be used to take the humidity out of the bay area, if needed. Commissioner Skaggs commented that other tenants of that building had complained about the high utility bills. Mr. Blankenship stated that the old stuff was gone and there were two ten ton units that were the older style and the one that they had kept was in great shape.

Commissioner Graf questioned Chief Kramer about not having a driver that stays there all night long. Chief Kramer stated that they did not have someone there after 11 p.m. during the week as the shifts were from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., but they were on call through the night. Commissioner Peltier asked if they had a driver during the day. Chief Kramer stated that they did and there were three people that covered the on call. Chief Kramer added that the weekend driver also takes calsl during the week. Commissioner Skaggs commented that they used to have someone who lived at the Municipal Building. Chief Kramer commented that they had done away with that. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the employees multi-task. Chief Kramer stated that was correct as they also do the maintenance at City Hall, the Community Center and the Municipal Building. Recreation Director Pinkall added that they also set up and take down for activities at the Municipal Building and Community Center.

A motion by Commissioner Taylor to approve the bid from inteGreen Services for $13,690 for a heating and air conditioning system in the new fire station. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL FOR USE OF SCOUT CABIN AND CLOSURE OF THE 200 BLOCK OF ROCHESTER STREET ON MAY 14-15, 2010 FOR 4A BOYS STATE TENNIS TOURNAMENT:

Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall commented that this was the first step to set things in motion for the 4A Boys State Tennis Tournament to be held on May 14th and 15th. Mr. Pinkall explained that the Scout Cabin would be used for a coaches hospitality room and they have requested that the 200 block of Rochester Street be closed. Mr. Pinkall stated the school would be doing the setting up and taking down as they had in the past. Commissioner Taylor commented that they had not asked for the street closure at the last tournament. Mr. Pinkall explained that that was a regional tournament and State would have an increased amount of kids in attendance. Mr. Pinkall added that the tennis court improvements should be done by the 14th. A motion by Commissioner Skaggs to close the 200 block of Rochester Street and allow the school to use the Scout Cabin on May 14th and 15th for the 4A Boys State Tennis tournament. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL ON THE USE OF LEMON’S PARK ON MAY 1, 2010 FOR THE 1ST ANNUAL AUTISM WALK (REQUESTED BY PCC ROTARACT):

Mayor Hlavachick commented that he had read about the autism walk and he felt it was a good cause. Commissioner Skaggs commented that Rotaract was an off-shoot of the Rotary Club and was for college students to help indoctrinate them into civic activities. Commissioner Skaggs added that they had been pretty active for the last four years. A motion by Commissioner Peltier to allow Rotaract to use Lemon’s Park for their activity. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL ON BID FOR ONE TRANSFORMER FOR STOCK:

Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill informed the Commission that this was a transformer that would replace the one they had had in stock, but had to use at the doctor’s clinic at 3rd Street and Oak Street. Mr. Hemphill commented that he had sent out three requests and two had been returned. Mr. Hemphill explained that the bid from Stanion Wholesale Electric was $12,524.85. Kriz-Davis Company had bid $11,0521.91 and Jerry’s Electric had not bid.

Mr. Hemphill stated that he had taken into consideration the 5% for the local vendor, but Stanion Wholesale Electric had still come in $845 higher than Kriz-Davis; therefore, he would recommend the low bid from Kriz-Davis in the amount of $11,052.91. Mayor Hlavachick questioned if this was the same kind of transformer. Mr. Hemphill stated that it was, which was a 300 KVA 3 phase with a large cabinet and was dual wound. Mr. Hemphill explained that they operate on a 6400 or 7200 circuit.

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to accept the bid from Kriz-Davis for one transformer for $11,052.91 for the 300 KVA transformer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they always keep one as a back-up. Mr. Hemphill stated that they do in case of a power outage at a business and that the lead time can be as much as eight weeks. Commissioner Peltier asked how many they keep in stock. Mr. Hemphill stated there was only one of this size and type. Commissioner Peltier asked if there was ever a time when a lightning strike had taken out more than one. Mr. Hemphill stated that it could happen, but had not yet. Commissioner Taylor asked how many of this size they have in the City. Mr. Hemphill commented that there are several. Commissioner Skaggs asked if this was the biggest transformer they use in the City. Mr. Hemphill stated that it was not and 500 KVA were common and there were also some 1,000 KVA, 750 KVA’s, and 200 KVA. Commissioner Skaggs asked if they have a reserve for those. Mr. Hemphill explained that they have make-shift transformers and he explained.

Mr. Hemphill stated that they have pole mount transformers that are large enough that three of them pushed together can make a replacement for the pad mount. Mr. Hemphill commented that they would have a fence built around them. Commissioner Taylor asked if this 300 KVA was pole mount. Mr. Hemphill stated that it was a pad mount. Commissioner Peltier asked what type of businesses would use this type of transformer. Mr. Hemphill stated that the hospital, Wal-Mart, dorms at the college, dental and medical clinics would.

Hearing no other discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

APPROVAL OF TERM LIMIT ORDINANCE:

City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum explained that no action needed to be taken on this ordinance as it came into effect after the certification of the election. Mr. Van Blaricum added that this was the new ordinance and had been given the number 1003. Mayor Hlavachick clarified that it goes into effect without a vote. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that was correct. Commissioner Skaggs asked if the number was how many ordinances that the City had. City Clerk Kramer commented that it was actually the year and the number of ordinances so far that year, so 1003 was an ordinance that was passed in 2010 and was the third ordinance of that year.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 041910 AMENDING RESOLUTION 030110 CONCERNING THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND KMEA:

City Manager Howard explained that on March 1st, the City had passed a resolution accepting power from GRDA or Grand River Dam Authority out of Oklahoma. Mr. Howard commented that this was the cheapest base load power that the City would ever be able to get into the City without major upgrades of the transmission system.

Mr. Howard stated that there was a potential that we could start taking delivery earlier than 2013 and possibly this year. Mr. Howard explained that KMEA needs a commitment from us, which is what the resolution reflects. Mr. Howard commented that this was not a guarantee that we were going to get it and he highly recommended that the Commission approve the resolution. Mayor Hlavachick agreed and said that he had been on the KMEA Board of Directors for a long time and this was something they had been looking forward to. Commissioner Taylor questioned that this was a potential to get up to six mgs. Mr. Howard stated that was correct, which, in the winter time when we have an excess of base load, could be reduced.

Commissioner Skaggs questioned that this agreement would continue until 2026. Mr. Howard commented that that was right and he would recommend going until 2050 if they would let us. Commissioner Skaggs questioned that it was that good of a deal. Mr. Howard stated that it was. Mayor Hlavachick commented that this does not happen very often. Commissioner Skaggs questioned why we did not go until 2050. Mr. Howard stated that GRDA does not do agreements for that long. Mayor Hlavachick stated that base load is the cheapest power out there. Mr. Howard added that with the existing transmission system, this was the cheapest we can get into Pratt.

The following Resolution 041910 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 030110 OF THE CITY REGARDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS AND THE KANSAS MUNICIPAL ENERGY AGENCY RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY BY THE CITY FROM THE KANSAS MUNICIPAL ENERGY AGENCY (GRDA PROJECT) FOR SALE OR USE BY THE CITY. A motion by Commissioner Taylor to approve Resolution 041910 amending Resolution 030110 concerning the power purchase agreement between KMEA and the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ON ‘MOTION TO CLARIFY’ ORDER ON THE MAPLE STREET EXTENSION PROJECT:

City Attorney Van Blaricum commented that he had been asked by the Commission to clean up the question on the issue of the extension of Maple Street. Mr. Van Blaricum reminded the Commission that the court had approved the petition and directed the City to have an election. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he had filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ with the court and they had granted that motion with some conditions attached.

Mr. Van Blaricum explained that one stipulation was that if the majority of the electors votes are ‘no’, the previous action of the Commission would be automatically repealed and the City Commission would enact an ordinance which provides that the City of Pratt would not do the Maple Street project. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that all he needed tonight was to have the Commission agree that ‘no is no’. Mr. Van Blaricum read the statement that had been prepared for the ballot and the Commission’s approval: ‘Shall the following be adopted: The City of Pratt shall extend Maple Street from Parkway Avenue to Kansas Highway 61?’.

Mayor Hlavachick questioned how long the ordinance would be in effect if the vote of the electors was a no. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it would be ten years unless there was another election. Commissioner Peltier questioned when they could put it back up for election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it could be done any time in the next ten years. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that administratively we cannot do anything for ten years, but legislatively we could have an election. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that was correct. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that all he needed tonight was a voice vote. Commissioner Peltier made the motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried unanimously.

