FORT SCOTT CITY COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes of May 19, 2026 Regular Meeting
A meeting of the Fort Scott City Commission was held in the City Commission Meeting Room at City Hall, 123 S. Main Street, Fort Scott, Kansas. The meeting was streamed live on YouTube.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Commissioners Matthew Wells, Tracy Dancer Tim Van Hoecke, Julie Buchta, were present with Mayor Kathryn Salsbury.
In Attendance – Brad Matkin/City Manager, Bob Farmer/City Attorney, Chief Jason Pickert/FSPD, Det. James Birket/FSPD, Lisa Lewis/City Clerk, Jason Dickman/Earles Engineering & Inspections LLC, Stephen Mitchell/IT, Tom Coffman/Public Works Director, Bill Lemke/Waste Water Collections Supervisor, Kathy Dancer/Chairman-FSHPRC, Daniel Wilson/Parks Advisory Board, John Crain/Parks Advisory Board, Gayla Mason/Legal Counsel- Daugherty, Logan Wallace/Legal Counsel- Bradley, Dennis Shawn Daugherty, Zach Bradley, Shelly Bradley,
SALSBURY led the Pledge of Allegiance and VAN HOECKE said a prayer asking God for guidance for the City, the Citizens, our Government and City officials.
Approval of Agenda
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to approve the Agenda. DANCER seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Consent Agenda
– Approval of Appropriation Ordinance 1408-A – Expense Approval Report – Payment Dates of April 29, 2026 –
May 13, 2026 – $497,094.40
– Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting of May 5, 2026
– Approval of Renewal of Retailer’s Liquor License – Hole In the Wall Enterprises LLC 124 E. Wall St., Fort Scott, KS –
Licensing May 26, 2026 – May 25, 2028.
– April Financials
MOTION: DANCER moved to approve the Consent Agenda. BUCHTA seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Executive Session – IT Update
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved that the City Commission recess into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion with IT pursuant to the financial affairs or trade secrets of corporations, partnerships, trusts and individual proprietorships exception in K.S.A. 75-4319(b)(4). The open meeting will resume in the Commission Room at 6:35PM. In the meeting will be the (5) City Commissioners, City Attorney, City Manager, Stephen Mitchell, and Bryce Daly. DANCER seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to come out of Executive Session with no action. SALSBURY seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Public Comment – No public comments
Appearances
Tom Coffman/Public Works Director – Department Update
COFFMAN reported that it is currently fully staffed with 18 employees. They are working on developing management skills within the department and implementing in-house training opportunities that have allowed staff members to obtain their Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs). He reported updates on several ongoing street projects, including repairs at the National & Wall Street intersection, crack sealing on Westbury Lane, concrete work on 9th Street, asphalt work on Gunn Park roads, improvements to city-owned parking lots, and various curb repairs. The Cape Seal program remains delayed due to increased oil and diesel costs, which have made it difficult to secure firm asphalt pricing, although the department has the necessary equipment and trained personnel ready to proceed once pricing stabilizes. Water distribution updates included plans for a main line replacement on 7th Street and the recent repair of (27) water leaks. Wastewater Collections staff will also begin camera inspections of sewer lines to identify needed repairs. Parks and facilities initiatives include outsourcing construction of a dock for Fern Lake, pursuing grant funding for a rock wall project, opening bids for airport lighting improvements, and seeking grant funding to repair a leaking dam at the rearing pond.
Kathy Dancer/Chairman of FSHPRC – Historic Preservation Fund Grant
DANCER represented a request from the Historic Preservation Commission requested permission to apply for a $25,000 State Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant, which requires a 40% local match that may be satisfied through in-kind contributions. The purpose of the grant is to develop updated design guidelines for the nationally registered historic district, as the current guidelines have not been revised in approximately 40 years. Commission members stated that the updated guidelines would help maintain local control over preservation decisions while also providing guidance and assistance to downtown business owners. The Commission also discussed a separate 100% reimbursable $6,500 scholarship opportunity to send three individuals to a preservation conference, noting that attendance is highly recommended for newly designated Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
ACTION: MATKIN will make the determination with Lisa Dillon on the application for the scholarship for the training trip to Minnesota for the FSHPR.
