IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA by liuqingzhan

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 9

									S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW,
THE AGENDA WAS POSTED JULY 9, 1998
IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 S. LEWIS

                                    STILLWATER CITY COMMISSION
                                          REGULAR MEETING
                                       STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA
                                         JULY 13, 1998, 7:30 p.m.

PRESENT: MAYOR MIKE HENSON, VICE MAYOR RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM CLEVELAND

1.    MAYOR HENSON called the Regular meeting of the City Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The
Commissioners stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.      NO PROCLAMATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS WERE ISSUED.

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 6, 1998 AS WRITTEN.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH FIVE VOTES YES.

5.       CONSENT DOCKET
a. Claims in the amount of $178,567.66, Special Claims of $193,892.76 and $54,380.08 were presented for
approval.
b. Final Plat for Stoneridge Estates, located in the 3200-3300 blk. of So. Fox Ledge Drive was presented for
approval. CC-98-146
c. The Final Plat for Stone Pointe Addition, in the 3700 blk. of So. Western Road was presented for approval.
CC-98-147
d. An amended Final Plat for Sunrise, Second Section was presented for approval. CC-98-148
e. The renewal of permit agreement with Day and Night Taxi Service was presented for approval. CC-98-149
f. The Stillwater Tree Board requested an amendment to their budget to provide funds from the State Dept.
of Agriculture Forestry Division ($5,600) and ($3,500). Both grants will be reimbursed completely with an in-
kind match. CC-98-150
g. Facilities Mgmt. Dir. Michael Varnum recommended the bids for maintenance services: HVAC, Plumbing,
and Electrical services be awarded as follows: HVAC: B&L Heating & Air; Library Heating & Air -
Advanced Mechanical; Electric Maintenance Services: Cooley Electric; Plumbing work and repair services:
Bradley Plumbing, Inc. CC-98-155
h. The CDBG and Citizen Advisory Committee reports for June, 1998 were presented for approval.
i. Code Enforcement Division’s Raymond Petties provided an update on the status of junk motor vehicles.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT DOCKET
INCLUDING SPECIAL CLAIMS.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

6.       PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS
a.       Miscellaneous items from the audience.
Presbyterian Church member, JIM PLAXICO requested the Commission’s consideration on the church’s
claim of damages to their sewer line as a result of a utility pole. After a brief period of questions by members
of the Commission regarding whether the church members were aware of the private sewer line’s location,
MAYOR HENSON advised this would be considered during an executive session to be held later in the
evening.
7.       PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Consider a request from Oasis Garden Shop for review of a Special Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at
811 West Sixth Avenue. CC-98-152
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 2
City Planner, BRYAN BROWN advised the Oasis Garden Shop would like to relocate its business operations
from the northeast corner of 6th Avenue and Duck Street to 811 West Sixth Avenue. To assure that all aspects
of the proposed business use are in compliance with the zoning ordinance the owner desires use permit
approval for the outdoor sales component of the business.

The proposed uses by the Oasis Garden Shop of C (19) Specialty Retail Sales category as almost a florist or
potted plant store or the C (23) Home Improvement Sales & Services category as providing lawn and garden
supplies Both uses are permitted under the current zoning ordinance but, by use category definition, must
keep all display, storage, and sales contained within an enclosed building. Since this is not the case in the
current operation, nor in the proposed relocated operation, staff has instructed this business to also seek a
use permit for the C(22) Outdoor Sales use category which addresses the sale or display of goods outside of
enclosed buildings on a permanent basis. The business is similar in nature to a retail plant nursery.

Of primary concern was how to improve the proposed site’s existing driveway locations and their effect on
the adjacent street circulation. With total redevelopment, Planning Commission policy first asks that the site
be evaluated in terms of complying with all existing ordinance requirements. It is the applicant’s burden in
these cases to establish why it would be a hardship to require compliance with the current ordinances. The
driveway placement ordinances would limit this site to the use of the alley entrance as shown, with the
driveway as shown and proposed to be constructed onto Ramsey Street. The driveway within the middle of
the 6th Avenue frontage does not meet ordinance standards but the Board of Adjustment reviewed and
approved a variance request to allow this driveway.