REPORTS:

City Manager:

• Business owner’s meeting on Main Street project:

Mr. Howard informed the Commission that Mr. Rambat had been meeting with KDOT and there was a breakdown in the packet of what was going on in the downtown area.

Mr. Howard informed the Commission that the meeting with business owners had been set for May 6th at 7 p.m., but everyone was welcome to come. Mr. Howard stated that the Chamber was advertising in the paper and Mr. Pinkall had talked about other ideas at an earlier meeting. Mr. Howard added that the focus would be on the waterline that was coming up this year and that there would be a commercial shot downtown on Thursday.

Public Works:

• North Main project:

Public Works Director Russell Rambat commented that he had heard from KDOT that Venture Corporation would be starting the North Main Street project on Thursday and it should take about two days, weather permitting. Mr. Rambat explained that the middle two driving lanes north of the tracks to the City limits would be the area being worked on.

• Pool:

Mr. Rambat commented that he had been putting in a lot of time at the pool to get it ready for the summer.

• Curb and Gutter project:

Mr. Rambat commented that he would be opening bids for the curb, gutter and ada ramp project next week and would have it on the next agenda for the Commission to approve.

Electric Departments:

• Training certificate:

Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill commented that Mr. Aaron Blasi had received his certificate of completion as a journeyman lineman and that it had taken four years. Mr. Hemphill stated that the training was a good program and was helpful to keep the lineman up-to-date on their knowledge of the job.

• Maintenance:
Mr. Hemphill commented that the Power Plant was busy with maintenance on the diesels and the cooling tower project.

Recreation:

• Downtown Advertising:

Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall commented that Channel 12 would be here on Thursday to shoot a commercial downtown. Mr. Pinkall explained that there would be workers on the street and shoppers in the stores. Mr. Pinkall stated that with the help of Travel and Tourism, the purpose of the commercial was to let people know that we are still out here even with the construction.

Mr. Pinkall reminded the Commission that they would be doing radio ads and one-liners at the Sports Complex along with banners on the outside of the fence to help promote the businesses downtown. Mr. Pinkall commented that there would be twenty-five cent hot dogs after Miss Kansas as part of the promotion. Mr. Howard commented that the big project would be next year, so this would be a good time to work out the bugs.

Power Plant:

• Appointment with Chubb Insurance:

Power Plant Superintendent Ernie Smith commented that Mr. Hemphill and he had an appointment with Chubb Insurance to see if they are satisfied with the work that had been done.

Finance Dept.:

• Auditors:

Finance Director Diana Garten informed the Commission that the auditors would be here tomorrow and that they had done their preliminary work in December.

• Budget Worksheets:

Ms. Garten commented that it was time to start looking at the 2011 budget and she would be getting out the worksheets for the departments in the next couple of weeks.

City Clerk/Utility Billing Dept.:

• Optimist Club:

City Clerk Kramer explained to the Commission that she had visited with Mr. Duane DeWeese and the Optomist Club would like to ask for the approval of the Commission to use the train depot in Sixth Street Park as a bicycle drop off on Sunday from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. After little discussion, the Commission was in agreement.

• On-Line Bill Pay:

Ms. Kramer commented that Mr. Howard had approached her a few weeks ago concerning on-line bill payments and asked that she go out to see what the cost would be. Ms. Kramer explained that she had already done that in February and, after discussing it with Mr. Howard, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to stay with our current software company. Ms. Kramer stated that the cost to get things started was $3,320 and then the annual maintenance fee was $2,520. Ms. Kramer stated that she would keep the Commission informed of the progress in getting the on-line payments into effect. Commissioner Skaggs asked how many customers they expected to use on-line pay. Ms. Kramer answered that there was no way of knowing, but if it was as successful as the debit/credit card machine they had at the counter, it would be a good number of our customers that would take advantage of it.

Commission:

• Cost of fire station:

Commissioner Peltier asked that the City provide the Pratt Tribune with the costs of the fire station, because he had heard that there were half truths and misconceptions in the community concerning the cost being in excess of a million dollars. Commissioner Peltier stated that an accounting of the total cost as of today would be helpful.

Ms. Garten stated that the total cost as of today was approximately $344,000 and that included the cost of the building. Commissioner Peltier calculated that if we had spent $344,000 and we received $66,000 for the tower rental, the total cost to date was about $280,000 and not in excess of a million dollars. Ms. Garten stated that was correct. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the total cost would be less than $500,000. Ms. Garten stated that there was about $40,000 in budgeted money left this year.

Building Inspector Brad Blankenship commented that they should be close to being done this year. Mr. Blankenship stated that they need to put an epoxy down where the trucks are, but that could wait for another budget year. Commissioner Peltier stated that the volunteer firemen had given the City a lot of free labor and he appreciated that.

Mr. Howard commented that if anything in a City has to grow, it would be the fire service. Fire Chief Kramer commented that the new station at Colby was $3 million, Newton’s station was $2.5 million and Pittsburg’s was $4.7 million. Chief Kramer informed the Commission that a guy from Pittsburg had been in contact with Tribune reporter Gale Rose and they felt that this was a very unique application and was note worthy. Commissioner Peltier commented that we were getting a new station for about fifteen percent of what other communities were paying.

Commissioner Skaggs asked if this would have any impact on insurance rates. Chief Kramer stated that unfortunately fire stations do not put out fires, but they do give us the capability to have the equipment that does. Chief Kramer stated that we were fortunate to have an ISO rating of 5 and that was tied into equipment, personnel and the water system, which was a big factor, so we might be able to lower that rate.

• Bricks from Main Street:

Commissioner Graf questioned what the City was going to do with the bricks from Main Street. Mr. Rambat commented that would be a decision that the Commission would make, but some would be salvaged for repairs on the other brick streets. Mr. Rambat commented that there could be a one cent a brick sale.

Mr. Rambat explained that there was an unknown factor that most people do not know and that is that the bricks are about half the width of a normal brick after this long and probably would not make it out in one piece. Mr. Howard commented that the construction would happen fairly fast and they would not be concerned about saving them.

ADJOURN:

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried unanimously.


________________________________
BILL HLAVACHICK, Mayor


(SEAL)

ATTEST:

________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk

5/3 City Commission Agenda

MONDAY

MAY 03, 2010

PRATT CITY COMMISSION – REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING

COMMISSION ROOM – 5:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER (Remind audience that meeting is being recorded and/or taped.)

2. ROLL CALL

3. MINUTES – April 19, 2010 Regular Commission meeting

4. OPEN AGENDA

5. BUSINESS:

5.1 Presentation of 2008 and 2009 Joe Wynn Volunteer Award – Mayor and Commission
• 2008 – Ms. Florence Loomis
• 2009 – Mr. John Paul Jorns

5.2 Reading of City of Pratt Arbor Day Proclamation Proclaiming May 5, 2010 as Arbor Day – Mayor Hlavachick

5.3 Consideration and Approval of Bid for Budgeted Vehicle for the Street Department – Russell Rambat, Public Works Director

5.4 Consideration and Approval of Bid for 2010 Curb, Sidewalk & ADA Ramps Project – Russell Rambat, Public Works Director

5.5 Consideration and Approval of 2011-2015 KDOT 5-Year Plan – Russell Rambat, Public Works Director

5.6 Consideration and Approval of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Iuka Street Between 5th & 6th Streets – Ken Van Blaricum, City Attorney (ORDINANCE 1004)

5.7 Consideration and Approval of Appointments to the Planning & Zoning Commission – Dave Howard, City Manager

5.8 Review of Plat for Sandy Creek Addition – Dave Howard, City Manager

6. REPORTS

6.1 City Manager
6.2 City Attorney
6.3 Department Heads
6.4 Mayor
6.5 City Commission

7. ADJOURN

4/05/10-Approved Commission meeting minutes

MONDAY

APRIL 05, 2010

The Governing Body of the City of Pratt met in Regular session in the Commission Room located in City Hall.

PRESENT: Jeff Taylor Mayor
Bill Hlavachick Commissioner
Eric Nystrom Commissioner
Willy Peltier Commissioner
Victor Graf Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Steve Holmes Chief of Police
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
Bruce Pinkall Recreation Director

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Taylor called the regular meeting to order. The Mayor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.

Mayor Taylor reminded the audience that the meeting may be taped and/or recorded.

MINUTES:

A motion by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2010 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.

A motion by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2010 recessed meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.