MOTION: WELLS moved to approve to go out for the Historic Preservation Fund Grant for $25,000 with the City doing the match. DANCER seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Daniel Wilson/Parks Advisory Board – Dog Pound at Gunn Park
WILSON reported that the Parks Advisory Board and public feedback overwhelmingly opposed relocating the dog pound to the Gunn Park caretaker’s house, citing concerns related to noise, liability, and sanitation, particularly for nearby residents and campground users. Discussion included arguments in favor of the caretaker’s house location, including that the property is city-owned, located outside the floodplain, and could provide greater visibility for animal adoptions. Dancer current animal shelter facility was described as being in poor condition and having experienced flooding issues in the past. BUCHTA stated that with a recent visit with the Animal Control Officer, Mr. Rost stated his preference for repairing the existing facility, noting his belief that the new Davis lift station project will address prior sewer backup problems. He also advised that relocating to the caretaker’s house would require construction of an entirely new kennel facility at significant expense. VAN HOECKE clarified that the discussion was informational only and that no vote was being taken at this time, although the matter could be brought back for future consideration.
Public Hearing:
Consideration to Vacate Portion of an Alley – Petitioner Dennis Shawn Daugherty/Daugherty Enterprises LLC
Transcript of Public Hearing is Attachment “A”
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to open the Public Hearing. WELLS seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to close the Public Hearing. BUCHTA seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
MOTION: WELLS moved to not vacate the alley. DANCER seconded. DANCER, BUCHTA, SALSBURY and WELLS voted yes. VAN HOECKE voted no.
MOTION CARRIED 4-1.
FARMER left the meeting at 7:48PM and returned at 7:50PM
Action Items
Consideration to Purchase Quick Lock Point Repair System for Sanitary Sewer from Key Equipment
- Lemke/Water Distribution/ Wastewater Collections Supervisor
LEMKE requested the purchase of a Quick Lock Point Repair System for sanitary sewer mains from Key Equipment in the amount of $15,223.64. He explained that the system is a permanent “pipe inside the pipe” repair method utilizing stainless steel sleeves designed for no-dig repairs in 8- to 12-inch sewer mains. The system is capable of covering missing pipe sections, stopping inflow and infiltration, and sealing areas impacted by root intrusion. He noted that the equipment would eliminate the need for excavation in many situations, particularly beneath roadways or in areas containing trees, and would significantly reduce repair times from an estimated two to three days to approximately one-and-a-half to two hours per repair. Key Equipment is the only authorized vendor. MATKIN stated it could be paid for from fund 707-550.
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to approve the purchase of the Quick Lock Point Repair System for Sanitary Sewers from Key Equipment for the sum of $15,223.64. BUCHTA seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
WELLS left the meeting at 7:58PM and returned at 8:00PM
Consideration to Expand Current Agreement with Omnigo Qtel Digital Evidence and Case Management Module – Chief J. Pickert/FSPD & Det. James Birket/FSPD
BIRKET presented a request for approval to expand its agreement with Omnigo Qtel to include a Digital Evidence and Case Management module at a total cost of $39,364 over a three-year period, with initial funding to be provided through the seizure fund where money is currently available and will then be budgeted for the following years. He explained that the system will centralize digital evidence storage, streamline the discovery-sharing process, allow community members to upload evidence directly, and improve overall efficiency and security by replacing current inefficient storage methods.
MOTION: BUCHTA moved to approve the current agreement with Omnigo Qtel Digital Evidence and Case Management Module for $39,364 as presented by Chief Pickert. DANCER seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Consideration of Bids for Lease to Purchase of (6) Police Vehicles – Chief J. Pickert/FSPD
PICKERT presented a request to purchase (6) police vehicles from Olathe Ford, who has the bid for the state of Kansas, consisting of (5) Ford Police Interceptors and (1) Ford F-150 Police Responder, in the amount of $381,068 to be financed over (5) years at an interest rate of (4.9%) through Union State Bank (USB). He stated that the additional vehicles will allow for dedicated day and night shift units, reducing wear and tear on individual vehicles, extending fleet lifespan, and improving coverage for specialized operations, while transferring existing police equipment into the new units. Two bids for financing were received from City State Bank and Union State Bank (USB). PICKERT’s recommendation was to approve the bid from USB. The annual payments will come from the Public Safety Fund.