Staff was concerned about the paving condition of the alley entrance proposed into the site. The northern
portion of the alley as it flows into 6 th Avenue is currently paved but it stops near and beyond the garden
center parking lot entrance. The paved portion is asphalt and could use some improvement but is not bad. It
would be desirable to see the portion of the alley utilized to access this site improved along with the on-site
parking lot construction since increased use of the alley will ensue as a result of this development but it did
not appear critical to the functionality or appearance of this new development.

The site plan shows either constructing or maintaining six-foot wide sidewalks along both street frontages.
Some of the old driveway approaches will turn into landscaped areas. The parking provided for this use just
meets the minimum ordinance standard for the type and size of use proposed. A pole sign will be located at
the northeast corner of the site near the street intersection. A trash dumpster is not contemplated as
necessary for the operation of this business. Should it be needed in the future, staff would encourage a use
permit condition limiting its location adjacent to the alley.

The new location’s operation will differ from its current site in terms of new construction but also because the
primary outdoor display area is built-in behind and to the west of the new building within a screened and
protected chain-link area. Although not specifically labeled on the site plan, the applicant indicated plans to
construct a 6 ft. tall wood screening fence along the south side of the property and along a portion of the
western alley boundary. This will provide shade, shielding from the drying winds, security, and screen the
operations from the adjacent multiple-family residential area. A large sliding chain link fence along the front
of the outdoor display area will allow customers to view merchandise from 6 th Avenue and the parking lot,
and provide easy entry into the outdoor display area. An outdoor storage area is also planned on the east side
of the building south of the driveway entrance. This storage area could be of concern since it won’t be
enclosed or screened. This portion of the site is also closely oriented within a visual site corridor which
reaches into the adjacent residential area to the south of this commercially zoned property.

All utility service connections have been identified and agreed to with adequate capacity to serve the needs of
this business available. The landscape plan meets landscape requirements. Four large shrubs and a small
tree planned at the southeast boundary of the site will soften and screen the outdoor rock storage
contemplated in this portion of the site. Rocks can potentially be displayed on a permanent basis outside of a
secured area due to their weight. Staff suggested the outdoor display of other items in this location may not
be suitable. It may be desirable to limit the proliferation of permanent possible outdoor items outside of the
secured area. The zoning code allows periods of outdoor display for temporary or seasonal periods of time.
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 3
The Planning Commission accepted the Board of Adjustment’s decision in granting a variance to allow the
proposed 6th Avenue driveway, understanding the need for the direct primary access. They also agreed with
staff that the outdoor display area proposed on the west side would be adequately screened from the south
and west, and not cause a problem from 6th Avenue. They wished to limit the outdoor storage/display area
proposed on the east side of the building near the Ramsey Street driveway since it does involve a view
corridor into a residential area on to the south and would be unsecured. Overall, the outdoor display aspect
to this business was seen as an asset with a new building and additional green area. The paving to the
adjacent alley, also utilized by Mail Box Etc., was judged not a critical concern at this time since it is mostly
paved and in reasonable condition.

Stillwater Engineering’s TERRY STAMBACK agreed with the Planning Commission’s assessment of the site
regarding its limitations for outdoor storage, adding, this is a great opportunity to bring improvements with
the redevelopment to this area of town and requested the Commission’s approval.

MR. BROWN provided staff and the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of this Use
Permit subject to: (1) Provision of a wood screening fence as planned but not specifically labeled along the
south and alley boundaries of the site; (2) Limiting the unsecured outdoor material storage and display on the
east side of the building to be located behind and between the front edge of the building and the rear edge and
to be on pallets stacked no higher than four feet in height; (3) Limiting the location of any future trash
dumpster adjacent to the alley.