OPEN AGENDA:

Alley blading:

Mr. Dennis Thimesch requested that the City not blade the alley around the 500 block of North Main Street and North Ninnescah Street. Mr. Thimesch commented that it was back to where they liked it. Commissioner Nystrom questioned if they would consider crushed concrete if it were available. Mr. Thimesch stated that they were happy with it the way it was. Public Works Director Russell Rambat commented that he would let the street department know not to do that alley.

BUSINESS:

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF BID FOR WATER METER PURCHASE FOR 2010:

Mr. Kelvin Clay, Water Superintendent, commented that he had gone out for bids for water meters for 2010 and had received two bids back. Mr. Clay stated that the bid from H D Supply out of Wichita was for $23,466.75 and the bid from Sensus out of Union Town, PA. was for $25,538.29. Mr. Clay added that both bids included sales tax and the loyalty buyback program. Commissioner Nystrom asked if the bids were comparable. Mr. Clay commented that they were.

Mr. Clay informed the Commission that he would be working on books ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen this year and that he was about twenty-five percent done replacing old meters in the City. City Manager Dave Howard questioned how old the meters were that were being replaced. Mr. Clay answered that they were from ten to twelve years old.

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to accept the bid from H D Supply for $23,446.75. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS TO A BUILDING BOARD:

City Inspector Brad Blankenship commented that he had been working on putting the building board back together and to do that he needed one building contractor, one licensed electrician, one licensed plumber and two with construction knowledge. Mr. Blankenship commented that he had had a hard time finding an electrician and plumber.

Commissioner Nystrom asked if the ordinance would have to be changed from general knowledge if the City ever had licensed contractors. Mr. Blankenship commented that it would. Commissioner Nystrom questioned what the difference was between a general contractor and general knowledge. Mr. Blankenship answered that general knowledge would be someone with drywall experience or cement experience and general contractors build the whole thing. Commissioner Peltier asked why there was not a heating and air person on the board. Mr. Blankenship stated that Mr. Chad Westhoff was heating and air. City Manager Howard commented that there were specific positions that were listed in the code book and that was what Mr. Blankenship had looked for. Mr. Howard added that any changes would have to be done by ordinance. Mr. Blankenship added that mechanical was listed under plumbing in the code book.

Commissioner Hlavachick asked if this board would be who would recommend licensing. Mr. Blankenship stated that they would recommend any code changes or would back up the inspector in the case that there was a grievance against them. Mr. Howard commented that this board had never been dissolved and that it just fell apart. Mayor Taylor asked how long a term would be for a board member. Mr. Blankenship commented that they would serve one year.

A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve the Building Board as recommended by Mr. Blankenship. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously. Commissioner Nystrom asked how often the board would meet. Mr. Blankenship commented that it would probably meet quarterly or as needed. Mayor Taylor questioned if Mr. Blankenship would do the scheduling of the meetings. Mr. Blankenship answered that he would be the one to do the scheduling.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PRATT AIRPORT AUTHORITY:

Commissioner Hlavachick commented that Mr. Gamblin was a valuable member of the Airport Authority, but he understood his commitments. Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to approve the appointments of Mr. Bob Blasi and Mr. Keith Sexson to the Pratt Airport Authority. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ON MAPLE STREET ELECTION AND DATE OF ELECTION:

City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum reminded the Commission that the City was required to have an election on the question in Ms. Detwiler’s petition. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the Commission had been concerned that the question on the ballot be easy to understand and he had been working on a ‘yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’ question. Mr. Van Blaricum added that he felt that the Commission had two options.

Mr. Van Blaricum explained that the City had filed a lawsuit to block the petition and that request had been denied and we were to have an election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had filed a motion to clarify the court’s ruling and asked the Judge to clarify exactly what kind of language the City should use on the ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum added that the motion was to be heard this Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he was cautiously optimistic that the court would agree to use the language that the Commission favors. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that if the court agrees, that would simplify things and the City could go ahead and schedule the election.

Mr. Van Blaricum stated that there was another option and that would be to rescind the vote taken previously and set a special election on the question. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that at the last meeting he was skeptical about the Commission rescinding their prior action, but he was not as skeptical now. Mr. Van Blaricum added that he did not feel that that would get us in any more trouble with the contractor than we were right now.

Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that the two options were to wait and see what happens with the court on Wednesday or the Commission could rescind the action taken on Maple Street and set a special election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he would prefer to ask the court to give the City the special language, because that would be more along the lines of the spirit of cooperation with the people who had petitioned for an election.

Commissioner Nystrom asked if Mr. Van Blaricum wanted the Commission to wait until after Wednesday to set a date for the election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the date could be set this evening or later on, but the sooner the Commission set the date, the sooner it was over. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had visited with County Election Officer Sherry Kruse and she had said that May 18th or May 25th would work for her office. Mr. Van Blaricum added that Ms. Kruse would like to have five weeks notice on the date and wording. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that the 25th would probably work better and that he would like to see the language simplified by the court.

A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to have the special election on the Main Street project on May 25th. After discussion on the Memorial Day holiday and school functions, Commissioner Graf commented that Commissioner Hlavachick had stated the Main Street project. Commissioner Hlavachick corrected his motion to be on the Maple Street project and apologized for the mistake. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he likes that date as it gives him time to work and gives tomorrow’s election workers a date to tell people if they wonder why Maple Street was not on this ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum added that the only other question was whether the Commission wanted to wait for the court to rule on the motion to clarify the language or to rescind their earlier action. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that they could do that by a voice vote. Mayor Taylor called for a voice vote on waiting until after Wednesday to talk about language for the ballot to determine what Judge Schmisseur had to say about the Commission changing it to a ‘yes’ is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ is ‘no’ question. The vote was as follows: Commissioner Peltier-yes, Commissioner Hlavachick-yes, Mayor Taylor-yes, Commissioner Nystrom-yes, and Commissioner Graf-yes.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that one last question he had if the court agrees to let the City use the clarified language and the attorney’s agree also, was whether the Commission wanted to approve the language before it was used or could he get that approval from Mr. Howard. Mayor Taylor commented that as long as it was a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ it could be run by the City Manager and the Commission agreed. Mr. Howard added that Mr. Van Blaricum would copy the Commissioners in his email.

REPORTS:

City Manager:

• High School ‘Walk in the Park’:

City Manager Dave Howard informed the Commission that he had approved the High School to use Lemon’s Park to do a ‘Walk in the Park’ so that they could start planning the event. Mr. Howard added that the walk was to bring awareness of children that have to go without shoes and the event would not interfere with anything. A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve request from the High School to use Lemon’s Park on April 8th. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

• Last meeting for Commissioner Nystrom:

City Manager Howard commented that he wanted to thank Commissioner Nystrom for his time and effort that he had put into the City. Mr. Howard added that, in his opinion, Commissioner Nystrom had contributed a lot to the City and he appreciated that. Mayor Taylor, Commissioner Peltier and Commissioner Hlavachick agreed with Mr. Howard.

Public Works:

• Curb & Gutter project:

Public Works Director Russell Rambat commented that he had finished putting together the curb and gutter project for this year and should get it out for bid soon.

• Pool:

Mr. Rambat commented that he would be spending a lot of his time at the pool to get it ready for the new season.

Electric Department:

• Chubb Insurance:

Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill informed the Commission that the City had received a check from Chubb Insurance for the reimbursement for materials and labor on unit #7 diesel generator. Mr. Hemphill stated that they had accepted at least $203,000 of the expenditures. Commissioner Peltier questioned how much the expenditures were. Mr. Hemphill commented that it was about $303,000, so Chubb Insurance had deducted the City’s $100,000 deductible from that amount. Mr. Hemphill explained that there was a $31,000 cylinder head that they did not want to cover. Mr. Hemphill explained that, from Chubb Insurance’s point of view, the eleven cylinder heads that they reimbursed us for was one claim, but there was one head that sustained damage during the reinstallation and after the inspection. City Manager Howard added that if the City had filed another claim, we would have been responsible for another $100,000 deductible. Mr. Hemphill stated that Fairbanks Morse’s point of view was to replace that cylinder head and we had gotten a $10,000 cut from the cost of a new one, which was per the agreement with them.

• Cooling Tower project:

Mr. Hemphill commented that the cooling tower had arrived and was in the Trand Trucking storage area and there was no damage found after it was inspected. Mr. Hemphill added that the contractor from Mid-States was onsite and getting ready to start. Mr. Hemphill commented that the City had also been working on getting the electrical part of the project ready.

• FEMA project:

Mr. Hemphill stated that line distribution had completed about seventy percent of the FEMA projects and should be done by the end of the year.

