MONDAY
JANUARY 16, 2012
The Governing Body of the City of Pratt met in Regular Session in the Commission Room located in City Hall.
PRESENT: Jeff Taylor Mayor
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner
Karen Detwiler Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Gary Myers Police Chief
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
CALL TO ORDER:
The Mayor called the Regular session to order. Mayor Taylor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Hlavachick and Commissioner Skaggs.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Taylor led the staff and audience in an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES:
A motion by Commissioner Graf to approve the minutes of the January 03, 2012 regular Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Detwiler and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 1:
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.
BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION ON COLUMBARIUM AT THE B-29 ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL:
George Stevens, President of the B-29 All Veterans Memorial Committee, addressed the Commission concerning a columbarium at the B-29 Memorial. Mr. Stevens stated that this was brought up when the Calvin Lyons family had wanted to sprinkle their parent’s ashes over the airport. Mr. Stevens commented that Mr. Jack McCawley was the head of this committee and he turned the podium over to him.
Mr. McCawley commented that this would not be a cemetery and they already had the project pre-funded with local donations. Mr. McCawley stated that there was a Memorandum of Understanding stating that neither the City nor the Airport would be responsible for the care of the columbarium.
(Commissioner Skaggs arrived at 5:07 p.m.)
Mr. McCawley explained that the columbarium would be vandal proof and there would be no more maintenance than there was currently. Mr. McCawley added that he had provided a copy of the policies and guidelines for use of the columbarium as well as a drawing of where it would be located. Mr. McCawley informed the Commission that there were five columbariums in Hutchinson and he had visited with Mr. Jim Bearce who said that this was a simple method of burial for ashes.
Mayor Taylor questioned if they had informed Pratt Airport Manager Reid Bell about the columbarium. Mr. McCawley stated that he had started with Mr. Bell and, when he had agreed to it, they began planning, but were told that the Board had more questions. Mayor Taylor questioned if they had been to a Pratt Airport Authority Board meeting. Mr. McCawley stated that they had been to one, but the next one had been rescheduled. Mayor Taylor asked if the Board was favorable to the idea. Mr. McCawley stated that they did not know what it was, so he should have explained it better in the beginning.
Commissioner Skaggs commented that he had several relatives that had used a columbarium, but questioned if we would have to amend the current ordinance. City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that our current ordinance was common in a lot of small and large Cities in an effort to make sure that someone was taking care of the property where there were human remains. Mr. McCawley explained that the cremains would be placed in the ground with a heavy marker on top to avoid vandalism. Commissioner Skaggs questioned the stones being pictured above ground. Mr. McCawley stated that the headstones stick up a little bit, but they would be level with the sidewalk.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned whether the association would always be able to maintain the property. Mr. McCawley stated that the 12 X 12 granite stone should last forever and there should be no more maintenance than there was now. City Manager Dave Howard commented that thoughts were usually that the responsibility would come back to the City at some later date, but he felt that this should be a discussion for the Airport Authority Board. Mayor Taylor questioned if we would have to amend our ordinance. Mr. Howard stated that an ordinance would have to designate that area as a columbarium.
Mr. Van Blaricum explained that the ordinance could be easily modified, but he felt this should be deferred to the Airport Authority Board and then, depending on their decision, any changes in the ordinance could be made. Mayor Taylor questioned if the Cemetery Board should get involved and have their questions answered. Mr. McCawley stated that he had been out to speak with Cemetery Sexton Butch Simpson and he had no objections. Commissioner Detwiler questioned what the demand for something like this was. Mr. McCawley stated that he did not know since this was the first time they had been approached. Commissioner Detwiler questioned if it was not common for the ashes to be scattered. Mr. McCawley stated that they would rather have them in an area with nitches in a garden area.
Mr. Van Blaricum stated that he could draft an ordinance and run it by the Airport Authority Board. Mayor Taylor asked what the consensus of the Commission was. Commissioner Detwiler commented that she would like to see it deferred to the Airport Authority Board before we change anything. Mayor Taylor commented that this touches the veteran’s side of it and most of the World War II veterans were gone. Commissioner Graf stated that he would like to see it stay in the cemetery. Commissioner Skaggs stated that this was a modern thing and, with a mobile society, the columbarium was the up and coming thing. Commissioner Skaggs added that he had family purchase these in a church columbarium. Mr. McCawley commented that not many B-29 people think about coming to Greenlawn Cemetery, but they may come to the columbarium.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Commission would wait to see what the Airport Authority Board thinks before any decisions were made. The Commissioners were all in agreement. Mr. Fred Sullivan, FATB Construction, stated that he would strongly suggest that there be good records kept at the cemetery, since he had recently dug up a grave stone during a construction project.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE CEMETERY BOARD:
Public Works Director Russell Rambat stated that there were two seats on the Cemetery Board that were about to expire and both were willing to serve another term. Mr. Rambat informed the Commission that he would recommend Ms. Rita Hitt and Mr. Tom Jones for re-appointment to the Cemetery Board for a three year term.
A motion by Commissioner Detwiler to re-appoint Ms. Rita Hitt and Mr. Tom Jones to another three year term on the Cemetery Board. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 2:
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.
REPORTS:
City Manager:
• KMU meeting in Topeka;
Mr. Howard commented that he would be attending a KMU meeting in Topeka on Wednesday. Mr. Howard informed the Commission that the Legislators would be back in session and he would meet with other City Managers and Superintendents to discuss electrical costs.
• New Police Chief:
Mr. Howard stated that ‘Acting’ Police Chief Gary Myers was now the new Police Chief for the City and that Chief Myers had held the office as Interim Chief for over a year. The Commission and staff congratulated Chief Myers on his new position.
City Attorney:
• Local Ordinances:
Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he would be reviewing local ordinances with Chief Myers to see which ones might need improvement. Mr. Van Blaricum added that any changes would be brought before the Commission.
Public Works:
• Sealing cracks:
Public Works Director Russell Rambat stated that it had been a mild winter so far and the street department had been staying busy outside sealing cracks in the northeast corner to get ready for the sealing project this summer.
• Root Killer:
Mr. Rambat stated that the wastewater department had been out with the jet machine applying root killer to a lot of sewers since the weather was agreeable.
• Summer ideas:
Mr. Rambat commented that he had been working on the street sealing project for this summer and they would probably try to change out the pump at the pool this summer too.
Inspections:
• Wither’s salvage yard:
Building Inspector Brad Blankenship commented that, after a citizen’s complaint, he had looked at the Wither’s Salvage Yard and it was on County property. Mr. Blankenship explained that we do land use on County property, but not land uses, so he did not have to abide by that. Mr. Blankenship explained that there had to be a tract district within 300’ if he was in the City. Mr. Blankenship stated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Dale Withers and he was receptive about the fencing, but not by him. Mayor Taylor questioned what the State guidelines were. Mr. Blankenship stated that it had to be 1000’ from the State’s right-of-way to the fence when viewed from the highway. Mr. Blankenship added that he had not found out if we do the enforcement from the State side. Mayor Taylor asked that Mr. Blankenship get back with Rev. Fleener to let him know that he could pursue this if he wanted.
Electric Department:
• Light at 54 & 61:
Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill commented that he had checked into the traffic light at Highway 61 and Highway 54 and the lights were activated by cameras that our people were not able to reprogram. Mr. Hemphill added that Gades Company would be out this week to look at the timing and to extend the green light going east and west.
Mr. Hemphill stated that, to have a left turn signal would be expensive, so he suggested that we exhaust all the programming possibilities before adding more apparatus’. Mayor Taylor commented that the extension of time for east and west traffic on Highways 54 and 281 had worked out. Mayor Taylor questioned how long that one had been extended for. Mr. Hemphill stated that it was nine seconds longer. Mayor Taylor suggested that they do the same on 54 & 61 Highways. Mr. Hemphill stated that he would recommend that.
• Accident by Integreen:
Mr. Hemphill stated that a car had hit a pole by Integreen Services and the west loop was out for a few seconds. Mr. Hemphill added that only two customers had been out for about an hour and he was one of them.
• Sunflower Plant in Holcomb:
Mr. Hemphill informed the Commission that the Sunflower Plant in Holcomb would be off-line for maintenance in a couple of weeks. Mr. Hemphill also stated that the Jeffries Plant had shafts shut down on Tuesday of last week, which made a shortage of energy. Mr. Hemphill added that Sunflower had called and asked that we run the diesel engines for one day. Mayor Taylor questioned what the capacity was this time of year. Mr. Hemphill stated that it was nine to eleven depending on the weather. Energy Agent Kenny Kreutzer explained that the Holcomb outage was caused by the EPA doing upgrades.
Police Department:
• Taser training:
Police Chief Gary Myers informed the Commission that they would be doing taser training on January 23rd at 8:00 am. Chief Myers stated that this was a six hour course and he was requiring the officers be the subject of deployment unless they had a medical condition. Commissioner Skaggs questioned what would happen if they refuse. Chief Myers stated that they would not get certified. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they would lose their job. Chief Myers stated that they would not.
Commission:
• Close Sixth Street Park & Lemon’s Park:
Commissioner Detwiler stated that she would like to see Sixth Street Park closed at dusk now that the Christmas lights were down. Commissioner Detwiler commented that there was little to no traffic in the park around 7:00 pm, 8:00 pm or even 8:30 pm. Commissioner Detwiler stated that, what traffic there was, were not looking for deer and trying to see how fast they could make it through the park. Mayor Taylor questioned if she had stated Sixth Street Park. Commissioner Detwiler stated that it was Sixth Street Park and Lemon’s Park. Commissioner Detwiler explained that Sixth Street Park could not be closed, but she would like to see Lemon’s Park closed at dusk, which is when they close the cemetery.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned what hours Commissioner Detwiler was thinking about. Commissioner Detwiler stated that it should be closed to vehicular traffic around 6:30 pm or 7:00 pm. Mayor Taylor stated that he was not in favor of that and the parks were to there to be used by the citizens. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the alternative would be speed bumps. Mayor Taylor stated that it was ridiculous to have speed bumps in the park.
Mayor Taylor commented that you did not want to close the park for people to use it however they want to use it. Mayor Taylor added that some people did not want to walk, but drive through the park at 9:00 pm and it should be open to them. Mayor Taylor explained that, unless there was vandalism or rampant speeding through the park, should you look at closing it. Mayor Taylor commented that he was down at the park day or night and he was not seeing the speeding. Mayor Taylor stated that he did not see closing the parks because somebody thinks there is stuff going on down there that they do not like. Mayor Taylor commented that, years ago, there were some that wanted to close the park for roller bladders and that was maybe an isolated group of ten, but the rest of the people would have been shut out. Commissioner Detwiler commented that we needed to find a solution to slow down the traffic. Mayor Taylor repeated that he was down there a lot and he did not see it. Commissioner Detwiler suggested that Mayor Taylor park and watch the traffic.
• Main Street spaces:
Commissioner Skaggs questioned Mr. Rambat about having more space on the corners on Main Street and whether they were going to paint the yellow back further. Commissioner Skaggs stated that he had seen people go one parking space past the last white line. Mr. Rambat stated that they would get back to painting this spring and would extend the yellow around a little more. Mr. Rambat explained that they may be able to add one more stall to some areas. Mr. Rambat added that they had gone by KDOT standards.
• Radar on First Street:
Commissioner Graf commented that he was impressed to see officers running radar on First Street. Mr. Howard stated that truck traffic had slowed down and he had not been behind a truck going faster than 32 mph. Commissioner Skaggs commented that truckers have a good communication system. Mr. Howard stated that they had written 140 tickets in a six week period. Mayor Taylor stated that this was something that needed to be done and that was evident by the number of tickets that had been written.
Mr. Howard commented that turning the red lights to blinking at night had a good effect. Chief Myers explained that some of the truckers that had been cited never slowed down and they would disregard the signals. Chief Myers added that the word was out that the blinking red light meant stop and not caution. City Attorney Van Blaricum commented that they had had a real avalanche of red light tickets in Municipal Court after this started.
ADJOURN:
Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf. The motion passed unanimously.
_____________________________________
JEFF A. TAYLOR, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
____________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
02/06/2012 City Commission Meeting Agenda
MONDAY
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
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. INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. MINUTES – January 16, 2012 Regular City Commission meeting
5. OPEN AGENDA – 1 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
6. BUSINESS:
6.1 Consideration and Approval of the Purchase of a Back-up Computer Server for the Police Department – Jeff Ward, Detective; Gary Myers, Police Chief
6.2 Discussion on Withers Industrial Park Development – Dave Howard, City Manager
6.3 Information on Pumper to Replace Engine 6 – David Kramer, Fire Chief
7. OPEN AGENDA – 2 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
8. REPORTS
8.1 City Manager
8.2 City Attorney
8.3 Department Heads
8.4 Mayor
8.5 City Commission
9. ADJOURN
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
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. INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. MINUTES – January 16, 2012 Regular City Commission meeting
5. OPEN AGENDA – 1 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
6. BUSINESS:
6.1 Consideration and Approval of the Purchase of a Back-up Computer Server for the Police Department – Jeff Ward, Detective; Gary Myers, Police Chief
6.2 Discussion on Withers Industrial Park Development – Dave Howard, City Manager
6.3 Information on Pumper to Replace Engine 6 – David Kramer, Fire Chief
7. OPEN AGENDA – 2 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
8. REPORTS
8.1 City Manager
8.2 City Attorney
8.3 Department Heads
8.4 Mayor
8.5 City Commission
9. ADJOURN
Monday, January 16, 2012
01/03/2012-Approved City Commission Meeting Minutes
TUESDAY
JANUARY 03, 2012
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
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner
Karen Detwiler Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Gary Myers ‘Acting’ Police Chief
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
CALL TO ORDER:
The Mayor called the Regular session to order. Mayor Taylor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Taylor led the staff and audience in an invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES:
A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2011 regular Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 1:
• Joe Wynn Volunteer Award:
Mr. Eric Nystrom suggested to the Commission that they consider John and Karen Detwiler for the 2011 Joe Wynn Volunteer Award recipients. With little discussion, Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to award the 2011 Joe Wynn Volunteer Award to John and Karen Detwiler. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried with four approved votes and one abstained vote by Commissioner Detwiler.
BUSINESS:
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PLAT FOR THE SYCAMORE COMMERCIAL PARK:
City Manager Dave Howard informed the Commission that the plat for the Sycamore Park was on the over head and would be where Hibbett Sports, Maurices and possibly an auto parts store would be located. Mr. Howard explained that EBH & Associates had completed the plat and the Planning and Zoning Commission would make the recommendation to approve the plat. Mr. Howard stated that this property was located across from Wal-Mart and had been owned by Key Construction until 2003 when they sold it to Sycamore.
Mr. Howard explained that the area had been sub-divided into two separate lots with a drainage area that was pretty big, but Sycamore wants to work with the area the way it is. Mr. Howard added that there was room for a third business. Mr. Howard stated that, during the Planning and Zoning public hearing, the area was zoned Highway Service District. Commissioner Skaggs questioned what the existing utilities were. Mr. Howard stated that they were all readily available and pointed them out on the power point. Mayor Taylor questioned where the sewer line was. Mr. Howard stated that it would be the same one that served the motel. Commissioner Skaggs asked about a name for the street on the east edge. Mr. Howard commented that it was North Fincham Road. Commissioner Skaggs asked about setbacks to make room for an access road. Mr. Howard explained that there was not an actual access road, but it would be owned by the developer. Mr. Howard added that the developer would build a road to connect the two lots across the drainage and it would not be a City street, but more of a parking lot. EBH Engineer Alan Luttrell stated that there was an easement that was retained on the property that goes from North Fincham Road to Highway 61. Mr. Luttrell explained that, while platting the Lemon/Withers property, there was a 20’ road easement on the south side and an 80’ right-of-way on the north end where a street could be developed. Mr. Luttrell stated that KDOT had given them preliminary approval to lay the entrance on the southwest corner and they were in the process of evaluating whether the City could use that entrance for both lots and run a private road along the south side. Mr. Luttrell explained that the developer did not want to spend any more money than they had to, but they had been working with KDOT for an entrance to the lots. Mr. Luttrell stated that the cost of a stop light at Fincham Road would be a quarter of a million dollars. Commissioner Skaggs commented that we need to look out for the best interest of the City. Mr. Howard commented that this was not anything that could not be corrected, but we would pay for it if the developer did not. Mr. Luttrell stated that they would be cleaning up that area and the area to the left would be raised up one to one and a half feet. Commissioner Skaggs asked if he was talking about open drainage north to south to the far ditch. Mr. Luttrell stated that that was correct and explained that there was a concrete box in front of Wal-Mart and that was a drainage structure that ties into this and down Fincham Street to the railroad. Mr. Luttrell added that that was in the best interest of everybody. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this was an out of state developer. Mr. Howard stated that he was from Wisconsin.