MOTION: BUCHTA moved to approve the lease purchase of six police vehicles with terms provided by Union State Bank. WELLS seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
VAN HOECKE left the meeting at 8:13PM and returned at 8:15PM
Request to Pay Application for Payment No. 3 – Jeff Asbell Excavating & Trucking, Inc. – Davis Lift Station
DICKMAN explained that this billing was for traffic control and side work with the majority going for pipe installation. The inspector for Earles Engineering approved the contents of the billing. A cease work letter was sent to stop work during the (2) week period that work will halt to avoid extra costs. Work will resume on June 1.
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to approve Payment No. 3 to Jeff Asbell Excavating and Trucking for the Davis Lift Station project in the amount of $187,166.14. DANCER seconded.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Reports and Comments
City Engineer
– Davis Lift Station Update
– Wall Street Update
City Attorney – No comments
City Manager
– 121 S. Margrave status
– New Codes Officer starting June 1st
– Moody building
ACTION: FARMER will begin tracking down lien details on the Moody building.
– Barber Shop (118 E. Wall) building update – Owner will be invited to June 2 meeting.
– Dragoons Baseball begins next week
– Possibility of a railroad spur in the Industrial Park – more information to come June 2 meeting
Commissioner Dancer
– Shout out to the Chamber of Commerce for bringing in bus tours
– Weather Alert System
Commissioner Wells
– Suggesting City/FSCC/USD234 joint meeting for collaboration
– Horton asphalt – suggesting to send a strongly-worded letter and add to June 2 agenda
Commissioner Van Hoecke
– Commissioners putting items on Agendas
– Status of Interim Contractor’s License Ordinance
– Comments about raising taxes
– Will attend June 2 meeting by Teams
Commissioner Buchta
– Sales tax still low – shop local
Commissioner Salsbury
– Not intending to raise taxes
– Clarified position on vacation of alley and commented on behavior during hearing
Adjourn
MOTION: VAN HOECKE moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:07PM. DANCER seconded.
MAY 19, 2026, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:07PM.
Submitted by Lisa A. Lewis/City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT – May 19, 2026
Attachment “A” to Minutes of the May 19, 2026, City Commission Meeting
FORT SCOTT CITY COMMISSION MEETING – 123 S. MAIN STREET, FORT SCOTT, KS 66701
Participants of the Hearing Transcript: Commissioners Kathryn Salsbury, Julie Buchta, Matthew Wells, Tracy Dancer, Brad Matkin/City Manager, Bob Farmer/City Attorney, Lisa Lewis/City Clerk, Gayla Mason/Legal Counsel for Dennis Shawn Daugherty, Logan Wallace/Legal Counsel for Bradleys, and unidentified gallery members.
Regular City Commission Meeting called to order at 6:00PM – Public Hearing opened at 7:22PM (Time stamps are recorded from beginning of the recorded meeting)
CONSIDERATION TO VACATE PORTION OF AN ALLEY – PETITIONER DENNIS SHAWN DAUGHERTY/DAUGHERTY ENTERPRISES LLC
SALSBURY (01:21:49)
Next is new business. There’s a public hearing for the consideration to vacate portion of an alley. Petitioned by Dennis Sean Daugherty of Daugherty Enterprises LLC
VAN HOECKE (01:22:03)
I move to open the public hearing for consideration to vacate portion of an alley. Petitioner for Dennis Sean Daugherty and Daugherty Enterprises LLC.
WELLS (01:22:12)
Second.
CITY CLERK (01:22:15)
Kathryn Salsbury?
SALSBURY (01:22:17)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:22:17)
Matthew Wells?
WELLS (01:22:18)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:22:19)
Tracy Dancer?
DANCER (01:22:20)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:22:20)
Julie Buchta?
BUCHTA (01:22:21)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:22:21)
Tim Van Hoecke.
VAN HOECKE (01:22:22)
Yes.
SALSBURY (01:22:23)
All right. Who is here to speak on behalf of the position?