MOTION BY TOM CLEVELAND, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO ACCEPT STAFF AND PLANNING
COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

8.   GENERAL ORDERS
MAYOR HENSON changed the sequence in which the following items were heard.

b. Consideration of endorsement of the vision, shared ideals, goals and objectives proposed for the
comprehensive Community Development Plan 2020, CC-98-151
Community Development Dir. JOHN WESLEY presented the vision for Stillwater’s future, accompanied by
7 shared ideals which defined what is important to our community over the next 20 years. Those ideals were
(1) Downtown as the heart of the community; (2) small town feel with big city amenities; center for business
development; (3) visually appealing and ecologically sound community; (4) planned infrastructure for guiding
development; (5) community linked through education, recreation, (6) neighborhoods and commercial
services; (7) comprehensive transportation system with alternative modes. Objectives within each of those
ideals were also shared.

We will be defining goals, objectives, and implementation techniques to help us move toward the vision. He
explained the process began with a meeting of the members of the Policy Advisory Committee, focus groups,
the Planning Commission, and the City Commission. Together they went through a process where each
individually stated what they would like to see in the community in the future. These individual ideas were
then ranked by groups. The consultant then took this information and drafted the vision for the community.
Over the next few months the focus groups and policy advisory committee reviewed drafts and provided
comments and feedback. The Policy Advisory Committee spent many hours helping to organize the vision
and ideals and crafting the language in the statements.

At this point in the process, this is considered as a community plan, not just a City of Stillwater plan. A next
step in the process is to identify who might be responsible for implementation of various parts of this and
what those techniques for implementation might be. He sought the Commission’s endorsement of the ideals
and vision. This will enable the Policy Advisory Committee to know whether they had the Commission’s
support at this point in the process and to let the community know the commission is endorsing these
statements. They will seek approval later in the process.
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 4
COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND strongly supported the downtown as the heart of the community concept
but if our population grew enough to support a mall, he would want the two to co-exist. In response, MR.
WESLEY said several members of the group worked on the vision. They felt that if we were going to get a
mall it ought to be located adjacent to, or a part of the downtown setting so they could work together. Also in
the growth pattern for the future, they supported the village type concept to more closely integrate
commercial and residential uses instead of having a separate location solely for a mall but to provide a place
where it more convenient for everyone scattered throughout the community. The projected growth
projections right now for the community do not indicate a pattern that would likely serve them all.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked, but you wouldn’t use that statement as grounds to recommend that we not
approve the plans for a mall, or anything? MR. WESLEY said we would evaluate the proposal in light of this
statement and others within the Comprehensive Plan and put it all before you to make that decision.

COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND expressed concern that with an objective or a goal stating we would not
want to grow enough to acquire a mall. He was not sure that statement speaks for the majority. A lot of
people who drive to Tulsa or Oklahoma City to shop would certainly love to have a corner in our community
for this purpose. He would hate to send out a message that discouraged anyone who might want to put in a
mall which these objectives indicate Stillwater does not want a mall.

COMMISSIONER LACY recognized the desire to be ecologically sound. He said this is a good objective but
he recognized the budget constraints we are under to bury utility lines, etc. Regarding planned
infrastructure for guiding development, he asked what implication does this have for the southwest sewer
extension? MR. WESLEY said we would use this to say it’s important to recognize that extending the sewer
has growth implications for the community and make that a part of the evaluation. COMMISSIONER
LACY further asked what the objective was regarding transportation with alternative modes. He recalled
the controversy surrounding providing an arterial to improve the east-west cross town connection alternative
between the Cimarron (east) and Highway I-35 on the west. MR. WESLEY said there is still some interest in
this. It is worded “such as” - not necessarily that same proposal. In the things the group has seen from our
consultant, Al Raby, with regard to plan alternatives where he has explored that option, he has made it clear
if that does go in, it would be a very limited access with restrictions to commercial development along it. That
addresses a lot of the concerns people were expressing at the time. The main idea here is to improve the east-
west cross town connections.