Mr. Luttrell stated that the plat had been filed at the Court House and they were hoping to turn dirt in early February. Mayor Taylor questioned the need for the four lane highway to continue further on out. Mr. Luttrell stated that, with the new highway going around town, the traffic should not be a concern. Mr. Howard commented that the concern was the traffic from Hibbett Sports or Maurices to Wal-Mart and it being off-set. Mr. Howard stated that we would have to purchase the property from the Patrick’s to get the roads to line up. Commissioner Skaggs commented that some streets on East First Street do not line up. Mr. Howard commented that they might be willing to move the street if the City would want to pay to relocate the road and do something with the drainage.
A motion by Commissioner Detwiler to accept the plat for Sycamore Commercial Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
A motion by Commissioner Skaggs for the zoning change to CS Highway Service District. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT:
City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that the agreement was between the City and the Humane Society and it was for a year at a time. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had drafted a new proposed agreement for 2012 and it should be ready for approval. Mr. Van Blaricum added that he had cleaned up some of the language, but the terms were the same.
Commissioner Detwiler stated that the Humane Society wanted to address the Commission. Humane Society Board member Jackie (no last name was given) commented that they broke even with the amount that the City had given them last year. Jackie added that they had made no improvements to the Humane Society and the State had told them that they had to upgrade the kennels or they would be shut down. Jackie stated that, if that happened, the City would have the animal problem, so they were asking for $3,400 a month. Mayor Taylor questioned if they had just asked for $3,400 per month. Jackie stated that was correct.
Jackie explained that the dogs were nose to nose and it was easy for disease to spread. Jackie stated that, with the new system, there would be barriers that would keep them separated and there would be more ventilation. Jackie explained that they had no money for improvements and that staff, professional fees, taxes and vet expenses were more this year. Jackie commented that the Humane Society would be shut down without the kennel system and then it would be obvious that the City would have to house the animals and pay staff to maintain the facility. Jackie added that the boiler system was not sufficient and the temperatures were not right. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how old the facility was. Jackie stated that it opened up in 2006 and it had been built with the money that they had. Jackie explained that plumbers had to come out constantly to turn up the boiler. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the boiler was not big enough. Jackie answered that the boiler was not sufficient and had been designed for household use.
Commissioner Detwiler commented that the old shelter had been shut down due to too many animals after the Greensburg tornado and the new shelter had been built on a shoestring. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if it was that the boiler was not big enough or if it was the pump that was not big enough. Commissioner Detwiler explained that the boiler was not sufficient and that it was designed for household use. Mr. Howard stated that the boiler had been donated. Commissioner Detwiler explained that they had cut corners just to have a place to put the animals. Jackie stated that the kennels had been built as temporary kennels, but the money ran out before they could be replaced. Mayor Taylor commented that they had been told that the kennels far exceeded the ones they had had previously and were sufficient. Commissioner Detwiler invited the Commission to go see what the dogs had done to the cages.
Mayor Taylor stated that he did not have to go out there and he apologized for taking care of his dogs, but he could not dole out another $2,000 a month for people who do not take care of their animals. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Commission approve the agreement with the amount that was there before and having the Humane Society cut salaries or whatever and not be a welfare system. Jackie stated that they have one full time and one part time employee who was allowed twenty-seven hours a week and the rest was her own time. Jackie stated that she had not run figures for what it would cost the City to run a facility. Mayor Taylor commented that it may be time to investigate that. Mr. Howard stated that the City could bid out the service to the local veterinarians before building something.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that he was overwhelmed with the costs and requirements that the State puts on them. Commissioner Skaggs commented that he thought it was great that the volunteers put in so much time, but the Commission had increased the contract amount by $500 last year and he felt that they needed more time to study this. Commissioner Skaggs added that he had come tonight to approve the existing contract. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she had brought in some paper work last time that showed profit and loss. Mayor Taylor stated that $71,000 came in and $71,000 went out and they had not had to spend any money on utilities. Mayor Taylor added that there was no paper work that stated that they were asking for $1,900 more per month. Jackie stated that, if they lose the shelter, they would lose their 501c3 status through the State and they would not be able to get the donations and grants, such as science diet, that they do now.
Commissioner Graf questioned when they would be shut down. Jackie stated that they would be okay if they could show the State that they have a plan. Commissioner Detwiler commented that it had been about six months since the State had been there, so they could be back anytime. Commissioner Skaggs asked Mr. Howard what his thoughts were. Mr. Howard stated that the City would spend more than the Humane Society was asking for, but he had no idea what the costs for operating a facility would be. Mayor Taylor stated that we would only have the animals for five days. Mr. Howard stated that it would be closer to seven when you figure in weekends and holidays. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if there would be more euthanizing if it was City owned. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the Humane Society was very successful in the adoption program and they also trade animals with other Counties.
Commissioner Graf commented that he would like to see the City do this for this year, but look into what it would cost the City to get out of it altogether and let the Humane Society take over everything. Commissioner Graf added that there were times that Mr. Rod Tritt was not on duty and it was left up to an officer. Mr. Howard stated that they had looked at that a few years ago when Mr. Mike Hill was here and the manager does have more authority than our police per State Statute.
Commissioner Detwiler stated that this was a twice a day, 365 days a year job. Mayor Taylor stated that he understood that, but it used to be done on a volunteer basis and a part time director, so they needed more volunteers. Mayor Taylor added that more volunteers and cutting salaries would give them the money they needed. Commissioner Detwiler stated that volunteers did not grow out of the woodwork. Mayor Taylor commented that they could not keep coming back to the City and he had predicted that they would be back when they had been given the extra $500 last year.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned who owned the Humane Society building. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the Pratt Area Humane Society owns it. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that they were asking the tax payers to pay a lot more and he would be hard pressed to convince any tax payer that the City should do this. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that he could not support that. Commissioner Skaggs stated that, since the State was mandating these procedures, giving them half of what they were asking would not solve the problem. Mayor Taylor suggested that they show the State a plan, such as replacing two kennels a month, and try to find the money within to make that happen.
Commissioner Hlavachick questioned if they had been to the County yet and he felt that this was way too much for the City to do. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they had not, but they do have a $1,000 contract with no string attached. Commissioner Detwiler added that they do not get docked if they do not have a place to put an animal that they bring in and the County had never brought them an animal, so they did not need a contract. Mayor Taylor commented that dogs migrate into the City from the County.
Commissioner Skaggs commented that we were between a rock and a hard place and questioned whether the City should pick up the whole thing or help to what extent. Mayor Taylor questioned what it would be next time and what new regulations would require them to do something else. Commissioner Detwiler stated that this was a State law that had been in effect for many years. Mayor Taylor questioned why they were addressing it now and throwing $1,900 a month at the Commission. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the donations that they received were not for the day to day expenses, but for improvements, insurance costs that doubled and gas utilities that had gone up. Mayor Taylor commented that the insurance had been used last year. Commissioner Detwiler explained that it had been and they were in hopes that the additional would help. Commissioner Detwiler added that they had asked for $1,000 last year, but they settled for $500 and everything was a necessity.
Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to increase their monthly supplement by $1,000 and let them show us that they were coming up with a plan that would satisfy the State and address this again next year to see if they need more. Jackie stated that the cost of the kennels run about $4,000 a piece. Commissioner Graf questioned if that would be enough to get them going. Jackie stated that the kennels were expensive. Mr. Fred Sullivan, FATB Construction, questioned if they had contacted any local contractors, because that sounded like a lot for one kennel. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would give a bid and suggested that, since they were asking for money, they should show the Commission a plan.
Mayor Taylor questioned if the State was requiring this to be done in five or ten years. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they want it all done now, but we could show them that they were doing their best and making progress. Mayor Taylor stated that that was like throwing a bucket of water into a house fire. Mr. Sullivan questioned what the City would do if the Humane Society closed. Mayor Taylor stated that they would do something and maybe the Humane Society would donate the building or contract with a vet. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they would not donate it, but they would lease it to the City. Mr. Sullivan questioned if the City was responsible to have a pound. Mr. Howard stated that we were required to take care of animal control issues. Commissioner Skaggs added that we were to keep the City safe. Mayor Taylor commented that he would agree with that.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that he had a motion on the floor. Commissioner Graf seconded the motion on the floor. Mr. Eric Nystrom stated that this problem was due to irresponsible pet owners and the police could not police the entire community, but the City should consider increasing the fines on the irresponsible owners to $500. Commissioner Skaggs commented that those people do not have any money. An audience member stated that the City should put together the true cost of having a pound and what it would cost for staff, utilities, upkeep and to meet standards. The audience member added that it was expensive meeting the State’s requirements. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if these were true costs that were given to the Commission from the Humane Society. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they were.
Commissioner Skaggs commented that the Humane Society was not meeting the demands of the State and the intent of his motion was to use this money for capital improvement to satisfy the State. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the employees do not have an insurance plan or retirement plan, but the City’s employee would be offered those things. Mayor Taylor stated that Commissioner Detwiler continues to refer to ‘the City’s employee’ and that had not been determined to be the best way to go.
After more discussion, Mayor Taylor stated that donations come from the heart from people that care for animals, but we were talking about tax payers’ dollars and he could not vote for this because it was way too much money. Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the motion. The motion passed with four approved and one no vote from Mayor Taylor. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that, if they have to come back next year, they should be fully prepared and do what they had to do with the State and have plans in place. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that the State lives by their 5, 10 and 15 year plans and the Humane Society was no different than any other agency.
City Attorney Van Blaricum questioned if the agreement was satisfactory otherwise. Mayor Taylor stated that it was. Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to accept the agreement between the City and the Pratt Area Humane Society with the change from $1,500 per month to $2,500 per month. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON FIRE TRUCK PURCHASE:
Fire Chief David Kramer stated that he had been busy looking for a different apparatus in the budget that they had been given. Chief Kramer explained and shared pictures of a few trucks that would be favorable to this department. Chief Kramer commented that one of the trucks was in Maine, but he had visited with D & R Trucking about getting it back here and the cost would be around $3,200.
Chief Kramer stated that the trucks were in pretty good condition and there was a vendor who had personally bought a truck from Topeka and was going through it now. Chief Kramer commented that, due to the holidays, there were others that had not had time to get him their information. Chief Kramer stated that the truck from Maine had been listed about a month ago and, the only reason they had thought this would be a good option, was due to D & R Trucking going in that area fairly often.
Commissioner Detwiler questioned what vendors he had contacted. Chief Kramer stated that he had contacted about fifteen to eighteen vendors and listed several by name. Mayor Taylor questioned if he had contacted Mr. Sheets. Chief Kramer stated that he had had a good conversation with him and he was glad he had heard the whole story. Chief Kramer stated that Mr. Sheets was a personable guy, but the truck he had did not have what we were looking for, but he was going to send him some information anyway. Chief Kramer added that he visited with Mr. Sheets about the trucks and prices that he was interested in and Mr. Sheets seemed to feel that they were reasonably priced for their age. Commissioner Detwiler commented that Mr. Sheets had a large selection and questioned if there was nothing else available. Chief Kramer stated that his website had only four or five trucks on it and he had said he would send us some information and that had been over a week ago.
Chief Kramer commented that he was not necessarily trying to get an approval for one of these trucks, but he needed to know if he was in the ballpark. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they should give Chief Kramer the approval to go buy a truck for $50,000 and rely on his recommendations. Commissioner Graf stated that he would like to defer this to the next meeting and see where the amounts were running and to get more information. Mayor Taylor commented that a $50,000 range was decent. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she would like to see a cap of $50,000. Mayor Taylor questioned that the one mill was not their entire budget. Finance Director Diana Garten stated that they have budget out of the general fund and the department would have their one mill at the end of 2012, which was about $33,000. Mayor Taylor questioned if there was any other money in the budget that could be paid back over a twelve month period. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City could pay for a truck if Chief Kramer would commit to one. Ms. Garten stated that we could and it would be paid for from interest revenue funds earned off of the capital equipment reserve fund. Ms. Garten explained that that was prorated over all of the departments and the fire department would have to commit to putting their one mill back to pay for it.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the $20,000 be put back for a few years for a new truck. Chief Kramer stated that that was their intention. Chief Kramer added that they had had a ten year plan that involved buying a new truck, but there were other expenses, such as the new building, the air truck and emergency type costs.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that the immediate need was for a pumper and, since we could pay for it, questioned if the Commission should authorize him to go buy one. Commissioner Skaggs stated that Maine was out of the question, but they could go to Topeka and check that one out. Chief Kramer explained that one of his fire fighters had family in Boston and they had checked out that truck and it was in excellent condition. Chief Kramer added that they cycle out their trucks and it was an advantage to have the truck still in service. Commissioner Detwiler stated that that was more than the allotted amount anyway. Commissioner Detwiler questioned why they were willing to take $10,000 less than they were asking. Chief Kramer stated that they wanted to start somewhere and he had asked if they would take less. Chief Kramer stated that, the only one that would not cost any freight to get here, would be the one in Topeka. Chief Kramer explained that they take good care of their stuff, but it was well used. Commissioner Skaggs stated that they put on about 5,000 miles a year and questioned how much we put on ours. Chief Kramer stated that Engine 1 had 14,000 now. Commissioner Detwiler commented that Chief Kramer had mentioned that the truck would cost $50,000 depending on any repairs that would be needed. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she would like for Chief Kramer to find one for $50,000 maximum that does not need any repairs. Chief Kramer stated that they were told that everything works. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Commissioner Detwiler was asking too much, because it was not going to be like new. Commissioner Detwiler agreed that it was not going to be like new, but did not want Chief Kramer coming in next month with a list of repairs that were going to cost $10,000. Chief Kramer stated that he would not buy a truck like that and, if it was not in service or in certification, he would not even look at it.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned Chief Kramer about where the Commission had left him. Chief Kramer commented that he would be glad to come back to the next meeting with a list of trucks. Commissioner Skaggs stated that Commissioner Hlavachick and he were ready to tell him to go buy a truck and get on with it, but that may not be the consensus of the Commission.
However, Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to authorize Chief Kramer to spend up to $50,000 for a pumper truck plus the expenses to get it here. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick. City Manager Howard stated that, the cost of someone going out to look at the one from Maine would be worth it and money well spent and he would not pay $50,000 for a truck he had not seen. Chief Kramer explained that the truck in Maine was worth about $350,000 new and the one in Topeka would be just under that. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that his motion included expenses to get it here. City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that whatever he does had to be reasonable. The motion and second were voted on and passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON THE UTILITY AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANDY CREEK ADDITION:
City Manager Howard stated that the estimates in the Commissioners’ packets were from 2008 and they had not had the opportunity to get new estimates due to the holiday. Mr. Howard stated that there had been a recommendation to move one sewer line for a tree line, but they were able to eliminate a good portion of the sewer line. Mr. Howard stated that there were forty-seven lots and they had cut the cost of the sewer line in half. Mr. Howard commented that they had discussed phasing it in, but phase two could be broken down into more phases. Mr. Howard stated that they would have new estimates in another meeting or two, but they had moved the sewer line a little bit and the water would stay the same.