SALSBURY (01:22:29)
Hi, Ms. Mason. Hi. Before we get started, I do want to say that I know this is now a new matter before for us because we had to re-Notice. In the interest of being respectful to everyone and the commission as well, I’m going to ask that one person is at the podium at a time and to try to be concise. Thank you so much.
MASON (01:22:51)
Certainly. Thank you. We were here about a month ago and I went through good majority of all of our positions position on this. I mean, obviously we’re asking to vacate the alley. That’s between. I believe it’s 1406 and 1416 East Wall. It is a…the alley has not been used In…well, the city couldn’t even go back that far. From my research of the issue, I believe it hasn’t been used for close to 50 years. There was a car wash there approximately 50 years ago that. The building that actually sits in the alleyway right now. That has been there since before Mr. Kevin Allen owned it. It was part of the car wash. So me and my brother can remember that being there when we were small children. So was built in 19. I was born in 1972, if that gives you any indication of how long that has been there. So. And it is built in the alleyway. So if that gives you an indication of how long the alley has not been used, I would refer to. And I produced some exhibits at the last hearing, but I have some additional exhibits that I added for this hearing. Exhibit F. That is the. What the alley looked like about a year ago before the Bradleys vacated the only access to the alley and excavated and added gravel to that to turn it into a parking lot. So that was. No, not that one. Sorry, Exhibit F. I don’t think it’s that one either. It’s a. It’s an aerial shot. Yeah, it’s an aerial shot from.
VAN HOECKE (01:25:06)
We got it in our package.
MASON (01:25:07)
Oh, you have it in your packets. So that shows trees. And I’ve marked where that vacated alley beside the Bradley’s property. That was done about a year ago, if you look about a year ago, that was many trees and grass. If you’re looking at F anyway in your packet.
VAN HOECKE (01:25:39)
Does any of the other Commissioners need to see that picture?
MASON (01:25:44)
Okay, so that’s what exhibit F is. The on exhibit G, which is I believe up there. Now that is the aerial of what the fort. The entire 1400 block of Wall street shows that both ends of that unused alley, it is not accessible. You cannot get to that alley. I mean that space of gravel that you see there, that’s what was added by the Bradleys last year because before that it was grass and trees. And now on the east side or the left hand side of that picture are many, many grown up trees. Those were not just grown in the last year or two. Those have been growing for many, many years. On the right side of that, there’s also structures over there on the east side or the left side of the picture. On the right side of the picture is that old structure that is owned by Mr. Allen. That is in the alleyway. There is also on the right side, you will see there’s actually a creek or I believe a drainage ditch that runs through there. That would be on. Just on the right side of that building that sits in the alley. Those are all. Those would be. You would not be able to pass through those. You cannot get to the alley from, from the east or the west. The. Exhibit H, there’s a little bit more close up picture. No, no, sorry. Right there. You’ve got it, You’ve got it. That is the east side or excuse me, the west side of that of a. Where it shows the drainage ditch or that creek running through the alley. That’s from Wall Street view. So standing on Wall Street, that’s what that looks like. And that runs all the way through, through where the alley is and all the way back past that even so. So. Then we move to exhibit I. Yes. And that is the view of the alley from Mr. Daugherty’s property showing the west side of the alley. So just at the very end of that where all those trees are, that’s where that drainage ditches. So to turn that back into an alley, you would have to I guess build a bridge and, and put, put a lot of things in there to try to fix that and turn that into an alley. And that’s just on the west side. Then we move to. And of course the buildings in the way too. That’s the, that green building that’s there in exhibit I. That is where the old car wash was. What that was. Was a. It was where people could vacuum out their cars. And I believe Mr. Allen added sides to that. So when he owned the property, bought the property approximately 35 years ago. So then we would move to exhibit J. That is the view from the. Of the east side of the alley from Lincoln Street. So that is all the trees, those trees you see there. Those are all the trees that are in the. In that exhibit G, that first one. That shows the aerial of the entire block. Those are those trees that are there on the left side of that picture. So you can see there’s no access to the alley from Lincoln Street either. Then we move to exhibit K. And that is the view on the south side of the alley that shows that creek or drainage ditch runs all