• Question concerning deductible:

Commissioner Nystrom questioned if the City could recover the $100,000 deductible if Chubb Insurance sued Fairbanks Morse. Mr. Howard commented that he was not sure if they were going to sue, but if they were to pursue that course and win, the City would be the first in line to get paid. Mr. Howard explained that the City would not be part of that process and we would find out about it when we were reimbursed for the expenses.

• Additional engine discussion:

Power Plant Superintendent Ernie Smith informed the Commission that they had assembled the engine and it had been been tested. Mr. Smith commented that the performance test done on the engine had met the specifications that we had set for the EMP2 and that was to produce seven megs for at least two hours.

Mr. Smith commented that the issues with the cylinder head that were discussed by Mr. Hemphill would be addressed this fall. Mr. Smith stated that there was one head that was still cracked, but Fairbanks Morse advised using a sealer on that particular stud and that had been holding up so far. Mr. Smith explained that there still needed to be a balancing test and a firing pressure test done on the engine, but that was later this fall.

Mr. Smith commented that the engine was running fine and they had turned it into EMP2 as running so that we would get capacity credit. Mayor Taylor thanked the power plant employees for all they had done on the engine. Mr. Smith commented that the employees had a good learning experience and they had saved the City thousands of dollars by doing the work themselves. Mr. Smith added that there had been a technician there to oversee that it met the specifications so that Fairbanks Morse would honor the warranty on the cylinder heads.

Finance Department:

• Sales tax for March:

Finance Director Diana Garten informed the Commission that the March revenues were up about $3,700 over last year. Ms. Garten commented that that was for January sales and we were still down $78,000 for the year.

Mayor:

• Citizen request concerning Eighth Street:

Mayor Taylor stated that he had received a call from someone with a request to make Eighth Street a thru street. Mayor Taylor commented that it had been awhile since he had been down Eighth Street and asked if there were any stop signs. City Manager Howard commented that there was one on Jackson Street and one by the school, but most of the intersections were uncontrolled. Police Chief Steve Holmes commented that the school buses do use that route.

Mayor Taylor explained that he had told this person that the City would have to look at accident reports and other things before making that type of decision. Chief Holmes asked if he was proposing to change Jackson Street, because Eighth Street stops at Jackson Street. Mayor Taylor stated that he was not and that the person was talking about New Street to Main Street on Eighth Street. Mr. Howard commented that all of the intersections along Eighth Street would have to be controlled to make it a thru street. Chief Holmes added that Jackson Street was a major route and was a busy street.

Mr. Howard stated that they would check into it. Mayor Taylor suggested checking with the schools and that he had been told that the bus drivers and a lot of parents use Eighth Street.

Commissioners:

• Main Street merchants meeting:

Commissioner Hlavachick asked Mr. Howard if he knew when the meetings were going to be for the Main Street merchants. Mr. Howard commented that it should be in late April or early May. Mr. Howard added that we were getting the finalized version of the water line, but the project would not start until after Miss Kansas.

• Water at Lemon’s Park:

Commissioner Graf questioned when the water would be turned on at Lemon’s Park. Public Works Director Rambat stated that it should be around the 15th of this month. Mr. Rambat explained that history shows that it could still get bad out and none of the bathrooms or plumbing in the park were freeze proof. Commissioner Graf commented that he had had three people ask him about the drinking water. Mr. Rambat commented that he would check into it.

ADJOURN:

A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.



_______________________________________
JEFF TAYLOR, Mayor



(SEAL)

ATTEST:

_________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk

4/19/2010 Commission Meeting Agenda

MONDAY

APRIL 19, 2010

PRATT CITY COMMISSION – REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING

COMMISSION ROOM – 5:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER (Remind audience that meeting is being recorded and/or taped.)

2. ROLL CALL

3. MINUTES – April 05, 2010 Regular Commission meeting

4. Certification of April 06, 2010 City General Election – LuAnn Kramer, City Clerk

5. Oath of Office Give to Newly Elected City Commissioners – LuAnn Kramer, City Clerk

6. Presentation of Mayor’s Plaque – Dave Howard, City Manager

7. Reorganization of Pratt City Commission – Mayor and Commission

7.1 Nomination for Mayor

7.2 Nomination for Vice-Mayor

7.3 Designation of Official City Depositories – The Peoples Bank, First National Bank, First State Bank

7.4 Designation of Official City Newspaper – The Pratt Tribune

8. OPEN AGENDA

9. BUSINESS:

9.1 Consideration and Approval of Appointments to the Pratt Public Library Board – Rochelle Westerhaus, Secretary of Board of Directors

9.2 Consideration and Approval of Request for Funds for a Memorial Plaque for Pelican Sculpture at the Public Library – Rochelle Westerhaus, Secretary of Board of Directors

9.3 Discussion on the Pratt County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Tim Branscom, Emergency Manager

9.4 Consideration and Approval of Bid for Heating and Air Conditioning System at the Fire Station – David Kramer, Fire Chief; Brad Blankenship, Building Inspector

9.5 Consideration and Approval for Use of Scout Cabin and Closure of the 200 Block of Rochester Street on May 14-15, 2010 for 4A State Boys Tennis Tournament – Bruce Pinkall, Recreation Director

9.6 Consideration and Approval on the Use of Lemon’s Park on May 1, 2010 for the 1st Annual Autism Walk (Requested by PCC Rotaract) – Mayor, Commission and Staff

9.7 Consideration and Approval on Bid for One Transformer for Stock – Kelly Hemphill, Dir. of Electric Utilities

9.8 Approval of Term Limit Ordinance – Ken Van Blaricum, City Attorney
(ORDINANCE 1003)

9.9 Consideration and Approval of Resolution 041910 Amending Resolution 030110 Concerning the Power Purchase Agreement Between the City and KMEA– Dave Howard, City Manager and Staff (RESOLUTION 041910)

9.10 Discussion on ‘Motion to Clarify’ Order on the Maple Street Extension Project – Ken Van Blaricum, City Attorney

10. REPORTS

10.1 City Manager
10.2 City Attorney
10.3 Department Heads
10.4 Mayor
10.5 City Commission

11. ADJOURN

03/16/2010-Recessed Commission Meeting Minutes-Approved

MONDAY

MARCH 16, 2010

The Governing Body of the City of Pratt met in Recessed session in the Commission Room located in City Hall.

PRESENT: Jeff Taylor Mayor
Bill Hlavachick Commissioner
Eric Nystrom Commissioner
Willy Peltier Commissioner
Victor Graf Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Taylor called the recessed meeting to order. The Mayor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.

Mayor Taylor reminded the audience that the meeting may be taped and/or recorded.

BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION ON LEGAL WORDING FOR BALLOT QUESTION:

Mayor Taylor commented that the meeting from last evening was recessed until today to give the City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum time to work with legal council on wording for the Maple Street question that would be on the ballot and explain that if you are in favor of the road, vote ‘yes’ and if you are not, vote ‘no’.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had contacted Mr. Steadman and what Mr. Steadman felt strongly about was that the City had approved something and Ms. Karen Detwiler wanted to have it repealed. Mr. Van Blaricum added that Mr. Steadman felt that the only way to do that was to have a question on the ballot that would repeal the Commission’s earlier action and he was set in stone that he did not want to do it any other way. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had language that was different from last evening, but he was not sure that the Commission would be any happier with it.

Mr. Van Blaricum stated that Mr. Steadman had offered one other option and that was that the Commission could repeal their action to extend Maple Street today and then the Commission, on their own volition, could put something on the ballot for April 6th to the affect of ‘Should the City of Pratt extend Maple Street’. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had visited with City Manager Dave Howard and Mr. Steadman and he was not personally in favor of doing that as there could be ramifications in the future for the Commission and Ms. Detwiler. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he did not like to play fast and lose an election. Mr. Howard explained that there was a petition that had been signed and the law requires that you use the exact language that was on the petition on the ballot and what they were trying to do was to improve on that language as much as possible. Commissioner Nystrom commented that the whole question from the beginning was the language not being in proper format, so he questioned why the ballot question would not be word for word. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that it should be. Commissioner Nystrom questioned ‘should be’ or ‘has to be’. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it has to be unless the authorities could redraft it to make it better. Commissioner Nystrom commented that he was confused as the whole intent was to get it right the first time and the judge agreed with that, then he did not and now we were changing it. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that we were not changing it unless the Commission agreed to it.