Mr. Howard explained that this would go in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission the third Thursday in February and then the final plat would come to the Commission. Mr. Howard stated that he would suggest phasing it in somehow or doing what we could afford. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the figures were for doing it all. Mr. Howard stated that it was, but it was from 2008 and he was not sure that this was the design then. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the $4 million figure was somewhere to start. Mr. Howard commented that some of the utility work could be done by the City.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned how the area would be marketed to sell to a developer. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Rich Sanders had suggested making it open and to not have a contract with a real estate agency. Mr. Howard added that a multi-listing could get it out there. Mr. Howard suggested that they invite all the realtors in and get their ideas. Mr. Howard added that a developer would need the City for the utilities, but this would be a long process. Commissioner Skaggs agreed that getting the realtors together was a good idea and Mr. Howard could bring it back to the Commission. The Commission was all in agreement with doing that.
Mr. Howard stated that anyone interested could come to the Planning and Zoning meeting for the public hearing. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Mr. Howard would start here to phase in if there were no developers and the estimate cost was correct. Mr. Howard stated that he would not do it if it were to cost $4 million. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how it could be financed. Mr. Howard explained that we would use capital reserve funds and the utility would pay for their own expansion, with electrical helping out the general fund. Mr. Howard added that, once the lots were sold, that money would be reimbursed. Mr. Howard commented that you would then use the money made in phase 1 to finance phase 2. Mr. Howard stated that that would depend on how many lots were sold at what cost, which was extremely high and all of them would do the revitalization program, so there would not be any property tax for seven to eight years.
Mr. Fred Sullivan, FATB Construction, commented that you would want to have covenants and restrictions or you would end up with all different styles of homes. Mr. Sullivan stated that you have to be careful on what happens. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City would have covenants if we were the developer or vice versa. Mr. Howard stated that that would drive the conditions of the sale. Mr. Sullivan commented that covenants would restrict who could buy a lot. Mr. Howard stated that there was the commercial area that would have lots that were reserved for some of the upper end homes and, closer to the commercial area, we would use high density as a buffer and then be more lenient on restrictions closer to the highway. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that covenants tend to be forgotten, so zoning would be more effective.
Commissioner Hlavachick commented that there needed to be a barrier between Southwest Truck and us. Mr. Howard stated that we had talked about doing a tree row, but he was glad we had not done that due to the drought. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that that was something that needed to get started.
Mr. Howard stated that he would get some more firm numbers and put this back on the agenda.
OPEN AGENDA – 2:
• Concerns about Humane Society facility:
Mr. Sullivan stated that he felt obligated to talk about his concerns on the Humane Society and the major problems with the facility. Mr. Sullivan questioned if the Commission had just voted to give the Humane Society an extra $1,000 per month with no stipulations for improvement or general operating costs. Mayor Taylor stated that was correct. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the plan was to pull that much donation money out of that fund and use that for what the shelter needs.
Mr. Sullivan commented that this was a good cause and they have good intentions, but he questioned giving them $12,000 with no stipulations. Mr. Sullivan stated that it was not right that they begged for money and he had a problem with giving them $12,000. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the City had not given them money because they provide a service to them. Commissioner Skaggs commented that Commissioner Detwiler would make sure that the money was well spent.
• Commission or Humane Society?:
Rev. Bob Fleener suggested that Commissioner Detwiler differentiate from ‘we the Commission’ or ‘we the Humane Society’.
• Junk Yard Ordinance:
Rev. Fleener questioned if there was an ordinance pertaining to a barrier of a certain height at a junk yard like the one on the east side of Pratt. Mr. Howard stated that there was one for junk in the Industrial Park, but not in general. Mr. Howard added that there had been a fence on the south side of Maple Street at one time with plastic slates. Commissioner Skaggs commented that saving iron was the Wither’s livelihood. Rev. Fleener stated that those trucks had not been moved for years and those were prime lots back there. Mayor Taylor stated that we would do something about it if there was an ordinance. Rev. Fleener stated that he would appreciate the City enforcing the ordinance.
• Landscape area:
Rev. Fleener stated that the landscape area on the north side of Maple Street was supposed to be put back after construction, but it had not been watered, so there was no grass. Rev. Fleener explained that the gravel in the temporary driveway had been plowed into it and there was no top soil. Mr. Howard stated that they would look at that tomorrow and do something in the spring.
REPORTS:
Electric Department:
• Cleaning up and doing maintenance:
Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill stated that the line gang had been busy cleaning up the Christmas decorations and the power plant had been doing maintenance.
• 43 years of service:
Power Plant Superintendent Ernie Smith commented that he had been with the City for 43 years this month.
Finance Department:
• Sales tax:
Ms. Garten stated that sales tax for the year was up $140,000 over last year.
Commission:
• Firemen’s offer to help with decorations:
Commissioner Hlavachick commented that the firemen volunteered to help Ms. Deb Goyen with putting up and taking down the Twelve Days of Christmas, if they were purchased. Chief Kramer stated that City fire and Township 12 had all volunteered their service.
• Turn signal at 61 Highway:
Commissioner Detwiler commented that there needed to be a turn signal at Highway 61. Mr. Howard stated that he would look at that and delays happen a lot in the afternoon. Commissioner Detwiler stated that there was a camera there, but it did not work. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if KDOT would be interested in changing that. Mr. Howard stated that this was the best design they could come up with when doing a turn lane to go into McDonald’s.
ADJOURN:
Commissioner Detwiler made a motion to adjourn that was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs. The motion and second passed unanimously.
______________________________________
JEFF A. TAYLOR, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
__________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk
JANUARY 03, 2012
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
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner
Karen Detwiler Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Gary Myers ‘Acting’ Police Chief
Russell Rambat Public Works Director
Brad Blankenship Building Inspector
Kelly Hemphill Dir. of Electric Utilities
CALL TO ORDER:
The Mayor called the Regular session to order. Mayor Taylor instructed the Clerk to note that all Commissioners were present.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Taylor led the staff and audience in an invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES:
A motion by Commissioner Hlavachick to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2011 regular Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 1:
• Joe Wynn Volunteer Award:
Mr. Eric Nystrom suggested to the Commission that they consider John and Karen Detwiler for the 2011 Joe Wynn Volunteer Award recipients. With little discussion, Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to award the 2011 Joe Wynn Volunteer Award to John and Karen Detwiler. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried with four approved votes and one abstained vote by Commissioner Detwiler.
BUSINESS:
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PLAT FOR THE SYCAMORE COMMERCIAL PARK:
City Manager Dave Howard informed the Commission that the plat for the Sycamore Park was on the over head and would be where Hibbett Sports, Maurices and possibly an auto parts store would be located. Mr. Howard explained that EBH & Associates had completed the plat and the Planning and Zoning Commission would make the recommendation to approve the plat. Mr. Howard stated that this property was located across from Wal-Mart and had been owned by Key Construction until 2003 when they sold it to Sycamore.
Mr. Howard explained that the area had been sub-divided into two separate lots with a drainage area that was pretty big, but Sycamore wants to work with the area the way it is. Mr. Howard added that there was room for a third business. Mr. Howard stated that, during the Planning and Zoning public hearing, the area was zoned Highway Service District. Commissioner Skaggs questioned what the existing utilities were. Mr. Howard stated that they were all readily available and pointed them out on the power point. Mayor Taylor questioned where the sewer line was. Mr. Howard stated that it would be the same one that served the motel. Commissioner Skaggs asked about a name for the street on the east edge. Mr. Howard commented that it was North Fincham Road. Commissioner Skaggs asked about setbacks to make room for an access road. Mr. Howard explained that there was not an actual access road, but it would be owned by the developer. Mr. Howard added that the developer would build a road to connect the two lots across the drainage and it would not be a City street, but more of a parking lot. EBH Engineer Alan Luttrell stated that there was an easement that was retained on the property that goes from North Fincham Road to Highway 61. Mr. Luttrell explained that, while platting the Lemon/Withers property, there was a 20’ road easement on the south side and an 80’ right-of-way on the north end where a street could be developed. Mr. Luttrell stated that KDOT had given them preliminary approval to lay the entrance on the southwest corner and they were in the process of evaluating whether the City could use that entrance for both lots and run a private road along the south side. Mr. Luttrell explained that the developer did not want to spend any more money than they had to, but they had been working with KDOT for an entrance to the lots. Mr. Luttrell stated that the cost of a stop light at Fincham Road would be a quarter of a million dollars. Commissioner Skaggs commented that we need to look out for the best interest of the City. Mr. Howard commented that this was not anything that could not be corrected, but we would pay for it if the developer did not. Mr. Luttrell stated that they would be cleaning up that area and the area to the left would be raised up one to one and a half feet. Commissioner Skaggs asked if he was talking about open drainage north to south to the far ditch. Mr. Luttrell stated that that was correct and explained that there was a concrete box in front of Wal-Mart and that was a drainage structure that ties into this and down Fincham Street to the railroad. Mr. Luttrell added that that was in the best interest of everybody. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this was an out of state developer. Mr. Howard stated that he was from Wisconsin.
Mr. Luttrell stated that the plat had been filed at the Court House and they were hoping to turn dirt in early February. Mayor Taylor questioned the need for the four lane highway to continue further on out. Mr. Luttrell stated that, with the new highway going around town, the traffic should not be a concern. Mr. Howard commented that the concern was the traffic from Hibbett Sports or Maurices to Wal-Mart and it being off-set. Mr. Howard stated that we would have to purchase the property from the Patrick’s to get the roads to line up. Commissioner Skaggs commented that some streets on East First Street do not line up. Mr. Howard commented that they might be willing to move the street if the City would want to pay to relocate the road and do something with the drainage.
A motion by Commissioner Detwiler to accept the plat for Sycamore Commercial Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
A motion by Commissioner Skaggs for the zoning change to CS Highway Service District. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT:
City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that the agreement was between the City and the Humane Society and it was for a year at a time. Mr. Van Blaricum commented that he had drafted a new proposed agreement for 2012 and it should be ready for approval. Mr. Van Blaricum added that he had cleaned up some of the language, but the terms were the same.
Commissioner Detwiler stated that the Humane Society wanted to address the Commission. Humane Society Board member Jackie (no last name was given) commented that they broke even with the amount that the City had given them last year. Jackie added that they had made no improvements to the Humane Society and the State had told them that they had to upgrade the kennels or they would be shut down. Jackie stated that, if that happened, the City would have the animal problem, so they were asking for $3,400 a month. Mayor Taylor questioned if they had just asked for $3,400 per month. Jackie stated that was correct.
Jackie explained that the dogs were nose to nose and it was easy for disease to spread. Jackie stated that, with the new system, there would be barriers that would keep them separated and there would be more ventilation. Jackie explained that they had no money for improvements and that staff, professional fees, taxes and vet expenses were more this year. Jackie commented that the Humane Society would be shut down without the kennel system and then it would be obvious that the City would have to house the animals and pay staff to maintain the facility. Jackie added that the boiler system was not sufficient and the temperatures were not right. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how old the facility was. Jackie stated that it opened up in 2006 and it had been built with the money that they had. Jackie explained that plumbers had to come out constantly to turn up the boiler. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the boiler was not big enough. Jackie answered that the boiler was not sufficient and had been designed for household use.
Commissioner Detwiler commented that the old shelter had been shut down due to too many animals after the Greensburg tornado and the new shelter had been built on a shoestring. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if it was that the boiler was not big enough or if it was the pump that was not big enough. Commissioner Detwiler explained that the boiler was not sufficient and that it was designed for household use. Mr. Howard stated that the boiler had been donated. Commissioner Detwiler explained that they had cut corners just to have a place to put the animals. Jackie stated that the kennels had been built as temporary kennels, but the money ran out before they could be replaced. Mayor Taylor commented that they had been told that the kennels far exceeded the ones they had had previously and were sufficient. Commissioner Detwiler invited the Commission to go see what the dogs had done to the cages.
Mayor Taylor stated that he did not have to go out there and he apologized for taking care of his dogs, but he could not dole out another $2,000 a month for people who do not take care of their animals. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Commission approve the agreement with the amount that was there before and having the Humane Society cut salaries or whatever and not be a welfare system. Jackie stated that they have one full time and one part time employee who was allowed twenty-seven hours a week and the rest was her own time. Jackie stated that she had not run figures for what it would cost the City to run a facility. Mayor Taylor commented that it may be time to investigate that. Mr. Howard stated that the City could bid out the service to the local veterinarians before building something.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that he was overwhelmed with the costs and requirements that the State puts on them. Commissioner Skaggs commented that he thought it was great that the volunteers put in so much time, but the Commission had increased the contract amount by $500 last year and he felt that they needed more time to study this. Commissioner Skaggs added that he had come tonight to approve the existing contract. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she had brought in some paper work last time that showed profit and loss. Mayor Taylor stated that $71,000 came in and $71,000 went out and they had not had to spend any money on utilities. Mayor Taylor added that there was no paper work that stated that they were asking for $1,900 more per month. Jackie stated that, if they lose the shelter, they would lose their 501c3 status through the State and they would not be able to get the donations and grants, such as science diet, that they do now.
Commissioner Graf questioned when they would be shut down. Jackie stated that they would be okay if they could show the State that they have a plan. Commissioner Detwiler commented that it had been about six months since the State had been there, so they could be back anytime. Commissioner Skaggs asked Mr. Howard what his thoughts were. Mr. Howard stated that the City would spend more than the Humane Society was asking for, but he had no idea what the costs for operating a facility would be. Mayor Taylor stated that we would only have the animals for five days. Mr. Howard stated that it would be closer to seven when you figure in weekends and holidays. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if there would be more euthanizing if it was City owned. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the Humane Society was very successful in the adoption program and they also trade animals with other Counties.
Commissioner Graf commented that he would like to see the City do this for this year, but look into what it would cost the City to get out of it altogether and let the Humane Society take over everything. Commissioner Graf added that there were times that Mr. Rod Tritt was not on duty and it was left up to an officer. Mr. Howard stated that they had looked at that a few years ago when Mr. Mike Hill was here and the manager does have more authority than our police per State Statute.
Commissioner Detwiler stated that this was a twice a day, 365 days a year job. Mayor Taylor stated that he understood that, but it used to be done on a volunteer basis and a part time director, so they needed more volunteers. Mayor Taylor added that more volunteers and cutting salaries would give them the money they needed. Commissioner Detwiler stated that volunteers did not grow out of the woodwork. Mayor Taylor commented that they could not keep coming back to the City and he had predicted that they would be back when they had been given the extra $500 last year.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned who owned the Humane Society building. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the Pratt Area Humane Society owns it. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that they were asking the tax payers to pay a lot more and he would be hard pressed to convince any tax payer that the City should do this. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that he could not support that. Commissioner Skaggs stated that, since the State was mandating these procedures, giving them half of what they were asking would not solve the problem. Mayor Taylor suggested that they show the State a plan, such as replacing two kennels a month, and try to find the money within to make that happen.
Commissioner Hlavachick questioned if they had been to the County yet and he felt that this was way too much for the City to do. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they had not, but they do have a $1,000 contract with no string attached. Commissioner Detwiler added that they do not get docked if they do not have a place to put an animal that they bring in and the County had never brought them an animal, so they did not need a contract. Mayor Taylor commented that dogs migrate into the City from the County.
Commissioner Skaggs commented that we were between a rock and a hard place and questioned whether the City should pick up the whole thing or help to what extent. Mayor Taylor questioned what it would be next time and what new regulations would require them to do something else. Commissioner Detwiler stated that this was a State law that had been in effect for many years. Mayor Taylor questioned why they were addressing it now and throwing $1,900 a month at the Commission. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the donations that they received were not for the day to day expenses, but for improvements, insurance costs that doubled and gas utilities that had gone up. Mayor Taylor commented that the insurance had been used last year. Commissioner Detwiler explained that it had been and they were in hopes that the additional would help. Commissioner Detwiler added that they had asked for $1,000 last year, but they settled for $500 and everything was a necessity.
Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to increase their monthly supplement by $1,000 and let them show us that they were coming up with a plan that would satisfy the State and address this again next year to see if they need more. Jackie stated that the cost of the kennels run about $4,000 a piece. Commissioner Graf questioned if that would be enough to get them going. Jackie stated that the kennels were expensive. Mr. Fred Sullivan, FATB Construction, questioned if they had contacted any local contractors, because that sounded like a lot for one kennel. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would give a bid and suggested that, since they were asking for money, they should show the Commission a plan.