the way through where the alley would be. Both exhibit L and exhibit M. Those show where the Bradleys, who vacated the only access to the alley park. That was just taken by myself last week, they are parked in the alley. That is the alley right there that they’re parked in. And then M shows just a wider view of that, which shows it’s the truck and a trailer parked there behind or in between Mr. Daugherty’s property. Parking in an alley is a violation of city ordinance, and that was done by the Bradleys without any city approval. You can look at petitioners exhibit N. Those are emails from both Tom Coffman and Public Works and also Norm Nation of the Code’s office, where it says on page two of that exhibit that Mr. Bradley had asked if he could turn that into a parking lot. He was told he would need to talk to Codes. Codes confirmed that they did not give permission for them to put a driveway in there or a parking lot in there. As I stated, that does violate ordinance, both by excavating. You are not allowed to excavate in streets or alleys without a permit, and that was done obviously safety reasons why you need to have a permit before you start excavating things. But it is also a violation of the ordinance that you cannot obstruct alleys by vehicles, trailers or any other item that obstructs the alleys. The bottom line is this an unused, unmaintained alley that the city has not, has had no plans to reopen as an alley. And that’s evident by the emails that are Exhibit N. It is obstructed on both ends by buildings, large trees and even a drainage ditch. It is landlocked. This alley is now landlocked due to the Bradley’s vacating the only part of the alley that you could get access to, to this part of the alley last year. It is being used by every property owner except for Mr. Daugherty as their own property, and overall, Mr. Daugherty has met all the requirements necessary to vacate this alley. Legal notice was published, now two times, no private rights will be injured. No public, no one in the public suffers any loss from this, especially because this has been an unused alley for at least 20 years because Mr. Daugherty has owned it for 20 years, but I’m going to say closer to 50 years. Justice favors the petitioner’s vacation of the alley. We’ve already talked about at the last hearing that the Bradley’s have no legal right to veto this petition. The was confirmed by Mr. Farmer at the last hearing. There’s been no additional objections by the Bradleys. But if I need to further explain why they have no legal right to veto this, I’m happy to do that. But we would request that this alley be vacated.
VAN HOECKE (01:34:31)
Is there anyone else in the gallery that was going to speak during the public hearing?
WALLACE (01:34:43)
Good evening again, Commissioners Logan Wallace for the Bradleys here on this matter again, like we discussed last time, I dare say ad nauseam over each other for quite a while. It’s the city’s property. That’s the way that it is. The city has utilities currently that are in the alley. And while, sure, you can say it hasn’t been used in a while, that doesn’t mean that the city doesn’t want to use it, or the city couldn’t find another use for it in two years, let alone tomorrow if they wanted to. On top of that, any guarantee or promise that say, yeah, sure, we’ll leave the easements open for you or you’ll have access to it is only as good as the current landowner goes. And that being said, in the last committee meeting, he already told us all that this was an investment that he’s keeping. And usually investments are sold in the end. So there’s no way to show that, sure, you’re going to have your easement access in the future, or access to your utilities or something else won’t be constructed on the exact same position. And it’s the public alley, it’s the city’s alley, it’s city property. It’s not just the Bradleys here that are going to to be harmed by this. It’s anyone else for any future purpose, current use, or any other variety that the citizens of Fort Scott might have for the purpose of the Alley.
VAN HOECKE
But what they’re requesting. Isn’t that the same thing that this Commission agreed to do for your client?
WALLACE (01:36:04)
Not in the same format here, no.
VAN HOECKE (01:36:07)
How so?
WALLACE (01:36:09)
It’s a separate issue here entirely as well.
VAN HOECKE (01:36:11)
And it’s a still easement of a vacation of city property in the ease, whether it’s an inch or whether it’s an alley. We’re vacating a piece of city property, correct?
WALLACE (01:36:24)
That is. That is entirely correct, what you’re saying. What I’m saying here is the easements here, you have utility lines that run in the section of the alley that is not vacated, the one that the city still owns. That is the section that they are seeking to have the city vacate, which will mean that all of that public utility access for those buildings and the surrounding area will be now on private property that you will have to enter onto in order to do any maintenance, any work, anything whatsoever. That includes into the future, too.