Mr. Van Blaricum explained to the Commission what he and Mr. Steadman had done earlier, if the Commission approved the language they had worked on and to get County Clerk Sherry Kruse the information she needed to print this on the ballot, was to have a joint letter to her with the recommended language. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that in anticipation of the Commission’s approval, he had drafted a letter; which he shared that letter with the Commission. Commissioner Peltier questioned if ‘yes’ was still going to mean ‘no’ and ‘no’ was going to mean ‘yes’. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed that was correct. Commissioner Nystrom requested Mr. Van Blaricum read the original petition language. Mr. Van Blaricum quoted the original petition as ‘Should the following be adopted by the City Commissioners of the City of Pratt, Kansas, that the action of City Government taken on August 17, 2009, by motion of Commissioner Peltier, second by Commissioner Nystrom “to do the Maple Street Extension Project” providing for an extension of Maple Street from Parkway Avenue to a point where it would intersect with Kansas Hwy. 61 be repealed? Yes or No’. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it was not the worst language, but it could be clearer and that was what they were trying to do. Commissioner Nystrom questioned if the names needed to be in there. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that they did not, but that since Ms. Detwiler did not have an ordinance number to attach to it, she was trying to identify it by a date. City Manager Howard questioned whether the question on the petition would go on the ballot if the Commission could not agree on new language. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it would.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that there were not just two attorneys involved in this as Ms. Kruse as Election Officer had to be sure that it was right, so she consulted her attorney, Mr. Gordon Stull. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that whatever goes on the ballot also had to meet the approval of Mr. Stull and he most likely would reluctantly approve the redrafted language. Mr. Van Blaricum asked that the Commission review the language in the draft copy of the letter. Commissioner Nystrom read the proposed question out loud as ‘Shall the following ordinance become effective: The City of Pratt, Kansas hereby repeals the vote to do the Maple Street Extension Project? Yes or No’. Commissioner Nystrom commented that that was clearer and questioned if another option would be to have an election in ninety days as required by State law, if no agreement was met. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it was not required by the State, but ninety days would be a maximum time to wait. Commissioner Nystrom commented that they would be better off doing a special call rather than doing it wrong. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed.

Commissioner Nystrom questioned what the ramifications would be if they repealed their own action. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that one would be that he had not had time to think about it. Mr. Van Blaricum talked about some ramifications if repealed and would be what to put on the ballot and that language would have to be drafted today. Mr. Howard commented that there were also the contracts that were approved by a separate action and whether a voluntary repeal would affect them. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it would have an effect on them, if the City involuntarily would be unable to do the Maple Street project, but it would look worse if the City voluntarily terminated the project. Commissioner Nystrom asked if the last Tuesday in April would be when a special call election would be. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that they could do that and then they would have time to compose the question so that it made sense. Commissioner Nystrom added that it would also give more time to educate the public as to what we were doing.

Ms. Detwiler addressed the Commission and informed them that her attorney had explained to her that if the Commission rescinded their decision today to do the Maple Street project, it would give the Commission the opportunity to have a very simple ‘yes or no’ question on the ballot that says ‘Shall the City of Pratt extend Maple Street from Parkway Avenue to Highway 61?’. Ms. Detwiler stated that her attorney was in agreement with that statement and Mr. Steadman also told her that Mr. Van Blaricum was in agreement. Commissioner Nystrom commented that we were back where we began in that it was a public opinion poll, which may appease a group of citizens in Pratt, but the Commission still believes that this was an administrative decision. Commissioner Peltier stated that his concern was that we would violate the obligation to the contractors voluntarily if we repeal the motion and it did not pass for some reason. Mr. Howard commented that the contracts were a separate decision even though it was related to this, but if it would not affect the contracts, this would be a simple way to get a ‘yes or no’ answer. Commissioner Peltier commented that he still had concerns about the effect on the contracts. Mr. Howard commented that if the City repeals the action and the question was changed to the way Ms. Detwiler wanted, what that did to her petition. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the petition, along with the election, would be gone forever once the City repeals their previous action. Commissioner Nystrom commented that the whole idea when we filed the objection was because of the very thing that we were arguing about now. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed. Commissioner Nystrom stated that everybody agrees, but here they were making the decision for something that we tried to stop in August.

Commissioner Nystrom stated that he felt we needed to have a special call election and deal with this. Commissioner Nystrom added that we were stepping into territory that we were uncomfortable with and a lawsuit that we had been defending, but now we were going to drop it and say ‘yes or no’ to a simple petition. Ms. Detwiler commented that the Judge instructed Ms. Kruse to hold up printing on ballots, because this question would be on this ballot if it passed all the necessary steps. Ms. Detwiler stated that he had made a decision that it go on a ballot and before the Commission decided they were going to have a special call election, they needed to check with the Judge and see if that was his intention. Commissioner Nystrom commented that Ms. Detwiler had just said that she was willing to drop the whole thing if the Commission rescinded their action and that was not what the Judge said to do. Ms. Detwiler commented that the Judge said there would be a question on the ballot. Commissioner Nystrom questioned whether the Judge said that it had to be this particular ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it did not state this ballot. Commissioner Peltier clarified that it had to go on a ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed.

Commissioner Peltier commented that he had been in construction for a long time and if it looks like we had taken advantage of the contractor, we could have to settle for a lot of money. Mr. Howard commented that there was a provision in the contract with the contractors that we had the right to suspend work for ninety days and he had suspended it until after the election.

Mr. Howard stated that the bottom line was whether it would be the question on the petition that goes on the ballot now or in six weeks or would it be language that the Commission agreed on. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed that it was that simple of a decision. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that whether the petition language or the improved language was used, if the City would win by three votes, it would be done or if the City loses by three votes, we are done. Mr. Van Blaricum added that if the action would be rescinded today and a special call election was set and the City won by three votes, that would not tell us very much and was not binding nor would the City losing by three votes. Commissioner Peltier questioned why it would not be binding either way. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that it was an advisory election.

Mayor Taylor commented that the Commission’s intentions had been to have an arbitrary vote on whether to do the street or not and to address the petition even if done by a special call election. Commissioner Nystrom stated that that was what the lawsuit was about and not about negotiating at the last hour. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed. Commissioner Peltier repeated that if the original language from the petition was used on the ballot, the election would settle it, but if we do not use that language, it would not settle anything. Mr. Van Blaricum apologized if his negotiating confused the Commission, but it was simple in that the City lost the lawsuit and there had to be an election. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that this election would bring out a lot of people and we may not get that if it was a stand-alone election. Commissioner Nystrom agreed with that statement, but still felt that they would be rushing this through. Commissioner Graf questioned the cost of a special election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it would probably be about $1,500 to $2,000. Commissioner Graf questioned why you would want to spend that and they should just go ahead and use what was on the petition and let the people vote and be done with it. Mayor Taylor stated that it was because of the reasons they had just stated. Commissioner Graf stated that he realized that, but on the other hand the Commission wanted to change the wording. Commissioner Graf questioned why they would not repeal the action and then they could put it on the ballot exactly like they want. Commissioner Nystrom reminded Commissioner Graf that the audience clapped when Mayor Taylor said to keep this simple. Commissioner Graf repeated that that was what he was saying in that the Commission should repeal it and make it simple. Commissioner Peltier reminded the Commission of the contracts that were out there for $800,000. Commissioner Graf suggested that Mr. Van Blaricum talk to the contractors to see what would happen if the Commission went that way. Commissioner Peltier commented that they would then want to contact their attorneys and that still did not get this on the ballot. Mr. Howard commented that he still questions the liability issues and whether the contracts were valid if the action was repealed and whether or not the contractors could take action. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it would not look good for the Commission to be rescinding what they were going to do and that puts the City in a pretty weak position with the contractors.

Commissioner Nystrom commented that we could still extend the election. Mayor Taylor added that we could still rescind and vote on it at a later time. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that that would just delay the outcome. Commissioner Nystrom commented that we have a court order to have an election on the petition question and how we could not do that. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that if the Commission rescinds their own action, then it would be null and void. Mayor Taylor commented that if we get hold of the contractors and had them check with their attorneys, then we could still rescind at anytime if we honor the bids without penalty when the election goes through. Commissioner Nystrom questioned if the contracts would be null and void if the action was rescinded and have to be rebid. Mr. Howard commented that the contracts were done by a separate action. Commissioner Nystrom argued that it would then be a different project. Mr. Howard commented that those contracts would still be in effect. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that if the action would be repealed, it would not rescind the contracts. Commissioner Nystrom commented that then the contractors could sue the City. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that that was correct.