Mayor Taylor questioned if the State was requiring this to be done in five or ten years. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they want it all done now, but we could show them that they were doing their best and making progress. Mayor Taylor stated that that was like throwing a bucket of water into a house fire. Mr. Sullivan questioned what the City would do if the Humane Society closed. Mayor Taylor stated that they would do something and maybe the Humane Society would donate the building or contract with a vet. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they would not donate it, but they would lease it to the City. Mr. Sullivan questioned if the City was responsible to have a pound. Mr. Howard stated that we were required to take care of animal control issues. Commissioner Skaggs added that we were to keep the City safe. Mayor Taylor commented that he would agree with that.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that he had a motion on the floor. Commissioner Graf seconded the motion on the floor. Mr. Eric Nystrom stated that this problem was due to irresponsible pet owners and the police could not police the entire community, but the City should consider increasing the fines on the irresponsible owners to $500. Commissioner Skaggs commented that those people do not have any money. An audience member stated that the City should put together the true cost of having a pound and what it would cost for staff, utilities, upkeep and to meet standards. The audience member added that it was expensive meeting the State’s requirements. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if these were true costs that were given to the Commission from the Humane Society. Commissioner Detwiler stated that they were.
Commissioner Skaggs commented that the Humane Society was not meeting the demands of the State and the intent of his motion was to use this money for capital improvement to satisfy the State. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the employees do not have an insurance plan or retirement plan, but the City’s employee would be offered those things. Mayor Taylor stated that Commissioner Detwiler continues to refer to ‘the City’s employee’ and that had not been determined to be the best way to go.
After more discussion, Mayor Taylor stated that donations come from the heart from people that care for animals, but we were talking about tax payers’ dollars and he could not vote for this because it was way too much money. Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the motion. The motion passed with four approved and one no vote from Mayor Taylor. Commissioner Hlavachick commented that, if they have to come back next year, they should be fully prepared and do what they had to do with the State and have plans in place. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that the State lives by their 5, 10 and 15 year plans and the Humane Society was no different than any other agency.
City Attorney Van Blaricum questioned if the agreement was satisfactory otherwise. Mayor Taylor stated that it was. Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to accept the agreement between the City and the Pratt Area Humane Society with the change from $1,500 per month to $2,500 per month. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON FIRE TRUCK PURCHASE:
Fire Chief David Kramer stated that he had been busy looking for a different apparatus in the budget that they had been given. Chief Kramer explained and shared pictures of a few trucks that would be favorable to this department. Chief Kramer commented that one of the trucks was in Maine, but he had visited with D & R Trucking about getting it back here and the cost would be around $3,200.
Chief Kramer stated that the trucks were in pretty good condition and there was a vendor who had personally bought a truck from Topeka and was going through it now. Chief Kramer commented that, due to the holidays, there were others that had not had time to get him their information. Chief Kramer stated that the truck from Maine had been listed about a month ago and, the only reason they had thought this would be a good option, was due to D & R Trucking going in that area fairly often.
Commissioner Detwiler questioned what vendors he had contacted. Chief Kramer stated that he had contacted about fifteen to eighteen vendors and listed several by name. Mayor Taylor questioned if he had contacted Mr. Sheets. Chief Kramer stated that he had had a good conversation with him and he was glad he had heard the whole story. Chief Kramer stated that Mr. Sheets was a personable guy, but the truck he had did not have what we were looking for, but he was going to send him some information anyway. Chief Kramer added that he visited with Mr. Sheets about the trucks and prices that he was interested in and Mr. Sheets seemed to feel that they were reasonably priced for their age. Commissioner Detwiler commented that Mr. Sheets had a large selection and questioned if there was nothing else available. Chief Kramer stated that his website had only four or five trucks on it and he had said he would send us some information and that had been over a week ago.
Chief Kramer commented that he was not necessarily trying to get an approval for one of these trucks, but he needed to know if he was in the ballpark. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they should give Chief Kramer the approval to go buy a truck for $50,000 and rely on his recommendations. Commissioner Graf stated that he would like to defer this to the next meeting and see where the amounts were running and to get more information. Mayor Taylor commented that a $50,000 range was decent. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she would like to see a cap of $50,000. Mayor Taylor questioned that the one mill was not their entire budget. Finance Director Diana Garten stated that they have budget out of the general fund and the department would have their one mill at the end of 2012, which was about $33,000. Mayor Taylor questioned if there was any other money in the budget that could be paid back over a twelve month period. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City could pay for a truck if Chief Kramer would commit to one. Ms. Garten stated that we could and it would be paid for from interest revenue funds earned off of the capital equipment reserve fund. Ms. Garten explained that that was prorated over all of the departments and the fire department would have to commit to putting their one mill back to pay for it.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the $20,000 be put back for a few years for a new truck. Chief Kramer stated that that was their intention. Chief Kramer added that they had had a ten year plan that involved buying a new truck, but there were other expenses, such as the new building, the air truck and emergency type costs.
Commissioner Skaggs stated that the immediate need was for a pumper and, since we could pay for it, questioned if the Commission should authorize him to go buy one. Commissioner Skaggs stated that Maine was out of the question, but they could go to Topeka and check that one out. Chief Kramer explained that one of his fire fighters had family in Boston and they had checked out that truck and it was in excellent condition. Chief Kramer added that they cycle out their trucks and it was an advantage to have the truck still in service. Commissioner Detwiler stated that that was more than the allotted amount anyway. Commissioner Detwiler questioned why they were willing to take $10,000 less than they were asking. Chief Kramer stated that they wanted to start somewhere and he had asked if they would take less. Chief Kramer stated that, the only one that would not cost any freight to get here, would be the one in Topeka. Chief Kramer explained that they take good care of their stuff, but it was well used. Commissioner Skaggs stated that they put on about 5,000 miles a year and questioned how much we put on ours. Chief Kramer stated that Engine 1 had 14,000 now. Commissioner Detwiler commented that Chief Kramer had mentioned that the truck would cost $50,000 depending on any repairs that would be needed. Commissioner Detwiler stated that she would like for Chief Kramer to find one for $50,000 maximum that does not need any repairs. Chief Kramer stated that they were told that everything works. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Commissioner Detwiler was asking too much, because it was not going to be like new. Commissioner Detwiler agreed that it was not going to be like new, but did not want Chief Kramer coming in next month with a list of repairs that were going to cost $10,000. Chief Kramer stated that he would not buy a truck like that and, if it was not in service or in certification, he would not even look at it.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned Chief Kramer about where the Commission had left him. Chief Kramer commented that he would be glad to come back to the next meeting with a list of trucks. Commissioner Skaggs stated that Commissioner Hlavachick and he were ready to tell him to go buy a truck and get on with it, but that may not be the consensus of the Commission.
However, Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to authorize Chief Kramer to spend up to $50,000 for a pumper truck plus the expenses to get it here. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick. City Manager Howard stated that, the cost of someone going out to look at the one from Maine would be worth it and money well spent and he would not pay $50,000 for a truck he had not seen. Chief Kramer explained that the truck in Maine was worth about $350,000 new and the one in Topeka would be just under that. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that his motion included expenses to get it here. City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that whatever he does had to be reasonable. The motion and second were voted on and passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON THE UTILITY AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANDY CREEK ADDITION:
City Manager Howard stated that the estimates in the Commissioners’ packets were from 2008 and they had not had the opportunity to get new estimates due to the holiday. Mr. Howard stated that there had been a recommendation to move one sewer line for a tree line, but they were able to eliminate a good portion of the sewer line. Mr. Howard stated that there were forty-seven lots and they had cut the cost of the sewer line in half. Mr. Howard commented that they had discussed phasing it in, but phase two could be broken down into more phases. Mr. Howard stated that they would have new estimates in another meeting or two, but they had moved the sewer line a little bit and the water would stay the same.
Mr. Howard explained that this would go in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission the third Thursday in February and then the final plat would come to the Commission. Mr. Howard stated that he would suggest phasing it in somehow or doing what we could afford. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the figures were for doing it all. Mr. Howard stated that it was, but it was from 2008 and he was not sure that this was the design then. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the $4 million figure was somewhere to start. Mr. Howard commented that some of the utility work could be done by the City.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned how the area would be marketed to sell to a developer. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Rich Sanders had suggested making it open and to not have a contract with a real estate agency. Mr. Howard added that a multi-listing could get it out there. Mr. Howard suggested that they invite all the realtors in and get their ideas. Mr. Howard added that a developer would need the City for the utilities, but this would be a long process. Commissioner Skaggs agreed that getting the realtors together was a good idea and Mr. Howard could bring it back to the Commission. The Commission was all in agreement with doing that.
Mr. Howard stated that anyone interested could come to the Planning and Zoning meeting for the public hearing. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Mr. Howard would start here to phase in if there were no developers and the estimate cost was correct. Mr. Howard stated that he would not do it if it were to cost $4 million. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how it could be financed. Mr. Howard explained that we would use capital reserve funds and the utility would pay for their own expansion, with electrical helping out the general fund. Mr. Howard added that, once the lots were sold, that money would be reimbursed. Mr. Howard commented that you would then use the money made in phase 1 to finance phase 2. Mr. Howard stated that that would depend on how many lots were sold at what cost, which was extremely high and all of them would do the revitalization program, so there would not be any property tax for seven to eight years.
Mr. Fred Sullivan, FATB Construction, commented that you would want to have covenants and restrictions or you would end up with all different styles of homes. Mr. Sullivan stated that you have to be careful on what happens. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City would have covenants if we were the developer or vice versa. Mr. Howard stated that that would drive the conditions of the sale. Mr. Sullivan commented that covenants would restrict who could buy a lot. Mr. Howard stated that there was the commercial area that would have lots that were reserved for some of the upper end homes and, closer to the commercial area, we would use high density as a buffer and then be more lenient on restrictions closer to the highway. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that covenants tend to be forgotten, so zoning would be more effective.
Commissioner Hlavachick commented that there needed to be a barrier between Southwest Truck and us. Mr. Howard stated that we had talked about doing a tree row, but he was glad we had not done that due to the drought. Commissioner Hlavachick stated that that was something that needed to get started.
Mr. Howard stated that he would get some more firm numbers and put this back on the agenda.
OPEN AGENDA – 2:
• Concerns about Humane Society facility:
Mr. Sullivan stated that he felt obligated to talk about his concerns on the Humane Society and the major problems with the facility. Mr. Sullivan questioned if the Commission had just voted to give the Humane Society an extra $1,000 per month with no stipulations for improvement or general operating costs. Mayor Taylor stated that was correct. Commissioner Detwiler commented that the plan was to pull that much donation money out of that fund and use that for what the shelter needs.
Mr. Sullivan commented that this was a good cause and they have good intentions, but he questioned giving them $12,000 with no stipulations. Mr. Sullivan stated that it was not right that they begged for money and he had a problem with giving them $12,000. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the City had not given them money because they provide a service to them. Commissioner Skaggs commented that Commissioner Detwiler would make sure that the money was well spent.
• Commission or Humane Society?:
Rev. Bob Fleener suggested that Commissioner Detwiler differentiate from ‘we the Commission’ or ‘we the Humane Society’.
• Junk Yard Ordinance:
Rev. Fleener questioned if there was an ordinance pertaining to a barrier of a certain height at a junk yard like the one on the east side of Pratt. Mr. Howard stated that there was one for junk in the Industrial Park, but not in general. Mr. Howard added that there had been a fence on the south side of Maple Street at one time with plastic slates. Commissioner Skaggs commented that saving iron was the Wither’s livelihood. Rev. Fleener stated that those trucks had not been moved for years and those were prime lots back there. Mayor Taylor stated that we would do something about it if there was an ordinance. Rev. Fleener stated that he would appreciate the City enforcing the ordinance.
• Landscape area:
Rev. Fleener stated that the landscape area on the north side of Maple Street was supposed to be put back after construction, but it had not been watered, so there was no grass. Rev. Fleener explained that the gravel in the temporary driveway had been plowed into it and there was no top soil. Mr. Howard stated that they would look at that tomorrow and do something in the spring.
REPORTS:
Electric Department:
• Cleaning up and doing maintenance:
Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill stated that the line gang had been busy cleaning up the Christmas decorations and the power plant had been doing maintenance.
• 43 years of service:
Power Plant Superintendent Ernie Smith commented that he had been with the City for 43 years this month.
Finance Department:
• Sales tax:
Ms. Garten stated that sales tax for the year was up $140,000 over last year.
Commission:
• Firemen’s offer to help with decorations:
Commissioner Hlavachick commented that the firemen volunteered to help Ms. Deb Goyen with putting up and taking down the Twelve Days of Christmas, if they were purchased. Chief Kramer stated that City fire and Township 12 had all volunteered their service.
• Turn signal at 61 Highway:
Commissioner Detwiler commented that there needed to be a turn signal at Highway 61. Mr. Howard stated that he would look at that and delays happen a lot in the afternoon. Commissioner Detwiler stated that there was a camera there, but it did not work. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if KDOT would be interested in changing that. Mr. Howard stated that this was the best design they could come up with when doing a turn lane to go into McDonald’s.
ADJOURN:
Commissioner Detwiler made a motion to adjourn that was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs. The motion and second passed unanimously.
______________________________________
JEFF A. TAYLOR, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
__________________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk
Thursday, January 12, 2012
01/16/2012 City Commission Meeting Agenda
MONDAY
JANUARY 16, 2012
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. INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. MINUTES – January 03, 2012 Regular City Commission meeting
5. OPEN AGENDA – 1 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
6. BUSINESS:
6.1 Discussion on Columbarium at the B-29 All Veterans Memorial – George Stevens, Pres. of B-29 All Veterans Memorial Committee; Jack McCawley, Board Member
6.2 Consideration and Approval of Re-Appointments to the Cemetery Board – Russell Rambat, Public Works Director
7. OPEN AGENDA – 2 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
8. REPORTS
8.1 City Manager
8.2 City Attorney
8.3 Department Heads
8.4 Mayor
8.5 City Commission
9. ADJOURN
JANUARY 16, 2012
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. INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. MINUTES – January 03, 2012 Regular City Commission meeting
5. OPEN AGENDA – 1 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
6. BUSINESS:
6.1 Discussion on Columbarium at the B-29 All Veterans Memorial – George Stevens, Pres. of B-29 All Veterans Memorial Committee; Jack McCawley, Board Member
6.2 Consideration and Approval of Re-Appointments to the Cemetery Board – Russell Rambat, Public Works Director
7. OPEN AGENDA – 2 (City Matters Only) (3 Minute Time Limit)
8. REPORTS
8.1 City Manager
8.2 City Attorney
8.3 Department Heads
8.4 Mayor
8.5 City Commission
9. ADJOURN
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
12/15/2011-Approved City Commission Minutes
MONDAY
DECEMBER 19, 2011
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
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner
Karen Detwiler Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Gary Myers ‘Acting’ Police Chief
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.
The Mayor reminded the audience that this meeting may be taped and/or recorded.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Taylor led the staff and audience in the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES:
A motion by Commissioner Skaggs to approve the minutes of the December 05, 2011 regular Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 1:
• Direction of Maple Street lots:
FATB owner, Fred Sullivan, questioned where the directions of the Maple Street lots were at. Mr. Sullivan commented that there was a lot of interest to build on the lots and he would like to know what the City was working on. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would like to be sitting on lots in May that were ready to go with all the talk of the oil boom. Mr. Sullivan added that construction helps the local economy from the lumber they buy to food to appliances and that was a good economic indicator. City Manager Howard stated that EBH Engineering was in the process of platting that area and a completed plat had gone before the Planning and Zoning Commission a couple of months ago. Mr. Howard explained that it had been bumped off the agenda about a month due to the development of the property across from Wal-Mart. Mr. Howard stated that the plan was to have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission in January and then it would come before the City Commission for the final approval.
Mr. Howard commented that building the sub-division included road development and utilities and had not been discussed yet, but they would get into that discussion once the platting process was complete. Mr. Howard stated that there was a commercial lot out there that he would like to have the City keep, but no decision had been made on whether to put the residential lots up for sale or sell to a developer in one lump sum. Mr. Sullivan questioned if there would be committee put together to see if it should be sold as a whole or single lots. Mr. Sullivan added that it would be more beneficial to sell as individual lots and you would get a nicer development with a better mix of housing. Mr. Howard stated that there would be a public hearing in the Planning and Zoning meeting and, anyone that wants to, could come forward. Mr. Howard commented that the City would like to keep some control of the process by zoning it R-1, which would prevent a developer from coming in and building R-4 apartments. Mr. Howard explained that they would have to come in and get a zone change to do something like that. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Sullivan should come to the Planning and Zoning meeting in January.