MAYOR HENSON believed the State was not in support of that by-pass for some years to come.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked what was meant by “to improve the capacity of existing major thoroughfare
intersections with current deficits?” MR. WESLEY said in particular, the intersection of Perkins Road and
Sixth Avenue as being a bottleneck. There are a few others that will need improvements also.

MR. WESLEY recommended the City Commission’s endorsement of the vision and shared ideals as currently
proposed for the Comprehensive Community Development Plan 2020, realizing there may be some changes
and refinement as it goes on.

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND THAT THE
COMMISSION ENDORSE THE VISION AND IDEALS PROPOSAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2020 AS PRESENTED.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

a. Presentation of HOK, Inc. and Project Team plan for addressing long-term facility space needs.
Facilities Management Dir. MICHAEL VARNUM reviewed the process begun last January to address the
City’s facility needs, beginning with development of a vision for meeting and determining those needs. This
was accomplished with the aid of users of our facilities, tenants, and through an extensive interview process.
After structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical analyses were made of all City facilities, three
scenarios were developed to provide us with options to meet our needs. The final step was the review last
Friday and Saturday by the Commission of these scenarios and one final solution was then developed. There
are other needs to be considered beyond these facilities needs which will be provided later.

HOK’s CURTIS KNAPP presented a series of slides of the process. HOC had reviewed the facilities
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 5
condition with the assistance of architects and engineers relative to the useful life and code compliance. They
reviewed space requirements as identified by city staff and community agencies, they looked at the costs
involved and what the next steps will be. The following assessments of the buildings were made:
. to upgrade the municipal building costs ($1.2 million) due to mechanical replacement of HVAC, electrical
and wiring systems, plumbing, and structural changes. These included an elevator to the second floor, and
emergency egress for second floor tenant;
. To upgrade the Couch Park building ($63,600) due to architectural elements that need improvements
(exterior paint, emergency egress, ADA entry;
. To upgrade the Senior Center/Multigraphis building (79,750) replacement of mechanical and electrical
systems;
. To upgrade the Community Center ($1,322,998) due to architectural needs, mechanical, electrical,
plumbing;
. To upgrade the Community Center Auditorium ($1,579,771) due to architectural needs, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing;
. To upgrade the Community Center ($206,521) due to architectural, electrical, mechanical plumbing;
. To upgrade the Armory and Annex ($182,441) due to architecture; mechanical, electrical and plumbing;
. To not occupy the Environmental safety building (0)

The total assessed costs were $4,675,190. MR. KNAPP stated in their interview process and in discussions
with people, most of the responses received to developing space requirements were surprisingly conservative.
The most conservative corporate standard was utilized in their approach for departmental overhead spaces.
It was pointed out there is no surplus or excess work space within city government.

After various scenarios were reviewed in providing space for organizations, there were further reductions of
square footage requirements made. Those comparisons were provided in his report. He identified a shared
“work out” area is to be provided for the Police and Fire Departments with lockers, that the Parks, Events
and Recreation dept. will be located within one facility; a separate site will be utilized for Multigraphis,
S.E.C.C. space is to be reduced, adjacencies will be made for specific groups so they can share space or
expedite communication and productivity (e.g. - Public Works and Community Development will utilize a
shared space), Facilities Management Maintenance area is to be reduced, Project Heart will go from 4,615 to
4,644 sq.ft.; the High School Alumni & Museum from 860 to 3,000 sq.ft.; Parks, Events & Recreation staff
and operations to 5,100 sq.ft., Multigraphis is to have 8,500 sq.ft., the Senior Center to have 7,200 sq.ft. A
final space list will follow.

In summarizing the final scenario, a consensus was reached this past week on square footage requirements
for each agency. HOK supported the need for a new building for the Police Department adjacent to the
Municipal building. This was found necessary due to the increased number of staff, the obsolete design of the
current site in view of the new technologies incorporated into the Police Department. Baseline improvements
are also necessary to make the Municipal building code compliant, to extend its useful life 25 years, and to
accommodate the one stop shopping concept.