Commissioner Peltier questioned what would happen if this was rescinded and the Commission turned around and did it over again. Commissioner Nystrom still questioned whether the contracts had to be rebid. Commissioner Peltier commented that we would have to pay them off. Commissioner Nystrom agreed that the City would have to satisfy the contract, but questioned again if they had to be rebid. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it would depend on what they had done with the original contract, but if it was decided later to do the project, they would have to be rebid. Commissioner Nystrom commented that that did not sound like a good option for the City. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed. Commissioner Nystrom commented that we need to have a special call election and satisfy what Judge Schmisseur told us to do. Commissioner Nystrom asked what would stop these people from doing this to the City again. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that if the City would lose the election, the City could not come back again on this issue for another ten years. Commissioner Peltier asked if they would have to file a new petition if the Commission rescinded the action to do Maple Street. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he did not think that the Judge would like that.

Commissioner Nystrom asked if Mr. Van Blaricum would like some time to study this. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that there was some merit to getting this on the April 6th ballot and it might do everyone good to look at it a little longer. Mr. Van Blaricum added that the down side to putting it off a month or two was just that and it could cost about $1,500 for a special election, but it could cost us a lot more if we did it wrong. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that we were assuming that we were going to lose. Mayor Taylor stated that we were not assuming that, but we were saying that it was getting too complicated. Mayor Taylor added that there are a lot of intelligent people that go vote and could work their way through it and then there are those who just go vote.

Commissioner Nystrom reminded the Commission that the school rushed their first attempt, in his opinion the hospital was rushing, so we need to take time to educate the public. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that the more he looks at it, the easier it was to understand. Commissioner Nystrom commented that not many people were going to take the time to read it four, five or six times. Commissioner Hlavachick suggested that it be put in the paper that if you want the Maple Street extension, vote no and if you do not want the Maple Street extension, vote yes. Commissioner Peltier commented that it takes more than two weeks to educate the public. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that he wanted to get it off the table.

Mr. Howard commented that Mr. Steadman’s concern was that the City took action and he questioned if the Judge’s decision would overturn that action. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that the Judge’s decision had not overturned that action, but he had said that there had to be a vote and it would be the public that would overturn the action. Mr. Van Blaricum added that the only way to back up would be to repeal what the City had done. Mr. Howard questioned if could be repealed even if the Judge said it had to go to the people to decide. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that Ms. Detwiler’s petition specifically states that the action be repealed, but the Judge said that the people should get to vote. Mayor Taylor questioned if the Commission could be stopped from taking similar action if the vote was to repeal the action. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that according to the Statute, if the public votes on a referendum like this, the City was precluded to do anything along those lines for ten years unless there was another election. Mayor Taylor commented that the petition wanted the action repealed, but it was not disallowing us to take that action again in similar fashion. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that Mayor Taylor was raising legal questions. Mayor Taylor commented that they would have to raise another petition and the City had the legal right to extend the street. Mayor Taylor added that the Judge’s decision was that the petition was legal and it should go to a vote to repeal the action taken, but it does not go to the next step saying that we cannot do it again. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the Statute says that you cannot do it again. Mr. Van Blaricum quoted the Statute that talked about the referendum to the petition ‘Any ordinance proposed by the petition and passed by the governing body or adopted by the vote of the electors shall not be repealed or amended except by the vote of the electors or by the governing body if the ordinance has been in effect for ten years from date of publication’. Commissioner Nystrom commented that there was no ordinance. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that there was now. Commissioner Nystrom commented that was a determination from Judge Schmisseur and this could go on forever. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that there was an ordinance on the table that the people were supposed to vote on. Commissioner Nystrom asked if there was a number for that. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that there would be once it was passed, but clarified that this was a proposed ordinance. Commissioner Nystrom commented that Judge Schmisseur did not tell us to sit back and micro manage this for three hours to come up with a happy medium.

Commissioner Peltier commented that the Commission had issues that needed to be sorted out. Commissioner Nystrom commented that he liked the idea of repealing it and although he respected Mr. Van Blaricum’s opinion, after working through it and going over it with the contractors, they could still choose to sue us and he was not comfortable with that. Mr. Van Blaricum agreed that that was a major issue. Commissioner Nystrom stated that this issue should be tabled so that it could be studied and then set a special election. Mr. Howard commented that it was in everybody’s best interest that this be done right and everybody was clear. Mr. Howard added that if there was an election and either party was not satisfied with the question and the results go against them, issues could come out of that. Mr. Howard suggested that it either be the question on the petition or one that everybody is in agreement to or otherwise it could be subject to challenge. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that the ramifications of what we do could be State wide and everyone would be affected. Mr. Howard stated that if that was the way the Commission felt, then they should appeal this decision, because that would be the only way to change that and he added that he was not recommending that they do that. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that this was based on a 1932 law when there were dirt streets and he felt that the legislature should be involved in something of this magnitude.

Mayor Taylor stated that as a duly elected representative, it was a sad day when you cannot do something that is in the best interest of the City and would help spread out the tax base. Mayor Taylor added that unless the citizens come to an understanding that it was sad that this type of thing could happen and vote to continue with Maple Street. Mayor Taylor commented that no matter what we have to do, it would be micro-managed and questioned why have a Commission when you could just have petition runners and voters that vote on the petition. Mr. Howard commented that the decision last evening was made that we would respect the Judge’s decision. Mayor Taylor agreed and stated that the City did not want to rush it.

Ms. Detwiler commented that she had not taken a stand for or against Maple Street and she wanted that made clear. Ms. Detwiler stated that she had taken a stand that the voters need the opportunity to vote and the Judge agreed with that because the Commission failed to follow the Statutes when they decided to do the project. Ms. Detwiler added that the 1932 Supreme Court decision had been applied to situations as recently as 2009 and the Judge had that information in his judgment. Ms. Detwiler commented that the Commission could go ahead and have their special election if that was what they desired, but if the people come forward and they do not want the street extended, not only were they going to be responsible to the contractors, but there was also additional money involved for the special election and educating the public. Mayor Taylor stated that that had already been talked about. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the Judge’s ruling would not particularly be known State wide, but what was known as State wide was the 1932 Supreme Court decision. Commissioner Peltier commented that there had been nothing happen that would rescind the 1932 decision. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that that decision involved a City that widened a street by ordinance and then later decided to condemn property, by ordinance, so that the street could be widened. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that there was a petition to set aside the condemnation stating that the condemnation was legislative and the Supreme Court said that it was not, but it was administrative. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that there had been many cases over the years on legislative vs. administrative and that there was a 2009 case that summarizes all of those cases; which was the case that he had argued off of. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he believes that that was also the case that Mr. Stull had looked at, but the Judge did not agree. Commissioner Nystrom commented that he respected Judge Schmisseur, but he felt that he was in error on this.

Mr. Van Blaricum suggested that, since the Commission was in agreement with not having this question on the April 6th ballot but to have a special election, there be an agenda item at the next regular meeting to set a date for that special election. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that that also gave him time to research all of the ramifications. Mayor Taylor added that we would then know what the contractors were thinking and we could rescind if necessary. Commissioner Nystrom commented that he was all for getting it on this ballot, but not in this format. Commissioner Nystrom added that he did not want people coming back and saying that they had not understood the question. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that he wanted a straight ‘yes or no’. Mayor Taylor stated that he felt that that was what the majority of the audience wanted last evening and the Commission owes it to them and to those that were not at the meeting.

Mayor Taylor commented that there was also the compromise with the contractors so that we would not suffer thousands of dollars. Mr. Howard commented that there were provisions in the contracts to be able to suspend work for ninety days, but they would have to be compensated and he was not sure how that would work if the Commission would rescinded their decision. Mr. Howard stated that if the issue passes, there should be no problems, but if the issue fails, then we were going to have big issues with the contractors anyway.

Commissioner Nystrom questioned if we should recess this meeting until tomorrow and then cancel it if we do not need it. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that they could do that, but he felt that he and Mr. Steadman understood each other pretty well and he thought that what Mr. Steadman would say was no and that he would agree to the language discussed earlier, but that he was done. Mayor Taylor asked that Mr. Van Blaricum check to see if rebidding was necessary if we repealed the action. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he could answer that and it does not matter to the contractors if we repeal or adopt, but whether we are going to perform on the contract.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the Commission could recess and then cancel if they do not need to meet, but he would be out of town tomorrow. Commissioner Peltier questioned when they need to print the ballots. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the Election Officer had to have time to get them printed so that she could provide absentee ballots. Commissioner Nystrom asked when registration closed. City Clerk Kramer stated that it closed on the 22nd of March at noon. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that if the Election Officer cannot make the absentee ballots available, that would be a problem. Mayor Taylor commented that if something pops up by tomorrow noon, they could do a special call meeting. Commissioner Nystrom added that if nothing comes up, then it would be on the next agenda. Mr. Howard commented that if a special call meeting was needed, it had to be called by the Mayor. Commissioner Graf asked when this meeting would be if it was needed. Mayor Taylor stated that it would be twenty-four hours after they determine there was enough information to have one. Commissioner Graf commented that he would be out of town on Thursday. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that a special call meeting can be called by the Mayor and one Commissioner and the notice had to be in writing and can be submitted two hours before the time of the meeting. Mayor Taylor commented that he would not schedule a special call without working around everyone’s schedule.