Mr. Sullivan questioned if the intent was to put the sewer and utilities in and make the lots available. Mr. Howard stated that he could not say that and the original issue was building Maple Street and the sub-division came from that. Mr. Sullivan asked if the City owned the sub-division and wanted to sell it. Mr. Howard stated that they did and the commercial piece of property was valuable retail property. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the utilities were a major part of the expense to develop the area and if we would rather sell ten lots to develop the utilities or put in the utilities to sell ten lots. Mr. Howard explained that he would phase in the development and do what we could afford, but, if we do not do that, a developer would work out specials or deals with the City. Mr. Sullivan thanked the Commission for their time and stated that he just wanted to make sure it was moving forward.
Mayor Taylor suggested putting this on the first agenda in January for some discussion about different issues. Mr. Howard stated that they had had some estimates on specials, but they were fairly old, so he would get with Mr. Alan Luttrell of EBH Engineering next week to go over that.
BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION ON NET METERING PROPOSAL:
Mr. Robert Johnson stated that he had worked for Sunflower Electric for twenty-five years, going into semi-retirement in the spring, and Panhandle Eastern before that. Mr. Johnson added that for the last fifteen years he had worked with municipal utility coops and groups on power supply contracts and, during that, his responsibility was renewable energy. Mr. Johnson commented that it was pretty controversial at first, but not so much now and it was a benefit to Kansas. Mr. Johnson explained that he was heavily involved with rate structures in order to make renewable energy a viable option.
Mr. Johnson stated that he hoped to accomplish two things with his presentation and that was to give the Commission a brief primer on electrical terms in order to help everyone understand net metering and to provide a proposal to the City that would help make this go forward. Mr. Johnson stated that the electrical business was complicated and there were changes going on constantly. Mr. Johnson explained that he felt that energy had gotten very expensive, customers were expecting more and they wanted the ability to provide for their own destiny.
Mr. Johnson quickly reviewed several terms such as smart grid, smart meters, renewable energy, parallel generation and net metering, which was what he would be talking about. Mr. Johnson mentioned that Kansas was the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind’. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Kansas had more wind than any other state. Mr. Johnson stated that we were right at the top, but maybe not more. Mr. Johnson added that this was a complicated business and it would be nice to step back and keep it simple.
Mr. Johnson stated that net metering was a method of connection and billing that allows an electric utility customer to connect to a renewable energy generator to the distribution grid and use it for his own purposes, while still purchasing from the utility. Mr. Johnson commented that it was not the physical connection, but the billing procedure. Mr. Johnson explained that net metering became a required policy for all regulated utilities in Kansas about two years ago and was optional for all electric cooperatives in Kansas. Mr. Johnson commented that electric cooperatives had started implementing the policy before it was required of the regulated utilities. Mr. Johnson added that it was also an optional policy for municipal utilities. Mr. Johnson stated that KMU had created a template for Cities to use to create a policy. Commissioner Skaggs questioned why legislatures made it optional for municipal utilities. Mr. Johnson stated that he would answer that, but he wanted to introduce the Parallel Generation Service (PGS) policy that was created a couple of years ago that required all Kansas utilities to allow renewable energy generators to connect to their system.
Mr. Johnson reviewed some important details of net metering, such as it allows a customer to connect to an intermittent renewable energy generator in parallel with the local electric distribution system. Mr. Johnson explained that that meant that you did not know when you would get renewable energy, but you had to take it when you got it and it must be renewable. Mr. Johnson stated that it had to be sized for the customer’s own need and must meet all of the utility’s technical and safety requirements. Commissioner Skaggs commented that we do not want a customer to provide more than he needs. Mr. Johnson explained that, whether for net metering or PGS, any of these generators would put electricity back on the system, but you could not sell it to your neighbor or anyone else. Mr. Johnson added that the key was what to do with the excess energy. Mr. Johnson stated that that could be solved with a Net Metering Policy.
Mr. Johnson stated that, with the PGS approach, the City was required to purchase any energy that might flow back on its system and to pay 150% of the utility’s average cost of energy and they have to purchase that from the renewable customer. Mr. Johnson stated that that was logical for two reasons and one was that it was the ‘good of the order’ concept and legislatures said that, for the purpose of creating renewable systems that were good for the environment and the community, it was worth it spending 150% more. Mr. Johnson stated that it was a subsidy based on the assumption that there would be some non-economic benefits and that was a reason to do something.
Mr. Johnson explained that PGS was like having two meters, in which one would flow to the customer to take in energy, billed at normal retail rates, and the other meter would go back to the City. Mr. Johnson stated that PGS was a net billing system not a net metering system, so if a customer got a bill from one way for $1 and a bill from the other way for $2, the net billing would be a $1. Mr. Johnson commented that, with net metering, when energy flows onto the City’s system that was not needed by the customer, it would be ‘stored’ on the system and retrieved by the customer later when his renewable generation could not supply his total needs. Mr. Johnson added that, if there had been more energy flowing to the customer than from them, they would be billed at the normal retail rate. Mr. Johnson explained that they would be billed by the net metered number instead of the net of two bills.
Commissioner Skaggs clarified that ‘storage’ was a figure of speech, because we have no way of storing electricity. Mr. Johnson agreed. Commissioner Skaggs questioned why we would want it if we do not need it and cannot store it. Mr. Johnson stated that the reason was because you do need it and you would see it as a reduction in losses. Mr. Johnson explained that if energy comes on the system that the customer does not use, your losses go down and vice versa. Mr. Johnson commented that he did not think that you would say that you had energy to sell, because it would be in your losses. Mr. Howard stated that it was an accounting process. Mr. Johnson added that it would be accounted for in that, if the customer put in too much, the next bill would show a credit that he could withdraw later.
Mr. Johnson stated that it was important to remember that, with PGS, the City was required to buy energy, but with net metering the City would never buy energy from the customer. Mr. Johnson added that the best net metering customer was one who over-sizes his system, because that was free energy for the City. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City would give the customer credit. Mr. Howard stated that municipalities call that ‘funny math’. Mr. Johnson stated that, from his view point, it was a bit controversial, but you did not have that with net metering. Mr. Johnson explained that, when energy comes onto the systems, the losses show less and the next hour it could be taken out, so you hardly even see it. Mr. Johnson added that you were in a buffer zone for the utility and did not have to pay a mark up. Mayor Taylor questioned if this was at a retail rate or commercial rate. Mr. Johnson stated that the meter would only show the amount that was going to them that you bill retail. Mr. Johnson commented that you never have to pay for it. Commissioner Skaggs questioned when it disappears. Mr. Johnson stated that it disappears when the customer leaves. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they could build up a credit reserve if they do not leave and if we would tell them that they lose it at the end of the year. Mr. Johnson stated that some policies were set up that way and some were done monthly. Mr. Johnson added that, if the customer does not have the capability to use it and cannot sell it, the City ends up with it. Mr. Johnson stated that the ideal situation would be that the customer sizes their system small enough that they barely put any on the system.
Mr. Howard questioned if Mr. Johnson agreed that the generation had to be appropriately sized. Mr. Johnson stated that you need to define ‘appropriate’ and that could be based on energy or demand or a reasonably sized system. Mr. Johnson continued stating that the City was in control. Mr. Johnson commented that the customer still buys his energy requirements from the utility at normal retail rates, but nets the energy they generate by their system. Commissioner Skaggs commented that they would not be buying as much from us. Mr. Johnson stated that that was their goal and explained that the customer’s goal would be to save money even though it may not be economical to us, but they want to do something that was renewable.
Mr. Johnson stated that Kansas was required to regulate this and it started when Kathleen Seblius was Governor. Mr. Johnson commented that they did this because the customers kept asking for it and to change the appearance of the State. Commissioner Skaggs stated that the legislative committee obviously spent a lot of time studying this and they decided that municipal generators should have the option, but he was curious as to the reasoning for why they felt that way. Mr. Johnson stated that regulated utilities were under the control of the legislative process and they do not answer to customers but share holders, so their purpose in life was to make money for share holders. Mr. Johnson commented that the next question would concern coops and, it was believed that they wanted to do what was best for their customers. Commissioner Skaggs commented that coops do not generate electricity, but they buy it and pass it on. Mr. Johnson stated that all coops in the State that were distribution coops were affiliated with generation transmission coops. Mayor Taylor stated that he felt that legislatures looked at municipalities as offering a service and not just out to make money. Mayor Taylor added that the regulated utilities were paid for by a City or business for profit and the same for cooperatives. Mayor Taylor stated that they do not like City streets for citizens and municipalities offer a service to the citizens. Mr. Johnson stated that there was one more reason why coops moved so quickly and that was because they did not want to be forced to.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if net metering from coops started from the production end of coops or the distribution side. Mr. Johnson answered that it was all the above and added that he was on a committee that was formed by the KEC (Kansas Electric Cooperatives) and there were positions on both sides. Mr. Johnson stated that coops serve about a total of 200,000 customers and there were seventy-seven net metering customers. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if everyone was going to jump on it if the City approves it. Mr. Johnson stated that the City was in control and most of them put a limit on it. Mr. Howard stated that the City would not have to allow anymore generation when we hit 4% of our peak load.
Mr. Johnson stated that it makes sense for Pratt to take an aggressive position on this so customers have the opportunity. Mr. Johnson commented that some of the benefits of net metering were that it gives the customer an energy option and it reduces the City’s production costs. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the City has a standby generation system that does not cost us much to maintain because we are buying our power from Sunflower. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how we were going to reduce our production costs. Mr. Johnson stated that the only reduction was that you would not have to buy the energy that you were selling and, the extra energy on your system that you cannot use, you did not have to buy because it was energy that had been purchased or generated. Mr. Johnson stated that the last point was that there were environmental advantages that do not burn fossil fuels.
Mr. Johnson stated that there were also down sides. Mr. Johnson commented that there were costs associated with the net metering policy and there could be reduced energy sales by the City utility. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Sunflower was going to increase rates because we were not buying as much. Mr. Johnson stated that they would not even know. Mr. Howard stated that effects would not be felt with our energy purchases, but what we had to sell to our customers would be detrimental. Mr. Johnson stated that the people he was representing believe that a net metering policy was a correct and progressive decision for Pratt and that the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages. Mr. Johnson added that they also believe that a net metering policy could be developed that addressed the needs and concerns of all the stockholders. Mr. Johnson commented that they were not asking for an approval tonight, but they were asking for a study group to move forward with the goal to develop a policy.
Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Johnson had been to Pratt before when he worked for Sunflower and he had the credentials to work on the electrical issues. Mr. Howard corrected the use of the term ‘optional policy’ for municipalities on page three of the presentation to the correct term which was that we were ‘exempt’. Mr. Howard stated that that was with the understanding that municipalities work on their own net metering policy, which we were doing. Mayor Taylor questioned if they had suggested getting one in case legislation came across requiring us to have one. Mr. Howard answered that that was part of it, but there were other issues that had come up, such as second day marketing issues. Mr. Howard added that wind generation could have a big impact on scheduling our electricity and a lot of communities were in a ‘hold’ pattern.
Mr. Howard pointed out that, on page four, item two, it says ‘it must be sized for his own need’ and we use the word ‘load’. Mr. Howard explained that you cannot go in and put in any size generator so that you want to push a bunch of electricity and sell it to the City, because regulations do not allow that and the City was not going to allow that. Mr. Johnson commented that this had been discussed a lot by the coops and regulated utilities have two limits, which were that you cannot be over 25 kw for residential and 200 kw for commercial. Mr. Johnson added that the coops put it at 200 kw and appropriate. Mr. Howard commented that several people had been approached by wind generation salesman and their whole attempt was going to be to over-size their generators to force it to the City. Mr. Howard stated that he wanted to make it clear that the City was not going to allow that and he would not make that recommendation for that to be allowed to the Commission.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if we were limited to 4% of our total generation if we did net metering. Mr. Howard commented that if it was 4% of our peak load and we have one hundred seventy-five on our system that are not net metered, because they do not need to be and the only way they could push power in our system would be if we lose power and then they would be shut off for safety reasons. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that 4% was the whole City and not per customer. Mr. Howard agreed. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they were the Governing Body that decides who get what part of that 4% or was it first come first serve. Mr. Howard stated that it was first come first serve. Mr. Johnson stated that you could do whatever you wanted to and those were only guidelines. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the City could give Pratt Feeders all 4% if they were the only ones that came to us and, when someone else comes along, we could say that they do not get all of it. Mr. Howard stated that it was not just net metering, but allowing the generation on our system. Mr. Howard added that we could get 4% now without net metering, because it has nothing to do with net metering.
Mr. Howard stated that it was also the issue of excess energy being generated and solving that issue, but we do not have that issue right now, so it does not solve an issue but creates one. Mr. Howard pointed out that on page five of Mr. Johnson’s presentation it states that the City was required to ‘purchase’ any energy and the legislation actually says ‘compensate’. Mr. Howard commented that Mr. Johnson’s opinion was that we would never purchase energy from our customers, but it was a loss to our revenue. Mr. Howard explained that you do not just pay for electricity to light up your house, but you pay for distribution, traffic lights, Christmas lights and street lights, so you cannot compare a municipality, that owns its own system, with a coop. Mr. Howard commented on the statement concerning paying it back at 150% and he explained that that compensation would not be to support your own system because you were your own generator. Mr. Howard added that we would re-collect that compensation, because they would still want our electrical generation if the lights go out. Mr. Howard explained that they had not paid into it per kilowatt like our customers had and we would collect that back in compensation. Mr. Howard stated that we would also collect back any compensation that was incurred due to net metering being on our system and, with different billing procedures, there may be new software and that would be how we would get back that compensation. Mr. Howard added that it was not that we had to pay them, because we do not, and we could get it back through other means. Mr. Johnson stated that his coop’s and their customer charge was now $27 a month, but they were changing those things because someone had to pay for those costs.
Mr. Howard commented that some of the people that have talked to wind generator salesman were under the impression that what they pay per kw hour on their bill through our system, which was about $.09, would pay them $.14. Mr. Howard explained that our cost of energy on our bill was about a cent and a half and the other costs were to get the electricity here. Mr. Howard stated that they would only get reimbursed about 2.3 cents from the City and that was only for the cost of energy. Mr. Howard added that the cost of electricity and energy were two separate issues. Mr. Johnson questioned how Mr. Howard got the cost down to one and a half cents, because he knows that the City was buying it for four or five cents.
Mr. Howard stated that we buy our vehicles in town, have a 5% discount for local vendors on bids and put money into other local businesses. Mr. Howard commented that, if there were businesses that were trying to get out of buying our product and not willing to support our system, that was something that needed to be reviewed. Mr. Howard explained that those businesses could not operate if not for the City and, if they were not willing to support our system, we could buy what we buy from anyone not in the Pratt area.
• City Manager comments:
Mr. Howard addressed the Commission and stated that parallel generation and net metering were not new. Mr. Howard commented that parallel generation had been around for a long time and the first action in Kansas was about ten to fifteen years ago, while net metering had its first hearing in 2005. Mr. Howard stated that it became an issue in 2006 because of wind generation and, in 2007, KMEA made it a project to put together an interconnection agreement that covers the parallel generation issue. Mr. Howard added that the City of Pratt had significant input along with other Cities.
Mr. Howard stated that net metering was not new and the City had been putting together a policy and would be submitting it to KMEA and KMU when it was finished. Mr. Howard commented that KMU had a policy, but the City had some unique things in ours and Mr. Colin Hansen had said that they would look at it and may use it as a model if they like it. Mr. Howard stated that the City already had an interconnection policy and it incorporates our application process into the policy. Mr. Howard explained that, when someone fills out the application, we find out what they want to do, where they want to do it and all the other issues involved. Mr. Howard reminded the Commission that they adopted this policy in 2007.