VAN HOECKE (01:36:52)
And, Bob, that we have access to our stuff. That’s regardless whose property is.
FARMER (01:37:01)
The law is very clear. The easements that we need for our utilities remain ours. They’re not transferred. They’re there. They will be a matter of the public record. And anybody that violates that or gets a building permit wouldn’t be allowed to build over with. They can’t. So he’s incorrect because you folks vacate alleys all the time.
VAN HOECKE
Well, not all the time. Well, but I mean, we always ask these questions. Would we still have rights to our utilities within that.
FARMER (01:37:37)
Yes. The answer is yes.
DANCER (01:37:39)
Oh, I have. I have a question. You know, the other party contended that the alley is not used, but I’ve gotten feedback from the Bradleys and from adjacent property owner Kevin Allen. But that that alleyway is used by members of, you know, the Bradleys, Bradley’s customers, and by Skitch to be able to turn around. They have kind of a reciprocal agreement with each other to drive on each other’s property so that they can exit onto Wall Street going forward instead of backing out onto Wall Street. Is that not correct?
WALLACE (01:38:25)
I don’t have personal knowledge of that, no.
DANCER (01:38:27)
Okay. That’s just information that I’ve acquired.
SALSBURY (01:38:31)
Sorry, I don’t want to cut you off. Are you done? I want you to be able to finish your speaking.
WALLACE (01:38:38)
Thank you very much. No, I think we can. I think we can just sum it up with, like I said before, it is the city’s alley. It is city property. I would highly recommend that the city does not give away its own property and property rights here. In this situation. That’s all I have to say on that.
VAN HOECKE (01:38:54)
I would have one other question then regarding Ms. Mason’s comment about our ordinance state that you can’t park your vehicle or park vehicles in a city roadway or alley.
WELLS (01:39:06)
Actually, the ordinance says that you can’t obstruct the alleyway. You are allowed to park in the alleyway as long as access is still available. So like when people park along the side of a street, they’re allowed to park, park on the side of the street as long as they don’t obstruct the street. And the ordinance says the same thing about alleys. They can park along the side of the alley as long as they don’t obstruct the alley. At least that’s the way the ordinance…
WALLACE (01:39:30)
They effectively operate like a one way street in that regard.
SALSBURY (01:39:36)
Thank you very much.
WALLACE (01:39:36)
Thank you.
VAN HOECKE (01:39:37)
Is there anyone else for public. For the public hearing? Then I move that we close the Public Hearing.
DANCER
Second.
BUCHTA
Second.
CITY CLERK (01:39:50)
Okay. Matthew Wells?
WELLS (01:39:51)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:39:52)
Tracy Dancer?
DANCER (01:39:53)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:39:53)
Julie Buchta?
BUCHTA (01:39:54)
Yes.
VAN HOECKE (01:39:54)
Tim Van Hoecke?
VAN HOECKE (01:39:55)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:39:56)
Kathryn Salsbury?
SALSBURY (01:39:57)
Yes.
WELLS (01:39:58)
I would make a motion that we do not vacate or give up city property.
DANCER (01:40:02)
Second.
CITY CLERK (01:40:06)
Tracy Dancer?
DANCER (01:40:08)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:40:09)
Julie Buchta?
BUCHTA (01:40:10)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:40:10)
Tim Van Hoecke?
VAN HOECKE (01:40:12)
No.
CITY CLERK (01:40:13)
Kathryn Salsbury?
SALSBURY (01:40:17)
Yes.
CITY CLERK (01:40:19)
Matthew Wells?
WELLS (01:40:20)
Yes.
SALSBURY (01:40:21)
Do you. Before we go on, I wanted. Am I allowed to make a comment? Okay.
VAN HOECKE
The only comment I wanted to make there was in a situation like this and the way this is laid out and what we did for the other property owner, I think the city finds itself in a position, position of picking winners and losers. I don’t like that.