Recommendations were made to address the community’s needs to support cultural and arts activities
through changes to the Community Center Auditorium, to incorporate space for break out support groups
and other identified needs, to create space for Multigraphis programs, to provide Seniors activities at the
Senior Center, Project Heart and other groups supported through the Parks Events and Recreation Dept.,
and a Sports Facility to accommodate two gymnasiums as well as a multi-purpose phase to serve a number of
different functions by the city. MR. KNAPP said this is an opportunity to implement the first step of the 2020
plan. This will represent a significant number of dollars invested into Stillwater’s facilities, and the location
of new buildings supports the 2020 Plan or in direction slightly different from that. Tentative locations were
discussed, but he stressed there is flexibility for where people will ultimately will reside in the future once the
design face is incorporated.

In the final scenario, a portion of staff are to be located in the Municipal building; the proposed police
building would house the police department but also some staff that cannot be accommodated in the
Municipal building; the Couch Park building will be occupied by Parks, Events & Rec. staff and operations
groups, the Seniors building will house the Senior Center; the Multigraphis building will house Multigraphis,
the Community Center classroom section would house city staff such as Facilities Management, the High
School Alumni Association & Museum meeting spaces, the Community Center Auditorium would serve as a
multi-purpose theatre; the Cafeteria would serve Project Heart and other functions identified by Parks,
Events & Rec. Dept or city when not in use, the Armory and Armory annex would be used for sports
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 6
programming, and new proposed sports facility.

The advantages were that it achieved the goal statements generated during the vision session; the adjacency
requirements identified by various departments and organizations, and effectively energies can occur from
that such as staff and citizens, police and fire department members for communication purposes. The most
significant disadvantage was that staff will be located within three buildings. However, it would require
construction of a new municipal building to get them into one building, or relocation to another facility which
causes orientation problems. Based on how the groups were broken up and through discussions this past
weekend, this is not an impediment for the city to accomplish its mission and jobs.

MR. KNAPP noted some costs were not included in the previous estimate of costs because it is not known at
this time whether things such as asbestos containment or abatement, lead paint abatement, acquisition of
land, utility infrastructure modifications to accommodate new systems, or further fiber or data required
between buildings will be required. He said when we began this project, we asked members of the
Commission, the community, and organizations to identify what was important relative to how we should
evaluate the scenarios presented here. He pointed out the goals, although not in priority were:
. to understand that adequate, defined by the city of Stillwater, meant there be no short term supplemental
systems or quick fixes;
. to consider the public’s needs first in planning locations, activities and services,
. to ensure dominant users needs are met,
. that there be a balance of supervisor and customer adjacencies;
. to ensure critical departments receive priority need;
. to understand the police department’s needs,
. to review Information Services needs with respect to location and security,
. to anticipate future telecom/electric data needs,
. to provide sufficient lighting,
. to provide for personal safety and access of building user,
. to provide parking for buildings based on capacity,
. to provide adequate security,
. to provide work spaces based on function,
. to provide adequate and versatile conference spaces,
. to provide emergency and UPS as required.

MR. KNAPP continued, we will be producing a final report for the city which will be sent in the next few
weeks for final review.

In response to Commissioner Mullendore’s statement relative to her previous understanding that the
Commission room was to be relocated to the Library to utilize this space for other purposes, MR. KNAPP
apologized, explaining when they looked at that space again, it just didn’t fit. Even if it were renovated there
would still be a need for the Municipal Court. In evaluating the space requirements of the group there are
some functions that would be housed within the Police facility. The Police facility is about 72000 sq.ft. and
the organizations that could potentially be located within that facility would not occupy more than 5,000-
6,000 maximum. There would be a fairly small percentage of the building to house other departments. The
current thought is to have that building adjacent to the Municipal Building for quick access. When the
design phase occurs, it may be that police facility would be an addition to this facility.