Mr. Howard stated that he appreciated the group’s request to be part of helping us in forming our policy, but we already have the best people in the State of Kansas working on this and their sole purpose was to look out for the benefits of the Cities in Kansas and that includes Pratt, so we did not need their help. Mr. Howard added that the City manages this system and cares about it.
Mr. Howard commented that wind generation people only want to sell wind generation and put it on our system. Mr. Howard stated that they need a net metering policy to do that effectively. Mr. Howard continued stating that they want to help write the policy so that they can put wind generation anywhere they want. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Kelly Estes from BTI had told him that, without net metering and without the ability to oversize the generators and push electricity into the City of Pratt, this would not be feasible for most businesses. Mr. Howard explained that that would be detrimental to the City of Pratt’s electric utility.
Mr. Howard stated that the City had kept this system going by putting in millions of dollars, countless man hours, and taken care of it during tornados and ice storms and this was not in our best interest, Mr. Howard commented that we were regulated to allow wind generation to a certain extent, but do not want to go beyond those regulations, because it was not good for our electrical system.
Mr. Howard stated that wind generation was also an issue when you look at the local ordinances and land use and zoning issues. Mr. Howard commented that the County was forming their Zoning Board and the main reason they were looking at zoning was due to wind generation. Mr. Howard explained that wind generation in the City and in the County were two different issues and, to build in the City, you were regulated by setbacks, height safety and noise. Mr. Howard stated that our policies govern structures, which wind generators were, in the City of Pratt.
Mr. Howard stated that he had attended several County zoning meetings with Building Inspector Brad Blankenship and they had had a thorough discussion on wind generation and that was outside what it does to your system. Mr. Howard questioned if anyone wanted to wake up and have fifty wind generators in their community and they were predominant. Mr. Howard added that he was talking about changing the face of this community for a long time, because, once they went up, they were not coming down. Mr. Howard stated that he knew there would be contracts and agreements about them being removed, but what happens when they quit working. Mr. Howard explained that all a company would have to do would be to file bankruptcy and walk away and that happens a lot. Mr. Howard stated that another issue discussed at the County zoning meetings was the three mile jurisdiction that the City has and keeping control of that three miles, but with a willingness to reduce it a little bit. Mr. Howard commented that it should be considered on whether the County should take over the three mile jurisdiction.
Mr. Howard stated that we were moving along on the net metering policy, because we have the tap changer issue at the plant, which would take us off the grid for about a month and we would be using the City’s generation to support the system. Mr. Howard explained that all of their focus was to make that project go smooth, fast and efficient, because, if the generator goes down, we could go dark. Mr. Howard stated that net metering was not on the front burner at this point, but would be later.
Mr. Howard explained that some of the other issues that had come from the County zoning meetings was that ice could build up on the blades of the generator and they could throw them three to four hundred feet. Mr. Howard commented that that may not be an issue out in the County but, in the City, they could be thrown in rights-of-way and streets. Mr. Howard questioned if you want a community where that was the predominant feature. Mr. Howard stated that Mayor Taylor had suggested that we need to review our master plan and they had been doing that along with working on the zoning ordinances that were fairly old. Mr. Howard added that, with the significance that wind generation could have, he would strongly recommend a six month moratorium on the City of Pratt and our three mile jurisdiction on wind generation so we can work with the County and County zoning board. Mr. Howard questioned if we want wind generation all over town. Mr. Howard stated that it would change the look of Pratt County and the City for a very long time and there needs to be a lot of thought and discussion put into it and solve the issue of how significant we want wind generation to be in our community. Mr. Howard stated that he feels very strongly about doing this in the best interest of the City.
• Comments from Gary Trimpe:
Mr. Gary Trimpe, business owner and pilot, commented that it had come to his attention that Pratt Feeders had applied to the City of Pratt to approve the installation of four generators with a blade height of 112’ on City property at the airport. Mr. Trimpe read from a prepared statement that this action had been approved by the Airport Authority Board. Mr. Trimpe continued reading that, at the October 13th meeting of the Airport Authority Board, they had assured the pilot’s coalition that no wind generators would be installed on City property at the Pratt airport. Mr. Trimpe commented that he and several other concerned pilots feel that the Pratt Airport Authority no longer represents the Governing Body that was interested in a pilot’s safety or the airport in general.
Mr. Trimpe stated that there was a conflict of interest in the members of the Airport Authority Board who also hold positions in companies that were petitioning that the City adopt a net metering policy that would then allow generators to be installed at the airport. Mr. Trimpe commented that he felt that a pilot’s safety was being compromised for personal gain. Mr. Trimpe stated that his concern as a business owner in the City was whether installing generators at Pratt Feeders would lower the usage to the place that the margin of profit that the City receives would no longer cover the cost to maintain utilities. Mr. Trimpe added that this could become a liability to the City of Pratt and customers who would be forced to subsidize their savings with higher rates.
Mr. Howard stated that there had been an application submitted by Pratt Feeders to locate four 50 kw wind generators at the feedlot, but it was currently in the review process. Mr. Trimpe stated that his concern was that the Airport Authority Board did not have the best interest of safety for the airport, because of the conflict of interest. Commissioner Graf questioned if he had said that at first they said they would not do it. Mr. Trimpe stated that that was what he understood, but he was not personally at that meeting. Mr. Trimpe added that, since then, it had come to his attention that it had been approved by the board, so that was why he felt that that organization no longer represents the safety of the pilots or the safety of the airport.
Mr. Howard stated that he did not know if the Airport Board had approved it, but it had been submitted to the City. Mayor Taylor questioned if it could be approved if the property was not owned by Pratt Feeders. Mr. Howard commented that he was under the opinion that the ground, which was owned by the City, was leased to Pratt Feeders to run a feedlot and not to install generation. Mr. Howard suggested that the fair process would be to let the application go through the review process and then this discussion would be more appropriate when it comes time for a decision. Mr. Howard added that there was a long way to go on this application process, because there was a lot of information that was required for people to give us when they want to connect wind generation to our system. Mr. Howard explained that we were just in the beginning stages.
• Final comments from Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Johnson commented that he did not know that there was a group developing a net metering policy, but he did not understand how Mr. Howard could suggest that customers that would be affected by this should not have any part of the discussion and the people on the committee knows what was best for the customers. Mr. Howard stated that he would not approve a policy or a contract and that would come before the City Commission, which was the way the process works in municipalities. Mr. Howard explained that it would be published and on the agenda and people could even be notified if they want to be. Mr. Howard added that the policy was being developed by extremely knowledgeable City, KMU and KMEA staff. Mr. Howard commented that most of the information that was given to customers who want wind generation was inaccurate. Mr. Howard added that anyone thinking about wind generation should come and talk to the City. Mr. Johnson stated that it sounded like Mr. Howard stated that they cannot. Mr. Howard stated that they would get that input when it went in front of the City Commission and it was always a public process. Mr. Howard added that that was the time to make any changes.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the group that was being represented by Mr. Johnson could come with a policy, as well as City staff having their version, and Solomon would decide which was best. Mr. Howard stated that they could do whatever they wanted. Mr. Johnson asked what the time frame was for this to be completed. Mr. Howard stated that, until the tap changer issue was finished, he did not want to say. Mr. Johnson questioned when they were planning the outage. Mr. Howard stated that that was in April. Mr. Johnson questioned when the action to develop would come up. Mayor Taylor commented that there had already been some work done on it. Mr. Howard clarified that they were probably 75% done, it was a work in progress, but was not a public document.
Mr. Howard stated that this system was operated by the City of Pratt and we have the best consultants in the State that we work with and pay dues too. Mr. Howard added that they were more familiar with the policies than he was. Mr. Howard explained that you need net metering because it was difficult to put oversized generation to push electricity into our system without us being net metered. Mr. Howard commented that he had been contacted by one of these business owners about putting a 50 kw wind generator on his facility and, after checking, his average daily load was twelve and twenty-five in the summer. Mr. Howard stated that that was twice his load and he was told that regulations would not allow him to do that and it was totally wrong. Mr. Howard added that the policies were written in the best interest of the City and that was us. Mr. Howard stated that BTI wants to sell wind generators to put on our system and it would be at our expense. Mr. Howard explained that anyone who has a wind generator to gain, the City has to lose because they would not be buying electricity from us and not supporting our electrical system as they should be. Mr. Howard added that it was all about BTI wanting to sell wind generators on our system so they could put money in their pocket, which he had nothing against, but it would be at our expense and that was what he had a problem with. Mr. Howard stated that he had been hired as the City Manager and the manger of utilities and he was going to fight and defend the rights for the City of Pratt and bring before the Commission what was right for all the citizens of Pratt and not just a handful. Mr. Howard added that that was what he was getting paid to do.
Mr. Johnson questioned what Mr. Howard had meant when he said that he could be part of the discussion. Mr. Howard stated that he was talking about his qualifications and he would be qualified, but he was hired by this group and was not on the side of the municipality. Mr. Johnson stated that all they wanted was to be part of the process and, if the only way to do that was to wait for the City to come up with an approved policy, then that would be what they would have to do. Mr. Johnson added that he thought it would be more efficient if they were part of the process. Mr. Howard stated that our net metering policy would be extremely favorable to the City and they would recommend that they not allow anything that does not fit in the regulation and, if we do not have to do it, we should not do it. Mr. Howard added that we should not do anything that would be detrimental to the City’s electrical system. Mr. Howard commented that he knows that we are regulated and have to comply and the City had done that because there was wind generation in the City. Mr. Howard commented that he suspects that these policies that were being written would be to allow wind generation to where people could do what they want. Mr. Howard stated that the City had to enact the proper policy and enforce them or that would be what happens on every issue. Mr. Howard added that the City had worked with people who wanted to put up wind generators and we were familiar on how they work.
Mr. Johnson wrapped up stating that if he believed the goals were as Mr. Howard had described, he would not be here or if he believed that interactions were to make something for one customer, he would not be here.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT:
Due to the weather conditions, this item will be put on the next agenda.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING 2012 CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE APPLICATIONS:
‘Acting’ Chief Gary Myers stated that there were three additional vendors who filed a cereal malt beverage application. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers informed the Commission that El Dos De Oros, Prime Time and Starvin’ Marvin had met the requirements of the City code and he would recommend the approval of the license to the businesses.
Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to allow the cereal malt beverage licenses to El Dos De Oros, Prime Time and Starvin’ Marvin. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Detwiler and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF TOURISM BOARD RE-APPOINTMENTS:
Chamber Director Jan Scarbrough informed the Commission that there were two terms on the Tourism Board that were expiring. Ms. Scarbrough stated that Ms. Lisa Miller and Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall were both willing to serve another term.
Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to accept the recommendations for reappointments to the Tourism Board. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 121911 EXEMPTING THE CITY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF K.S.A. 75-1120 a(a):
Finance Director Diana Garten stated that this was a resolution that had to be approved each year that exempted the City out of general accepted accounting principles, which was of no benefit to us. Ms. Garten added that this was required by the auditors.
The following Resolution 121911 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF K.S.A. 75-1120a(a) PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM SYSTEM OF FISCAL PROCEDURES, ACCOUNTING, AND REPORTING FOR MUNICIPALITIES. Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to adopt Resolution 121911 as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 1110 ESTABLISHING CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION FOR CITY OF PRATT EMPLOYEES:
City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that this was an ordinance that adopts what was previously decided for salaries. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this changed from year to year. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it does change from time to time.
The following Ordinance 1110 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1011; CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION OF HOURLY EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS. Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to approve Ordinance 1110 amending classification and compensation for City employees. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 121911A DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF PRATT:
City Attorney Van Blaricum informed the Commission that the only change to the boundary resolution was the addition of the property on the east side of the City. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the resolution had been modified by EBH Engineering. Commissioner Detwiler questioned if there could be a title change on the railroad to Union Pacific. Mr. Alan Luttrell, EBH Engineer, stated that that was how it was originally put in. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the name change should be made to Union Pacific. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the description would be modified next year.
The following Resolution 121911A was then presented to the Commission for their approval: A RESOLUTION DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 122109. Commissioner Detwiler made a motion to adopt Resolution 121911A. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 2:
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.
REPORTS:
City Manager:
• Siedlecki quiting:
City Manager Howard commented that there was an article in the Hutchinson News about Siedlecki quitting the SRS. Mr. Howard stated that he found that interesting.
• Executive Sessions:
Mr. Howard requested two executive sessions at the end of the meeting. Mr. Howard stated that one would be for attorney/client privilege to last fifteen minutes and the other session would be for development of a potential land contract to last fifteen minutes with nothing to report for either session.
Public Works:
• Snow removal:
Public Works Director Russell Rambat stated that they were ready for snow, but hoped it would not stick around.
• Event signs:
Mr. Rambat stated that the event signs worked out well during the first basketball game. Mayor Taylor questioned if there were any traffic problems that time of night. ‘Acting’ Police Chief Myers stated that there was not. Mayor Taylor questioned if the parking was only on one side. Mr. Rambat stated that that was correct.
Inspections:
• Sycamore rezoning:
Building Inspector Brad Blankenship stated that the Sycamore Addition had been rezoned at the Planning and Zoning meeting last Thursday. Mr. Blankenship added that there had not been any one there to contradict it, so everything had gone smoothly. Mr. Howard added that this was the property north of Wal-Mart and the final plat would come before the Commission.
Electric Department:
• Momentary breaks of lights:
Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill commented that there had been some momentary breaks of the lights the last few weeks and that was due to Sunflower Pioneer’s new sub-station and the new capacitors. Mr. Hemphill stated that he had been communicating with them to see if they could not work on having less breakage. Mayor Taylor questioned if it was correctable. Mr. Hemphill stated that he hoped so.
Recreation Department:
• Reception for Carol:
Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall stated that there would be a retirement reception for Ms. Carol Gerard tomorrow afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mr. Pinkall commented that Ms. Gerard had worked for the recreation department for twenty-three years and tomorrow would be her last work day and the rest of the year would be vacation time.
Police Department:
• In-car videos:
‘Acting’ Chief Myers informed the Commission that the in-car videos should be installed soon and that the delay had been due to Cop Trax adding our laptops to another larger order to receive a packaged deal price. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers added that Cop Trax saved us $350 per unit by doing that and they should be delivered around the 23rd and installed the week after Christmas.
• Tasers:
‘Acting’ Chief Myers stated that he had ordered ten tasers and had received a partial shipment. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers commented that each officer would have to be certified and they would not be issued a taser until they were. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers stated that the policy would be discussed with the attorney.
Executive Sessions:
• Attorney/Client Privilege:
Mayor Taylor made a motion to go into executive session for attorney/client privilege for fifteen minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Detwiler and carried unanimously.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to return from executive session with nothing to report. The motion was properly seconded and carried unanimously.
• Land contract:
Mayor Taylor made a motion to go into executive session for land acquisition contract to last fifteen minutes. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The Commission returned upon proper motion from the executive session with nothing to report.
ADJOURN:
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.
______________________________________
JEFF A. TAYLOR, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
______________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk
DECEMBER 19, 2011
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
Victor Graf Commissioner
Gary Skaggs Commissioner
Karen Detwiler Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Howard City Manager
LuAnn Kramer City Clerk
Ken Van Blaricum City Attorney
Diana Garten Finance Director
Gary Myers ‘Acting’ Police Chief
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.
The Mayor reminded the audience that this meeting may be taped and/or recorded.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Taylor led the staff and audience in the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES:
A motion by Commissioner Skaggs to approve the minutes of the December 05, 2011 regular Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 1:
• Direction of Maple Street lots:
FATB owner, Fred Sullivan, questioned where the directions of the Maple Street lots were at. Mr. Sullivan commented that there was a lot of interest to build on the lots and he would like to know what the City was working on. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would like to be sitting on lots in May that were ready to go with all the talk of the oil boom. Mr. Sullivan added that construction helps the local economy from the lumber they buy to food to appliances and that was a good economic indicator. City Manager Howard stated that EBH Engineering was in the process of platting that area and a completed plat had gone before the Planning and Zoning Commission a couple of months ago. Mr. Howard explained that it had been bumped off the agenda about a month due to the development of the property across from Wal-Mart. Mr. Howard stated that the plan was to have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission in January and then it would come before the City Commission for the final approval.