ADJOURN:

A motion by Commissioner Peltier to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nystrom and carried unanimously.


______________________________________
JEFF TAYLOR, Mayor


(SEAL)

ATTEST:

__________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk

3/15/2010 Reg. Commission Meeting Minutes-Approved

MONDAY

MARCH 15, 2010

The Governing Body of the City of Pratt met in Regular session in the Commission Room located in City Hall.

PRESENT: Jeff Taylor Mayor
Bill Hlavachick Commissioner
Eric Nystrom Commissioner
Willy Peltier Commissioner
Victor Graf Commissioner

ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Steve Holmes Chief of Police
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
Bruce Pinkall Recreation Director

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Taylor called the regular meeting to order. The Mayor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.

Mayor Taylor reminded the audience that the meeting may be taped and/or recorded.

MINUTES:

A motion by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the March 01, 2010 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.

OPEN AGENDA:

No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO FINISH 3 YEAR TERM OF DR. PHIL FARMER:

City Manager Dave Howard commented that this was the item that had been tabled at the last meeting so that it could be determined whether or not Mr. Lee Wilson lived within the three mile jurisdiction. Mr. Howard stated that they had confirmed that he did and he was recommended by the Planning Commission to finish the term vacated by Dr. Phil Farmer. A motion by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the appointment of Mr. Lee Wilson to finish the three year term vacated by Dr. Phil Farmer on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL ON APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR #2 ON KMEA BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

City Manager Dave Howard reminded the Commission that the City is a member of the KMEA and we are allowed to have two directors and an alternate on their Board of Directors. Mr. Howard commented that Commissioner Hlavachick was Director #1, he was Director #2, and Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill was the alternate. Mr. Howard added that his term would be expiring as Director #2. Mr. Howard stated that he was also on their Executive Board, but this was the big voting board. A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to keep Mr. Howard on the Board of Directors for KMEA and that he does a good job. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF ASSIGNING A ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO CERTAIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PROPERTY:

City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that this was a corner lot on the highway that involved approximately sixteen acres and the Airport was requesting that it be zoned C-S Highway Service District. Mayor Taylor questioned how it was currently zoned. Mr. Howard answered that it was not zoned as anything, but this would be the new location of BTI and was in the City limits. Mr. Howard commented that the property would be leased by BTI from the Airport.

The following Ordinance 1002 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: AN ORDINANCE ASSIGNING A ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO CERTAIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PROPERTY, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED IN THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS, AS INCORPORATED IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS. A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve Ordinance 1002 assigning a zoning classification of C-S Highway Service District to certain Airport Authority Property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peltier and carried unanimously.

MAIN STREET & WATERLINE PROJECTS INFORMATION AND PROMOTION UPDATE:

Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall commented that no matter how you try to create the perfect plan, there are always better ideas. Mr. Pinkall stated that this was the beginning and with businesses’ input, we can make progress.

Mr. Pinkall stated that there were four basic ideas to assist businesses and Main Street people to help them promote and deal with the Main Street project and the problems it might create. Mr. Pinkall explained that Travel and Tourism currently has a program with KMMM, My 93.1, 102.9, Channel 12 and the Pratt Tribune promoting our community and they would take those programs and gear them up for downtown. Mr. Pinkall commented that the promotion would be a ’We are currently under construction, but we still have something for you’ type of promotion and would be funded through Travel and Tourism. Mr. Pinkall added that they would begin this fairly soon so that when the waterline project gets underway, we have already started the promotion of downtown and then carry it over to the Main Street construction. Mayor Taylor asked if the promotions would deal with parking and if the businesses would be able to get involved with any specials that they might have to attract people during the construction. Mr. Pinkall answered that that was something that could be discussed and no guidelines had been set on what they have to do. Mr. Pinkall added that they want to do anything they can to make the construction less stressful for businesses downtown.

Mr. Pinkall commented that Green Sports Complex’s schedule was full with the High School starting in April, tournaments running through the summer and activities running into October. Mr. Pinkall explained that Travel and Tourism had developed a banner program that would allow businesses to design an 8’ X 4’ banner that would be displayed along the fence line as you enter the Complex. Mr. Pinkall commented that the vinyl banners would cost approximately $150 and would be rotated so that the key spots would be shared. Mr. Pinkall added that this was one way to get them tied into the Complex during construction.

Mr. Pinkall explained to the Commission that there would also be a visitor’s information kiosk at Green Sports Complex. Mr. Pinkall commented that the kiosk was about 4 ½’ with a 19” touch screen and a map of the businesses would be designed that would allow you to locate places to eat, sleep, get your car fixed and many other things. Mr. Pinkall added that you could take this model and tie it into the City’s website along with the websites for the Chamber and Recreation and this would be where they could talk about specials. Mr. Pinkall commented that the kiosk would be locked and there would be no internet access. Mr. Pinkall stated that there was a kiosk at Pratt Community College if the Commission wanted to see what it looked like and that the picture provided to the Commission of the one at the College showed a vinyl sign and suggested ours could have the City of Pratt logo on it.

Mr. Pinkall commented that the Sports Complex was constructed using a ¼ cent sales tax and he hoped that the businesses that generated that revenue would feed information to the Complex by one liners that could be used during games and tournaments. Mr. Pinkall explained that the announcements promoting such things as the sidewalk sale downtown and specials are put on a list and rotated during games and in between games. Mayor Taylor questioned if we had already been doing this, but on a smaller scale. Mr. Pinkall stated that that was correct and it could be implemented during evening games when our citizens are at the Complex. Mayor Taylor commented that these things could be used even after the construction. Mr. Pinkall agreed and added that, if this was successful, it could be expanded to have a kiosk located at the Chamber along with other options.

Mr. Pinkall stated that these were just ideas and a way to begin. Mr. Pinkall commented that people would start talking and get more ideas and it was important to let the businesses know that we care about what happens to them as they have supported us in our projects. City Manager Howard added that in doing advertisements, we hope that we do not lose the people that currently come here. Mr. Howard commented that they were open to any other ideas that anyone has. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that he felt they were on the right track. Mr. Pinkall commented that with the banner program, they would be able to interact with the businesses.

REPORTS:

City Attorney:

• Petition Discussion:

City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum commented that he wanted to review with the Commission the status of the two petitions that were filed by Ms. Karen Detwiler on February 10th. Mr. Van Blaricum reminded the Commission that the first petition was to block the extension of Maple Street and the second petition was to repeal the annexation of property out near the Southern Baptist Church. Mayor Taylor questioned whether the petition was to block Maple Street or to put it to a vote. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that it was to vote on the question of Maple Street and the annexation petition was to give the public a chance to vote on whether or not to repeal the annexation of that property.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the City had been down this road before with the Maple Street petition and that Ms. Detwiler had filed the petition earlier with the County Election Officer Sherry Kruse and County Counselor Gordon Stull. Mr. Van Blaricum reminded the Commission that Mr. Stull had not approved of that petition and the City went to court to block it, which Judge Schmisseur did. Mr. Van Blaricum continued to explain that on February 10th Ms. Detwiler submitted the two new petitions that had not been approved by the County Counselor. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he took action on February 23rd to file suit to block both those petitions. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that, by Statute, the court had to set a hearing date and that date was March 10th in District Court.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the Friday before the hearing, Ms. Detwiler had hired council from Wichita to represent her at the hearing on March 10th. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that after discussion with council over the weekend, they agreed to drop the annexation petition and did so on March 10th. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that they proceeded to hear arguments on March 10th concerning the vote on the extension of Maple Street. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that after hearing those arguments, the court took them under advisement and he ruled late in the afternoon on Friday, March 12th. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that Judge Schmisseur did so by a written memorandum decision, which he thought many had already seen and if not, the Pratt Tribune article discussed the decision at length.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that there were two arguments and the first argument was that the form of the petition was not satisfactory and had not complied with the Statute. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that previously the court had blocked the petition without explanation so we did not know what his rational had been. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that not knowing the courts rational, he had argued both the form of the petition and that this decision was either legislative or administrative, which he believed it to be administrative detail. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that in the memorandum decision, the court decided that the drafter of the petition did not get an A+ for drafting, but the form of the petition was in substantial compliance with the Statute, so the court approved the form of the petition; which was an important finding.