COMMISSIONERS CLEVELAND and MULLENDORE both presented their views of how they would hope
these improvements would be placed on the ballot for the public to vote on. A study session was
recommended relative to identifying potential funding sources.

No action was taken. Appreciation was expressed to members of HOK for their hard work and diligence in
getting the changes made over the weekend to the Commission in time for tonight’s meeting.

c. Consideration of approval of the recommendation of the CDBG Advisory Committee for expenditure of
funds. CC-98-153
Community Development Assistant SHANNON TOWNSEND provided a breakdown of ways in which the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory committee recommended funds will be expended.
This is the second year of a three-year demonstration program for the use of these funds. In address some of
our needs, the State has established a program to allow cities our size to receive a direct allocation each year.
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 7
One stipulation for participation in this program is for the city to match the grant dollar-for-dollar, and to
develop a plan for use of the funds.

When this program began last year a citizen committee was appointed to review the community’s needs and
establish the plan for use of the funds. That plan was developed and approved in September of 1997. During
the first year of the program our goal was make property owners and residents in the target area aware of
the opportunities we have to make improvements in this area of our community. To reach this goal we have a
variety of projects scattered around the area. We hoped to “plant seeds” of greater neighborhood pride and
desire to make improvements.

In the second year the goal is to “nurture the seedlings” of increased neighborhood participation. The second
year objectives state: “The primary emphasis will be on helping grassroots neighborhood
organizations understand that they can play an active role in determining the use of these funds
and helping to structure and execute the overall CDP. Through the activities, publicity, and input
sessions continued during the first year, more formalized neighborhood groups will be
encouraged to form and provide input. Because the substantive input of organized
neighborhoods within the target area is still expected to be low by the start of the second year,
projects selected this year will continue along the lines of the first year, but the emphasis will
likely shift due to the additional input received. Funding is included in this year to provide direct
assistance to help neighborhood groups get organized. One of the most pressing needs
presented during the initial public input sessions was transportation assistance. The complexity
of this issue was such that it could not be dealt with during the first year. Research will continue
during this time to find cost effective ways to handle this need.”

To develop the specific funding proposals this second year of the program, four public input sessions were
held in April. The committee determined the types of projects to be funded and the relative importance of
each, and exact projects where possible. The exact funding level has not been received yet for the second year
but it should be very close to the same amount.
The proposed projects for the second year are:
1. Street paving ($152,000). Proposed are 10 th and 11th Avenues between Adams and Jefferson Streets and
    two blocks of 17th Avenue east of Perkins Road. This includes $144,000 for the paving, $8,000 for
    engineering.
2. Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation ($70,000). This will fund the rehab of five to seven houses. The
    CAC has developed a set of criteria to use in prioritizing the houses to receive the assistance. We have 15
    applications on file.
3. Homebuyer assistance ($24,000). Local banks will assist qualified buyers purchase homes in the target
    area. Funds will be used to cover down payments, closing costs and/or buy down interest rates. Increased
    home ownership in these neighborhoods is seen as a big key to increased stability and investment. While
    preference will be given to homebuyers within the target area, qualified buyers could purchase homes
    anywhere in the city.
4. Sidewalk improvements ($24,000). The primary emphasis will be to complete the sidewalk system along
    12th Avenue. This will facilitate pedestrian access to Southern Woods Park, the Library, and, with the
    improvements this year, to Couch Park. Several other short segments of sidewalk are being considered as
    well as installing ramps at intersections.
5. Neighborhood organization and recognition assistance ($11,500). Funds will be used to assist areas trying
    to get more organized by paying for fliers, newspaper notices, and other items associated with start up
    costs. For areas which are more organized, these funds can be used to help provide recognition to a
    designated neighborhood by creating entry signage or other similar items.
6. Code enforcement activities ($30,000). These funds will be use to help deal with significant code violations
    in the area. Examples are hauling off junk motor vehicles, demolition of dilapidated structures, and
    clearing of brush and junk. Code Enforcement staff have already identified structures to be removed
    with these funds.