Mr. Howard commented that building the sub-division included road development and utilities and had not been discussed yet, but they would get into that discussion once the platting process was complete. Mr. Howard stated that there was a commercial lot out there that he would like to have the City keep, but no decision had been made on whether to put the residential lots up for sale or sell to a developer in one lump sum. Mr. Sullivan questioned if there would be committee put together to see if it should be sold as a whole or single lots. Mr. Sullivan added that it would be more beneficial to sell as individual lots and you would get a nicer development with a better mix of housing. Mr. Howard stated that there would be a public hearing in the Planning and Zoning meeting and, anyone that wants to, could come forward. Mr. Howard commented that the City would like to keep some control of the process by zoning it R-1, which would prevent a developer from coming in and building R-4 apartments. Mr. Howard explained that they would have to come in and get a zone change to do something like that. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Sullivan should come to the Planning and Zoning meeting in January.
Mr. Sullivan questioned if the intent was to put the sewer and utilities in and make the lots available. Mr. Howard stated that he could not say that and the original issue was building Maple Street and the sub-division came from that. Mr. Sullivan asked if the City owned the sub-division and wanted to sell it. Mr. Howard stated that they did and the commercial piece of property was valuable retail property. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the utilities were a major part of the expense to develop the area and if we would rather sell ten lots to develop the utilities or put in the utilities to sell ten lots. Mr. Howard explained that he would phase in the development and do what we could afford, but, if we do not do that, a developer would work out specials or deals with the City. Mr. Sullivan thanked the Commission for their time and stated that he just wanted to make sure it was moving forward.
Mayor Taylor suggested putting this on the first agenda in January for some discussion about different issues. Mr. Howard stated that they had had some estimates on specials, but they were fairly old, so he would get with Mr. Alan Luttrell of EBH Engineering next week to go over that.
BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION ON NET METERING PROPOSAL:
Mr. Robert Johnson stated that he had worked for Sunflower Electric for twenty-five years, going into semi-retirement in the spring, and Panhandle Eastern before that. Mr. Johnson added that for the last fifteen years he had worked with municipal utility coops and groups on power supply contracts and, during that, his responsibility was renewable energy. Mr. Johnson commented that it was pretty controversial at first, but not so much now and it was a benefit to Kansas. Mr. Johnson explained that he was heavily involved with rate structures in order to make renewable energy a viable option.
Mr. Johnson stated that he hoped to accomplish two things with his presentation and that was to give the Commission a brief primer on electrical terms in order to help everyone understand net metering and to provide a proposal to the City that would help make this go forward. Mr. Johnson stated that the electrical business was complicated and there were changes going on constantly. Mr. Johnson explained that he felt that energy had gotten very expensive, customers were expecting more and they wanted the ability to provide for their own destiny.
Mr. Johnson quickly reviewed several terms such as smart grid, smart meters, renewable energy, parallel generation and net metering, which was what he would be talking about. Mr. Johnson mentioned that Kansas was the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind’. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Kansas had more wind than any other state. Mr. Johnson stated that we were right at the top, but maybe not more. Mr. Johnson added that this was a complicated business and it would be nice to step back and keep it simple.
Mr. Johnson stated that net metering was a method of connection and billing that allows an electric utility customer to connect to a renewable energy generator to the distribution grid and use it for his own purposes, while still purchasing from the utility. Mr. Johnson commented that it was not the physical connection, but the billing procedure. Mr. Johnson explained that net metering became a required policy for all regulated utilities in Kansas about two years ago and was optional for all electric cooperatives in Kansas. Mr. Johnson commented that electric cooperatives had started implementing the policy before it was required of the regulated utilities. Mr. Johnson added that it was also an optional policy for municipal utilities. Mr. Johnson stated that KMU had created a template for Cities to use to create a policy. Commissioner Skaggs questioned why legislatures made it optional for municipal utilities. Mr. Johnson stated that he would answer that, but he wanted to introduce the Parallel Generation Service (PGS) policy that was created a couple of years ago that required all Kansas utilities to allow renewable energy generators to connect to their system.
Mr. Johnson reviewed some important details of net metering, such as it allows a customer to connect to an intermittent renewable energy generator in parallel with the local electric distribution system. Mr. Johnson explained that that meant that you did not know when you would get renewable energy, but you had to take it when you got it and it must be renewable. Mr. Johnson stated that it had to be sized for the customer’s own need and must meet all of the utility’s technical and safety requirements. Commissioner Skaggs commented that we do not want a customer to provide more than he needs. Mr. Johnson explained that, whether for net metering or PGS, any of these generators would put electricity back on the system, but you could not sell it to your neighbor or anyone else. Mr. Johnson added that the key was what to do with the excess energy. Mr. Johnson stated that that could be solved with a Net Metering Policy.
Mr. Johnson stated that, with the PGS approach, the City was required to purchase any energy that might flow back on its system and to pay 150% of the utility’s average cost of energy and they have to purchase that from the renewable customer. Mr. Johnson stated that that was logical for two reasons and one was that it was the ‘good of the order’ concept and legislatures said that, for the purpose of creating renewable systems that were good for the environment and the community, it was worth it spending 150% more. Mr. Johnson stated that it was a subsidy based on the assumption that there would be some non-economic benefits and that was a reason to do something.
Mr. Johnson explained that PGS was like having two meters, in which one would flow to the customer to take in energy, billed at normal retail rates, and the other meter would go back to the City. Mr. Johnson stated that PGS was a net billing system not a net metering system, so if a customer got a bill from one way for $1 and a bill from the other way for $2, the net billing would be a $1. Mr. Johnson commented that, with net metering, when energy flows onto the City’s system that was not needed by the customer, it would be ‘stored’ on the system and retrieved by the customer later when his renewable generation could not supply his total needs. Mr. Johnson added that, if there had been more energy flowing to the customer than from them, they would be billed at the normal retail rate. Mr. Johnson explained that they would be billed by the net metered number instead of the net of two bills.
Commissioner Skaggs clarified that ‘storage’ was a figure of speech, because we have no way of storing electricity. Mr. Johnson agreed. Commissioner Skaggs questioned why we would want it if we do not need it and cannot store it. Mr. Johnson stated that the reason was because you do need it and you would see it as a reduction in losses. Mr. Johnson explained that if energy comes on the system that the customer does not use, your losses go down and vice versa. Mr. Johnson commented that he did not think that you would say that you had energy to sell, because it would be in your losses. Mr. Howard stated that it was an accounting process. Mr. Johnson added that it would be accounted for in that, if the customer put in too much, the next bill would show a credit that he could withdraw later.
Mr. Johnson stated that it was important to remember that, with PGS, the City was required to buy energy, but with net metering the City would never buy energy from the customer. Mr. Johnson added that the best net metering customer was one who over-sizes his system, because that was free energy for the City. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the City would give the customer credit. Mr. Howard stated that municipalities call that ‘funny math’. Mr. Johnson stated that, from his view point, it was a bit controversial, but you did not have that with net metering. Mr. Johnson explained that, when energy comes onto the systems, the losses show less and the next hour it could be taken out, so you hardly even see it. Mr. Johnson added that you were in a buffer zone for the utility and did not have to pay a mark up. Mayor Taylor questioned if this was at a retail rate or commercial rate. Mr. Johnson stated that the meter would only show the amount that was going to them that you bill retail. Mr. Johnson commented that you never have to pay for it. Commissioner Skaggs questioned when it disappears. Mr. Johnson stated that it disappears when the customer leaves. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they could build up a credit reserve if they do not leave and if we would tell them that they lose it at the end of the year. Mr. Johnson stated that some policies were set up that way and some were done monthly. Mr. Johnson added that, if the customer does not have the capability to use it and cannot sell it, the City ends up with it. Mr. Johnson stated that the ideal situation would be that the customer sizes their system small enough that they barely put any on the system.
Mr. Howard questioned if Mr. Johnson agreed that the generation had to be appropriately sized. Mr. Johnson stated that you need to define ‘appropriate’ and that could be based on energy or demand or a reasonably sized system. Mr. Johnson continued stating that the City was in control. Mr. Johnson commented that the customer still buys his energy requirements from the utility at normal retail rates, but nets the energy they generate by their system. Commissioner Skaggs commented that they would not be buying as much from us. Mr. Johnson stated that that was their goal and explained that the customer’s goal would be to save money even though it may not be economical to us, but they want to do something that was renewable.
Mr. Johnson stated that Kansas was required to regulate this and it started when Kathleen Seblius was Governor. Mr. Johnson commented that they did this because the customers kept asking for it and to change the appearance of the State. Commissioner Skaggs stated that the legislative committee obviously spent a lot of time studying this and they decided that municipal generators should have the option, but he was curious as to the reasoning for why they felt that way. Mr. Johnson stated that regulated utilities were under the control of the legislative process and they do not answer to customers but share holders, so their purpose in life was to make money for share holders. Mr. Johnson commented that the next question would concern coops and, it was believed that they wanted to do what was best for their customers. Commissioner Skaggs commented that coops do not generate electricity, but they buy it and pass it on. Mr. Johnson stated that all coops in the State that were distribution coops were affiliated with generation transmission coops. Mayor Taylor stated that he felt that legislatures looked at municipalities as offering a service and not just out to make money. Mayor Taylor added that the regulated utilities were paid for by a City or business for profit and the same for cooperatives. Mayor Taylor stated that they do not like City streets for citizens and municipalities offer a service to the citizens. Mr. Johnson stated that there was one more reason why coops moved so quickly and that was because they did not want to be forced to.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if net metering from coops started from the production end of coops or the distribution side. Mr. Johnson answered that it was all the above and added that he was on a committee that was formed by the KEC (Kansas Electric Cooperatives) and there were positions on both sides. Mr. Johnson stated that coops serve about a total of 200,000 customers and there were seventy-seven net metering customers. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if everyone was going to jump on it if the City approves it. Mr. Johnson stated that the City was in control and most of them put a limit on it. Mr. Howard stated that the City would not have to allow anymore generation when we hit 4% of our peak load.
Mr. Johnson stated that it makes sense for Pratt to take an aggressive position on this so customers have the opportunity. Mr. Johnson commented that some of the benefits of net metering were that it gives the customer an energy option and it reduces the City’s production costs. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the City has a standby generation system that does not cost us much to maintain because we are buying our power from Sunflower. Commissioner Skaggs questioned how we were going to reduce our production costs. Mr. Johnson stated that the only reduction was that you would not have to buy the energy that you were selling and, the extra energy on your system that you cannot use, you did not have to buy because it was energy that had been purchased or generated. Mr. Johnson stated that the last point was that there were environmental advantages that do not burn fossil fuels.
Mr. Johnson stated that there were also down sides. Mr. Johnson commented that there were costs associated with the net metering policy and there could be reduced energy sales by the City utility. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if Sunflower was going to increase rates because we were not buying as much. Mr. Johnson stated that they would not even know. Mr. Howard stated that effects would not be felt with our energy purchases, but what we had to sell to our customers would be detrimental. Mr. Johnson stated that the people he was representing believe that a net metering policy was a correct and progressive decision for Pratt and that the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages. Mr. Johnson added that they also believe that a net metering policy could be developed that addressed the needs and concerns of all the stockholders. Mr. Johnson commented that they were not asking for an approval tonight, but they were asking for a study group to move forward with the goal to develop a policy.
Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Johnson had been to Pratt before when he worked for Sunflower and he had the credentials to work on the electrical issues. Mr. Howard corrected the use of the term ‘optional policy’ for municipalities on page three of the presentation to the correct term which was that we were ‘exempt’. Mr. Howard stated that that was with the understanding that municipalities work on their own net metering policy, which we were doing. Mayor Taylor questioned if they had suggested getting one in case legislation came across requiring us to have one. Mr. Howard answered that that was part of it, but there were other issues that had come up, such as second day marketing issues. Mr. Howard added that wind generation could have a big impact on scheduling our electricity and a lot of communities were in a ‘hold’ pattern.
Mr. Howard pointed out that, on page four, item two, it says ‘it must be sized for his own need’ and we use the word ‘load’. Mr. Howard explained that you cannot go in and put in any size generator so that you want to push a bunch of electricity and sell it to the City, because regulations do not allow that and the City was not going to allow that. Mr. Johnson commented that this had been discussed a lot by the coops and regulated utilities have two limits, which were that you cannot be over 25 kw for residential and 200 kw for commercial. Mr. Johnson added that the coops put it at 200 kw and appropriate. Mr. Howard commented that several people had been approached by wind generation salesman and their whole attempt was going to be to over-size their generators to force it to the City. Mr. Howard stated that he wanted to make it clear that the City was not going to allow that and he would not make that recommendation for that to be allowed to the Commission.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if we were limited to 4% of our total generation if we did net metering. Mr. Howard commented that if it was 4% of our peak load and we have one hundred seventy-five on our system that are not net metered, because they do not need to be and the only way they could push power in our system would be if we lose power and then they would be shut off for safety reasons. Commissioner Skaggs clarified that 4% was the whole City and not per customer. Mr. Howard agreed. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if they were the Governing Body that decides who get what part of that 4% or was it first come first serve. Mr. Howard stated that it was first come first serve. Mr. Johnson stated that you could do whatever you wanted to and those were only guidelines. Commissioner Skaggs commented that the City could give Pratt Feeders all 4% if they were the only ones that came to us and, when someone else comes along, we could say that they do not get all of it. Mr. Howard stated that it was not just net metering, but allowing the generation on our system. Mr. Howard added that we could get 4% now without net metering, because it has nothing to do with net metering.
Mr. Howard stated that it was also the issue of excess energy being generated and solving that issue, but we do not have that issue right now, so it does not solve an issue but creates one. Mr. Howard pointed out that on page five of Mr. Johnson’s presentation it states that the City was required to ‘purchase’ any energy and the legislation actually says ‘compensate’. Mr. Howard commented that Mr. Johnson’s opinion was that we would never purchase energy from our customers, but it was a loss to our revenue. Mr. Howard explained that you do not just pay for electricity to light up your house, but you pay for distribution, traffic lights, Christmas lights and street lights, so you cannot compare a municipality, that owns its own system, with a coop. Mr. Howard commented on the statement concerning paying it back at 150% and he explained that that compensation would not be to support your own system because you were your own generator. Mr. Howard added that we would re-collect that compensation, because they would still want our electrical generation if the lights go out. Mr. Howard explained that they had not paid into it per kilowatt like our customers had and we would collect that back in compensation. Mr. Howard stated that we would also collect back any compensation that was incurred due to net metering being on our system and, with different billing procedures, there may be new software and that would be how we would get back that compensation. Mr. Howard added that it was not that we had to pay them, because we do not, and we could get it back through other means. Mr. Johnson stated that his coop’s and their customer charge was now $27 a month, but they were changing those things because someone had to pay for those costs.
Mr. Howard commented that some of the people that have talked to wind generator salesman were under the impression that what they pay per kw hour on their bill through our system, which was about $.09, would pay them $.14. Mr. Howard explained that our cost of energy on our bill was about a cent and a half and the other costs were to get the electricity here. Mr. Howard stated that they would only get reimbursed about 2.3 cents from the City and that was only for the cost of energy. Mr. Howard added that the cost of electricity and energy were two separate issues. Mr. Johnson questioned how Mr. Howard got the cost down to one and a half cents, because he knows that the City was buying it for four or five cents.
Mr. Howard stated that we buy our vehicles in town, have a 5% discount for local vendors on bids and put money into other local businesses. Mr. Howard commented that, if there were businesses that were trying to get out of buying our product and not willing to support our system, that was something that needed to be reviewed. Mr. Howard explained that those businesses could not operate if not for the City and, if they were not willing to support our system, we could buy what we buy from anyone not in the Pratt area.
• City Manager comments:
Mr. Howard addressed the Commission and stated that parallel generation and net metering were not new. Mr. Howard commented that parallel generation had been around for a long time and the first action in Kansas was about ten to fifteen years ago, while net metering had its first hearing in 2005. Mr. Howard stated that it became an issue in 2006 because of wind generation and, in 2007, KMEA made it a project to put together an interconnection agreement that covers the parallel generation issue. Mr. Howard added that the City of Pratt had significant input along with other Cities.