SALSBURY (01:40:40)
To that point, I want to explain my vote because I think it’ll explain that difference. Excuse me, so sorry. Hang on. Okay, so first of all, I want to say I’m. I want to be very fair. I am not opposed to, to vacating alleys or getting city property on tax rolls in general. That’s not my issue here. So that’s not what it’s about. But I’m going to put here KSA 1255 A2, which Ms. Mason talked about. Excuse me, she, she, she referenced A3 which is about proper parties, but A2 also. And that requires this commission to determine from the evidence that no private rights will be injured or endangered by such vacation. And that is not a discretionary thing. That’s something we have to do. The East West Valley has never been vacated. It is a public right of way. Today the Bradley Salon was built after we vacated the north south one. I voted in favor of that vacation and I stand by it at that time no commercial Building existed in reliance for the east west alley to remain public. So, but now there is a private right and a safety concern for the city and access for the city emergency vehicles, if they were to come into the vacated alley is as the entrance, and then they are. They can traverse the alleyway in back there, you know, the piece of it, and then they can go out between the colored Conex boxes and the two remnant car wash buildings on Mr. Allen’s property, which is what Commissioner Dancer was talking about, and then get on the 54 highway. If we block this back here, our emergency vehicles, if they should need to go on, would be able to enter the property freely on the vacated alley running north south. But then they cannot exit without backing back on the 54 highway, which I believe we’re not allowed to create that situation. We have taken away. If we vacate this alley and it becomes the private property of an individual, we have injured the public, the private rights of anyone who goes to the salon, anyone who wants to any of our city who wants, you know, who would be protected through the emergency vehicles and Mr. Allen, to a degree, because he’s able to get there. I believe Ms. Mason said that the vacated alley was that when we vacated, that was the only entrance to the alley back there that runs east west. But as you can see, you can get there through this property here as well, through Mr. Allen’s land. So I think that that’s. My understanding is he allows people to do that. So if that’s not the case, I do apologize, but we would be injuring a private right by.
VAN HOECKE (01:43:57)
Well, my question then, then, Mayor, is where, in the case of Mr. Allen, where that building is absolutely within the easement, will the city be reaching out to him to have it removed?
WELLS (01:44:08)
I believe the city has already reached out to him. And when that time comes, he will have it demoed, or we will demo it for him,
SALSBURY
But it would be at our expense. That’s what I understand.
WELLS (01:44:18)
Yeah. He is perfectly all right with us tearing that building down at any time.
SALSBURY (01:44:24)
So I know that was long winded, but I wanted to explain why, because I. I don’t. I understand your concern. I don’t. I don’t think it’s picking. I think it is a very different issue.
WELLS (01:44:33)
And I had specifically asked at that commission meeting where I voted against vacating the north south alley, was the east west alley going to remain open? And at that time, statement was made, yes, we will always keep the east west alley open. That was the statement that was made. I’ll never vote for a vacation.
VAN HOECKE (01:44:54)
It doesn’t matter because you’re never going to vote yes anyway.
SALSBURY
All right, thank you very much. I appreciate everyone listening.
GALLERY COMMENT (01:45:03)
I would like to know how I as a private citizen, can access that. Because if I access it on the Bradley side, that’s their property. That’s trespass. If I access it on Kevin Allen’s side, that’s trespass’s private property. I’m just saying.
DANCER (01:45:14)
Well, you can. You can walk along the alley, through the brush, hop the little gully there.
GALLERY COMMENT (01:45:23)
That’s hilarious.
GALLERY COMMENT (01:45:24)
I mean, for real. This is ridiculous.
WELLS (01:45:27)
Well, that was another thing that was brought up by KDOT. If we vacate that alley, you’ll have no access to the property at all because there’s no curb cut right now for you to be able to access the property. So the property would in essence be landlocked in eternity.
GALLERY COMMENT (01:45:42)
The alley is landlocked. How can I. I’m a private citizen. How can I use that alley? Tell me. Explain to me how I can use that alley with my car. None of you can explain it, because I can’t. It’s landlocked. I just. This is unbelievable.
WELLS (01:46:00)
Appreciate your concern. Thank you.
GALLEY COMMENT (01:46:02)
It’s not a concern, but I’ll be back to the city to try to get my access to that alley. Okay.
End of transcription on Consideration to Vacate an Alley – Daugherty – Recorded and transcribed by myminutes.ai
Submitted by Lisa Lewis/City Clerk