In response to questions, MS. TOWNSEND said she had received 22 phone calls, in addition to the
applications from individuals who appear to be eligible for the homebuyer assistance. She wished there were
more than 5-7 houses that could be done this year. The CDBG monies must be spent on low to moderate
income citizens. When the 3 year plan was originally developed, it was determined to put 100% of the funds
into a particular area based on household incomes and housing values (this is determined through the figures
received from the Census Bureau). It is also recognized they are not meeting all the needs of the community
by doing that so there is a chance areas outside the target area that we need to address. The Citizens
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 8
Advisory Committee recognized that. There are over 60 unpaved streets in the target area and many of those
people have lived there for 30-50 years, some with breathing difficulties and other health problems, who
would love to have their streets paved. Their property values would definitely improve with those
improvements. It costs $35,000-$36,000 to pave the streets so we cannot address all of them but we’re trying
to address those presented during the public input sessions.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO APPROVE. THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

d. Consider disposition of small freezer and bowl for retired K-9 Diego for the Police Dept.
Police Chief NORMAN MCNICKLE humorously spoke of his interaction with Diago after the recent episode
in which items were taken from the retired Police K-9 to be utilized for the new police dog. He apologized for
staff’s having taken those specified items but said the freezer will remain with Diego’s keeper given the
Commission’s approval, including his dog dish and a new rawhide chew bone. COMMISSIONER
MULLENDORE said this proves not only do we have a first class Police Department, but that it’s all heart!

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO RETURN THE SPECIFIED ITEMS TO
DIEGO.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

e. Review and development of Individual Performance Plan (IPP) for the City Manager.
After City Manager, CARL WEINAUG presented his IPP, COMMISSIONERS LACY and CLEVELAND
requested some modifications to Item *(4) to state: Meet the challenges of electric competition due to
deregulation and (4 a.) Continue to develop marketing strategies. MR. WEINAUG provided what was
meant in other sections. The Commissioners identified other minor clarifications they wanted to be placed in
his IPP.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO ACCEPT THE CITY MANAGER’S
IPP, WITH THE CHANGES AS IDENTIFIED.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

9.     ORDINANCES
.      (second reading)
a. Ordinance No. 2621 amending the Stillwater Municipal Code repealing of exemptions to the hotel room
tax.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 2621, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO SIGN.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

10.      REPORTS FROM OFFICERS AND BOARDS
a. Miscellaneous items from the City Attorney. MS. KARNS requested an Executive Session for the purpose
of confidential communication pursuant to the Presbyterian Church’s tort claim and a threatened lawsuit/
proceeding in the public interest re. CREC.
b. Miscellaneous items from the City Manager. No items presented.
S.C.C. 7/113/98 Page 9
c. Miscellaneous items from the City Commission. COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND expressed hope the
proposed expenditure of 37 million dollar would be written in a such a manner to allow the public to vote on
the entire “package.” MAYOR HENSON noted there would be some openings, one for an Environmental
Advisor on the Planning Commission, and also a position on the Parks Board. She thanked Quality Plants
for nice Mum plant. She invited the public to attend the final Band Concert on the Court House lawn
Thursday evening, and spoke of the train service now available to Pawnee.

11.     NEW BUSINESS No items.

12.     ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, QUESTIONS No items.

13.     RECESS TO SUA

MAYOR HENSON recessed the Regular meeting of the City Commission at 9:30 p.m. to convene the
Stillwater Utilities Authority meeting. The SUA meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., and the Commission
reconvened to consider holding an Executive Session.

14.     EXECUTIVE SESSION

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO CONVENE FOR
EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

15.     RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ACTION, IF ANY

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO PAY THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH $3,300 IN FULL RESOLUTION OF THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

16.     ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY BUD LACY, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD
LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

The Meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
_
MAYOR MIKE HENSON                                                SYLVIA S. MALLETT,
DEPUTY CITY CLERK

								
To top