Mr. Van Blaricum explained that the other point was that our question of extending Maple Street was an administrative matter that the Commission could deal with and not a legislative matter. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that council had argued that it was legislative and had come up with a Kansas Supreme Court decision from 1932 that found that the widening of a street in another City in Kansas was legislative in nature. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that Judge Schmisseur hung his hat on that and that it was subject to referendum. Mr. Van Blaricum quoted the memorandum stating ‘Given the implementation of the Maple Street extension was without formal ordinance or resolution, the court would find that the Detwiler petition substantially complies with Kansas Statute 25-3601(c)’. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he does not agree with that, but he had learned over the years that the Judge is the Judge and he was not.

Mr. Van Blaricum explained that the City did have the option to appeal the court’s ruling and we could prevail, but he estimated that it would take approximately one year. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that council for Ms. Detwiler informed him that if the City would appeal, Ms. Detwiler would instruct him to go ahead and ask for an injunctive relief to stop the City from proceeding with construction. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he felt that the Judge that told us that we had to have an election would grant an injunctive relief, which would put the construction on hold for that year.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that another option would be to put it on the ballot as the Judge instructed and there was an election on April 6th. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that he had visited with the County Election Officer Sherry Kruse and there was just barely time to get it put on that ballot for April 6th. Mr. Van Blaricum explained that if the City would prevail on April 6th, then the construction could proceed immediately, but if the City lost, the construction would be stopped and we would have to settle up with our contractor’s obligations and Maple Street would not be extended.

Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had been working with Mr. Kyle Steadman, attorney for Ms. Detwiler, and, if the Commission would agree to put this on the April 6th ballot, they had worked out some agreed language that would go on the ballot that was better language than what was on the petition. Commissioner Peltier asked if ‘yes’ would mean ‘yes’ and ‘no’ would mean ‘no’. Mr. Van Blaricum answered that it would and council for both parties were trying to clarify it so that everyone would understand it. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the proposed language was ‘Shall the following Ordinance become effective: The City Commission of Pratt, Kansas, hereby repeals its vote to do the Maple Street Extension Project?’ Mr. Van Blaricum explained that if the voters say yes, then the action to extend Maple Street would be repealed. Commissioner Peltier questioned then that ‘yes’ still means ‘no’. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that the question was should the action of the City Commission be repealed and a ‘yes’ vote means that it should be repealed. Mayor Taylor commented that it was very confusing. Commissioner Peltier commented that ‘yes’ means no Maple Street and ‘no’ means there is Maple Street. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that was right. Commissioner Peltier stated that he would like it so that ‘yes’ is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ is ‘no’. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it was pretty late to be changing the language, but he could work on that. Commissioner Peltier commented that this was for the voter’s sake.

City Manager Howard asked if the City Commission had to approve the question before it goes on the ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it could just go on the ballot, but what the Commissioner’s needed to do was decide if they want to appeal or put it on the ballot for April 6th or a later date. Mr. Howard clarified that what he was asking was if the Commission had to approve the question for the April 6th ballot, would they have to do that tonight. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that was correct, but he did not want to proceed with this question if the Commissioners were not happy. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that it was important that Ms. Detwiler’s council and he arrive at something that they can agree on. Mayor Taylor commented that the simplest thing to him would be to ask ‘Should the City of Pratt extend Maple Street’, at which the audience applauded. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that that was not what the petition said and they were trying to frame it so that it was in the spirit of the petition. Mayor Taylor commented that it would make sense that a ‘yes’ vote means the street gets built and a ‘no’ means that it does not. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he wished the petition had been framed that way, but it was not. Commissioner Nystrom questioned if, even with their permission, we cannot use a simpler format. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that we can put almost anything on the ballot that we agree on.

Mayor Taylor asked Ms. Detwiler if she had any problem with the ballot saying should the City continue with Maple Street or not. Ms. Detwiler stated that she felt the attorney’s should work that point out. Mayor Taylor commented that we were trying to direct our attorney to say that a ‘yes’ vote is a yes to the street and a ‘no’ vote is a no for the street and asked if she would tell her attorney to do the same thing since he was working for her. Ms. Detwiler agreed that he does work for her, but he had directed her to direct all questions through him. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had worked with Mr. Steadman for about three hours today to come up with this language. Commissioner Nystrom asked that Mr. Van Blaricum read the question again and he did. Mayor Taylor commented that attorneys would be able to figure that out and Commissioner Nystrom commented that it was still confusing. City Manager Howard commented that there was no mention of Maple Street. Mr. Van Blaricum clarified that it talks about the Maple Street extension, but he could go back to work on it.

Mayor Taylor questioned how much time was left to get it on the ballot. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that the ballots probably should have been printed a week to ten days ago and that he did not know how much longer they could wait. Mayor Taylor questioned if this meeting could be recessed to discuss this more tomorrow. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that they could do that. Mayor Taylor commented that they could then approve the wording. Commissioner Peltier questioned that everyone agreed that this does need to go on the ballot, but the language just needs to be straightened up and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Nystrom commented that he respected Judge Schmisseur’s wishes. Commissioner Peltier asked if Commissioner Graf was in agreement that ‘yes’ should mean ‘yes’ and ‘no’ should mean ‘no’. Commissioner Graf agreed.

Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he would pursue that with council, but wanted to know what the Commission wanted to do if he said no. Mr. Van Blaricum pointed out that if council said no, then we would end up with the original statement and that was even more confusing. Commissioner Peltier questioned how Mr. Van Blaricum would feel if the Commission told him to go with what he could get. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that that would make him nervous. Mayor Taylor stated that the Commission would recess after this meeting until noon tomorrow and the Commission and Mr. Van Blaricum agreed.

Public Works:

• New truck:

Public Works Director Russell Rambat reported that the sanitation department had received their new truck today and it would be in service once the tag and insurance were in place. Mr. Rambat reminded the Commission that the old truck would be sold by sealed bid and hopefully would be used by a surrounding community.

Electric Department:

• Last cylinder head:

Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill informed the Commission that production took receipt of the last cylinder head for the diesel engine. Mr. Hemphill added that this had all been turned into the insurance company and the engine should be ready by the end of the month.

Police Department:

• 2009 Activities:

Police Chief Steve Holmes stated that there was a report in the packets with the yearly activities for his departments and informed the Commission that the Pratt Tribune had also gotten this information. Commissioner Peltier questioned the number of 911 calls. Chief Holmes clarified that they dispatch for the whole County. Mayor Taylor commented that he liked the way it was broken down. Chief Holmes stated that that was their new software that allowed them to do that.

Mayor:

• Letter from Red Cross:

Mayor Taylor mentioned the letter he had received from Ms. Pfeifer at the Red Cross and the Commissioners commented that they had received one also.

• Employee Certificates:

Mayor Taylor recognized Mike Adams, Louis Bales and Eddie Gould for successfully completing six hours of training with the KU Transportation Center. Public Works Director Rambat added that the KU Transportation Center provides training for road maintenance, snow removal and job safety and when the classes are close enough, we send employees so that we can keep up to date. Mr. Rambat commented that we are also involved with safety training with KMU. City Manager Howard stated that safety training also helps with our insurance rates. Mayor Taylor commented that he appreciates the employees who receive additional training.

RECESS:

A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to recess until Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at noon. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nystrom and carried unanimously.


_____________________________________
JEFF TAYLOR, Mayor


(SEAL)

ATTEST:


_______________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk

04/05/10-City Commission Agenda

MONDAY

APRIL 05, 2010

PRATT CITY COMMISSION – REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING

COMMISSION ROOM – 5:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER (Remind audience that meeting is being recorded and/or taped.)

2. ROLL CALL

3. MINUTES – March 15, 2010 Regular Commission meeting
March 16, 2010 Recessed Commission meeting

4. OPEN AGENDA

5. BUSINESS:

5.1 Consideration and Approval of Bid for Water Meter Purchase for 2010 – Kelvin Clay, Water Superintendent

5.2 Consideration and Approval of Appointments to a Building Board – Brad Blankenship, Building Inspector, Mayor and Commission

5.3 Consideration and Approval of Appointment to the Pratt Airport Authority – Mayor and Commission

5.4 Discussion on Maple Street Election and Date of Election – Ken Van Blaricum, City Attorney

6. REPORTS

6.1 City Manager
6.2 City Attorney
6.3 Department Heads
6.4 Mayor
6.5 City Commission

7. ADJOURN