Mr. Howard stated that net metering was not new and the City had been putting together a policy and would be submitting it to KMEA and KMU when it was finished. Mr. Howard commented that KMU had a policy, but the City had some unique things in ours and Mr. Colin Hansen had said that they would look at it and may use it as a model if they like it. Mr. Howard stated that the City already had an interconnection policy and it incorporates our application process into the policy. Mr. Howard explained that, when someone fills out the application, we find out what they want to do, where they want to do it and all the other issues involved. Mr. Howard reminded the Commission that they adopted this policy in 2007.
Mr. Howard stated that he appreciated the group’s request to be part of helping us in forming our policy, but we already have the best people in the State of Kansas working on this and their sole purpose was to look out for the benefits of the Cities in Kansas and that includes Pratt, so we did not need their help. Mr. Howard added that the City manages this system and cares about it.
Mr. Howard commented that wind generation people only want to sell wind generation and put it on our system. Mr. Howard stated that they need a net metering policy to do that effectively. Mr. Howard continued stating that they want to help write the policy so that they can put wind generation anywhere they want. Mr. Howard stated that Mr. Kelly Estes from BTI had told him that, without net metering and without the ability to oversize the generators and push electricity into the City of Pratt, this would not be feasible for most businesses. Mr. Howard explained that that would be detrimental to the City of Pratt’s electric utility.
Mr. Howard stated that the City had kept this system going by putting in millions of dollars, countless man hours, and taken care of it during tornados and ice storms and this was not in our best interest, Mr. Howard commented that we were regulated to allow wind generation to a certain extent, but do not want to go beyond those regulations, because it was not good for our electrical system.
Mr. Howard stated that wind generation was also an issue when you look at the local ordinances and land use and zoning issues. Mr. Howard commented that the County was forming their Zoning Board and the main reason they were looking at zoning was due to wind generation. Mr. Howard explained that wind generation in the City and in the County were two different issues and, to build in the City, you were regulated by setbacks, height safety and noise. Mr. Howard stated that our policies govern structures, which wind generators were, in the City of Pratt.
Mr. Howard stated that he had attended several County zoning meetings with Building Inspector Brad Blankenship and they had had a thorough discussion on wind generation and that was outside what it does to your system. Mr. Howard questioned if anyone wanted to wake up and have fifty wind generators in their community and they were predominant. Mr. Howard added that he was talking about changing the face of this community for a long time, because, once they went up, they were not coming down. Mr. Howard stated that he knew there would be contracts and agreements about them being removed, but what happens when they quit working. Mr. Howard explained that all a company would have to do would be to file bankruptcy and walk away and that happens a lot. Mr. Howard stated that another issue discussed at the County zoning meetings was the three mile jurisdiction that the City has and keeping control of that three miles, but with a willingness to reduce it a little bit. Mr. Howard commented that it should be considered on whether the County should take over the three mile jurisdiction.
Mr. Howard stated that we were moving along on the net metering policy, because we have the tap changer issue at the plant, which would take us off the grid for about a month and we would be using the City’s generation to support the system. Mr. Howard explained that all of their focus was to make that project go smooth, fast and efficient, because, if the generator goes down, we could go dark. Mr. Howard stated that net metering was not on the front burner at this point, but would be later.
Mr. Howard explained that some of the other issues that had come from the County zoning meetings was that ice could build up on the blades of the generator and they could throw them three to four hundred feet. Mr. Howard commented that that may not be an issue out in the County but, in the City, they could be thrown in rights-of-way and streets. Mr. Howard questioned if you want a community where that was the predominant feature. Mr. Howard stated that Mayor Taylor had suggested that we need to review our master plan and they had been doing that along with working on the zoning ordinances that were fairly old. Mr. Howard added that, with the significance that wind generation could have, he would strongly recommend a six month moratorium on the City of Pratt and our three mile jurisdiction on wind generation so we can work with the County and County zoning board. Mr. Howard questioned if we want wind generation all over town. Mr. Howard stated that it would change the look of Pratt County and the City for a very long time and there needs to be a lot of thought and discussion put into it and solve the issue of how significant we want wind generation to be in our community. Mr. Howard stated that he feels very strongly about doing this in the best interest of the City.
• Comments from Gary Trimpe:
Mr. Gary Trimpe, business owner and pilot, commented that it had come to his attention that Pratt Feeders had applied to the City of Pratt to approve the installation of four generators with a blade height of 112’ on City property at the airport. Mr. Trimpe read from a prepared statement that this action had been approved by the Airport Authority Board. Mr. Trimpe continued reading that, at the October 13th meeting of the Airport Authority Board, they had assured the pilot’s coalition that no wind generators would be installed on City property at the Pratt airport. Mr. Trimpe commented that he and several other concerned pilots feel that the Pratt Airport Authority no longer represents the Governing Body that was interested in a pilot’s safety or the airport in general.
Mr. Trimpe stated that there was a conflict of interest in the members of the Airport Authority Board who also hold positions in companies that were petitioning that the City adopt a net metering policy that would then allow generators to be installed at the airport. Mr. Trimpe commented that he felt that a pilot’s safety was being compromised for personal gain. Mr. Trimpe stated that his concern as a business owner in the City was whether installing generators at Pratt Feeders would lower the usage to the place that the margin of profit that the City receives would no longer cover the cost to maintain utilities. Mr. Trimpe added that this could become a liability to the City of Pratt and customers who would be forced to subsidize their savings with higher rates.
Mr. Howard stated that there had been an application submitted by Pratt Feeders to locate four 50 kw wind generators at the feedlot, but it was currently in the review process. Mr. Trimpe stated that his concern was that the Airport Authority Board did not have the best interest of safety for the airport, because of the conflict of interest. Commissioner Graf questioned if he had said that at first they said they would not do it. Mr. Trimpe stated that that was what he understood, but he was not personally at that meeting. Mr. Trimpe added that, since then, it had come to his attention that it had been approved by the board, so that was why he felt that that organization no longer represents the safety of the pilots or the safety of the airport.
Mr. Howard stated that he did not know if the Airport Board had approved it, but it had been submitted to the City. Mayor Taylor questioned if it could be approved if the property was not owned by Pratt Feeders. Mr. Howard commented that he was under the opinion that the ground, which was owned by the City, was leased to Pratt Feeders to run a feedlot and not to install generation. Mr. Howard suggested that the fair process would be to let the application go through the review process and then this discussion would be more appropriate when it comes time for a decision. Mr. Howard added that there was a long way to go on this application process, because there was a lot of information that was required for people to give us when they want to connect wind generation to our system. Mr. Howard explained that we were just in the beginning stages.
• Final comments from Mr. Johnson:
Mr. Johnson commented that he did not know that there was a group developing a net metering policy, but he did not understand how Mr. Howard could suggest that customers that would be affected by this should not have any part of the discussion and the people on the committee knows what was best for the customers. Mr. Howard stated that he would not approve a policy or a contract and that would come before the City Commission, which was the way the process works in municipalities. Mr. Howard explained that it would be published and on the agenda and people could even be notified if they want to be. Mr. Howard added that the policy was being developed by extremely knowledgeable City, KMU and KMEA staff. Mr. Howard commented that most of the information that was given to customers who want wind generation was inaccurate. Mr. Howard added that anyone thinking about wind generation should come and talk to the City. Mr. Johnson stated that it sounded like Mr. Howard stated that they cannot. Mr. Howard stated that they would get that input when it went in front of the City Commission and it was always a public process. Mr. Howard added that that was the time to make any changes.
Commissioner Skaggs questioned if the group that was being represented by Mr. Johnson could come with a policy, as well as City staff having their version, and Solomon would decide which was best. Mr. Howard stated that they could do whatever they wanted. Mr. Johnson asked what the time frame was for this to be completed. Mr. Howard stated that, until the tap changer issue was finished, he did not want to say. Mr. Johnson questioned when they were planning the outage. Mr. Howard stated that that was in April. Mr. Johnson questioned when the action to develop would come up. Mayor Taylor commented that there had already been some work done on it. Mr. Howard clarified that they were probably 75% done, it was a work in progress, but was not a public document.
Mr. Howard stated that this system was operated by the City of Pratt and we have the best consultants in the State that we work with and pay dues too. Mr. Howard added that they were more familiar with the policies than he was. Mr. Howard explained that you need net metering because it was difficult to put oversized generation to push electricity into our system without us being net metered. Mr. Howard commented that he had been contacted by one of these business owners about putting a 50 kw wind generator on his facility and, after checking, his average daily load was twelve and twenty-five in the summer. Mr. Howard stated that that was twice his load and he was told that regulations would not allow him to do that and it was totally wrong. Mr. Howard added that the policies were written in the best interest of the City and that was us. Mr. Howard stated that BTI wants to sell wind generators to put on our system and it would be at our expense. Mr. Howard explained that anyone who has a wind generator to gain, the City has to lose because they would not be buying electricity from us and not supporting our electrical system as they should be. Mr. Howard added that it was all about BTI wanting to sell wind generators on our system so they could put money in their pocket, which he had nothing against, but it would be at our expense and that was what he had a problem with. Mr. Howard stated that he had been hired as the City Manager and the manger of utilities and he was going to fight and defend the rights for the City of Pratt and bring before the Commission what was right for all the citizens of Pratt and not just a handful. Mr. Howard added that that was what he was getting paid to do.
Mr. Johnson questioned what Mr. Howard had meant when he said that he could be part of the discussion. Mr. Howard stated that he was talking about his qualifications and he would be qualified, but he was hired by this group and was not on the side of the municipality. Mr. Johnson stated that all they wanted was to be part of the process and, if the only way to do that was to wait for the City to come up with an approved policy, then that would be what they would have to do. Mr. Johnson added that he thought it would be more efficient if they were part of the process. Mr. Howard stated that our net metering policy would be extremely favorable to the City and they would recommend that they not allow anything that does not fit in the regulation and, if we do not have to do it, we should not do it. Mr. Howard added that we should not do anything that would be detrimental to the City’s electrical system. Mr. Howard commented that he knows that we are regulated and have to comply and the City had done that because there was wind generation in the City. Mr. Howard commented that he suspects that these policies that were being written would be to allow wind generation to where people could do what they want. Mr. Howard stated that the City had to enact the proper policy and enforce them or that would be what happens on every issue. Mr. Howard added that the City had worked with people who wanted to put up wind generators and we were familiar on how they work.
Mr. Johnson wrapped up stating that if he believed the goals were as Mr. Howard had described, he would not be here or if he believed that interactions were to make something for one customer, he would not be here.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT:
Due to the weather conditions, this item will be put on the next agenda.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING 2012 CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE APPLICATIONS:
‘Acting’ Chief Gary Myers stated that there were three additional vendors who filed a cereal malt beverage application. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers informed the Commission that El Dos De Oros, Prime Time and Starvin’ Marvin had met the requirements of the City code and he would recommend the approval of the license to the businesses.
Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to allow the cereal malt beverage licenses to El Dos De Oros, Prime Time and Starvin’ Marvin. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Detwiler and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF TOURISM BOARD RE-APPOINTMENTS:
Chamber Director Jan Scarbrough informed the Commission that there were two terms on the Tourism Board that were expiring. Ms. Scarbrough stated that Ms. Lisa Miller and Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall were both willing to serve another term.
Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to accept the recommendations for reappointments to the Tourism Board. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 121911 EXEMPTING THE CITY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF K.S.A. 75-1120 a(a):
Finance Director Diana Garten stated that this was a resolution that had to be approved each year that exempted the City out of general accepted accounting principles, which was of no benefit to us. Ms. Garten added that this was required by the auditors.
The following Resolution 121911 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF K.S.A. 75-1120a(a) PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM SYSTEM OF FISCAL PROCEDURES, ACCOUNTING, AND REPORTING FOR MUNICIPALITIES. Commissioner Hlavachick made a motion to adopt Resolution 121911 as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 1110 ESTABLISHING CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION FOR CITY OF PRATT EMPLOYEES:
City Attorney Ken Van Blaricum stated that this was an ordinance that adopts what was previously decided for salaries. Commissioner Skaggs questioned if this changed from year to year. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that it does change from time to time.
The following Ordinance 1110 was then presented to the Commission for their approval: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1011; CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION OF HOURLY EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS. Commissioner Skaggs made a motion to approve Ordinance 1110 amending classification and compensation for City employees. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 121911A DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF PRATT:
City Attorney Van Blaricum informed the Commission that the only change to the boundary resolution was the addition of the property on the east side of the City. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the resolution had been modified by EBH Engineering. Commissioner Detwiler questioned if there could be a title change on the railroad to Union Pacific. Mr. Alan Luttrell, EBH Engineer, stated that that was how it was originally put in. Commissioner Detwiler stated that the name change should be made to Union Pacific. Mr. Van Blaricum stated that the description would be modified next year.
The following Resolution 121911A was then presented to the Commission for their approval: A RESOLUTION DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF PRATT, KANSAS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 122109. Commissioner Detwiler made a motion to adopt Resolution 121911A. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlavachick and carried unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – 2:
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.
REPORTS:
City Manager:
• Siedlecki quiting:
City Manager Howard commented that there was an article in the Hutchinson News about Siedlecki quitting the SRS. Mr. Howard stated that he found that interesting.
• Executive Sessions:
Mr. Howard requested two executive sessions at the end of the meeting. Mr. Howard stated that one would be for attorney/client privilege to last fifteen minutes and the other session would be for development of a potential land contract to last fifteen minutes with nothing to report for either session.
Public Works:
• Snow removal:
Public Works Director Russell Rambat stated that they were ready for snow, but hoped it would not stick around.
• Event signs:
Mr. Rambat stated that the event signs worked out well during the first basketball game. Mayor Taylor questioned if there were any traffic problems that time of night. ‘Acting’ Police Chief Myers stated that there was not. Mayor Taylor questioned if the parking was only on one side. Mr. Rambat stated that that was correct.
Inspections:
• Sycamore rezoning:
Building Inspector Brad Blankenship stated that the Sycamore Addition had been rezoned at the Planning and Zoning meeting last Thursday. Mr. Blankenship added that there had not been any one there to contradict it, so everything had gone smoothly. Mr. Howard added that this was the property north of Wal-Mart and the final plat would come before the Commission.
Electric Department:
• Momentary breaks of lights:
Director of Electric Utilities Kelly Hemphill commented that there had been some momentary breaks of the lights the last few weeks and that was due to Sunflower Pioneer’s new sub-station and the new capacitors. Mr. Hemphill stated that he had been communicating with them to see if they could not work on having less breakage. Mayor Taylor questioned if it was correctable. Mr. Hemphill stated that he hoped so.
Recreation Department:
• Reception for Carol:
Recreation Director Bruce Pinkall stated that there would be a retirement reception for Ms. Carol Gerard tomorrow afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mr. Pinkall commented that Ms. Gerard had worked for the recreation department for twenty-three years and tomorrow would be her last work day and the rest of the year would be vacation time.
Police Department:
• In-car videos:
‘Acting’ Chief Myers informed the Commission that the in-car videos should be installed soon and that the delay had been due to Cop Trax adding our laptops to another larger order to receive a packaged deal price. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers added that Cop Trax saved us $350 per unit by doing that and they should be delivered around the 23rd and installed the week after Christmas.
• Tasers:
‘Acting’ Chief Myers stated that he had ordered ten tasers and had received a partial shipment. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers commented that each officer would have to be certified and they would not be issued a taser until they were. ‘Acting’ Chief Myers stated that the policy would be discussed with the attorney.
Executive Sessions:
• Attorney/Client Privilege:
Mayor Taylor made a motion to go into executive session for attorney/client privilege for fifteen minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Detwiler and carried unanimously.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to return from executive session with nothing to report. The motion was properly seconded and carried unanimously.
• Land contract:
Mayor Taylor made a motion to go into executive session for land acquisition contract to last fifteen minutes. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The Commission returned upon proper motion from the executive session with nothing to report.
ADJOURN:
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.
______________________________________
JEFF A. TAYLOR, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
______________________________
LUANN KRAMER, City Clerk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)