Please review this rough draft and make changes for final copy to be approved in the first agenda session of each month. Thank you May 26, 2015 Reno County Courthouse Hutchinson, Kansas The Board of Reno County Commissioners met in agenda session with, Chairman James Schlickau, Commissioners Brad Dillon and Dan Deming, County Administrator Gary Meagher, County Counselor Joe O Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Cindy Martin, present. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance and a short sectarian prayer led by Commissioner Deming. There were two additions to the agenda; sales tax update, pending legislation. Mr. Dillon moved, seconded by Mr. Deming, to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of the Accounts Payable Ledger for claims payable on May 29th, 2015 of $942,522.99, as submitted and also consisting of pending Added, Abated and Escaped Taxation Change Orders numbered 2015-298 through 299. Next on the consent agenda was to appoint Harriet Bearce to the Reno County Council of Aging for the term July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. The motion was approved by a 3-0 vote. Mr. Schlickau moved to item #7 on the agenda. Treasurer Jan Hull discussed the Division of Motor Vehicles post card renewal process. She stated that as of July 1 st, 2015 the state will be sending out renewal notices on postcards with a barcode that would have the resident s vehicle information on it. Residents will have the option of renewing on line using the website or coming to the tag department or calling in to find out what amount to pay for their renewal and mailing the payment in to the Treasurer s office. County Administrator Gary Meagher stated the cost involved for postal presort, Mrs. Hull estimated, at $.66 cents for each postcard, totaling $36,000; however the information from the state would not be sorted and therefore would cost the county more money in the long run. Mrs. Hull also added that for now she would prefer to let the state handle the notices and feels that the state is moving toward the county sending out notices in the
future. Mrs. Hull gave the ksrevenue.org website for online renewals using credit cards or E-checks for payment. Mr. Meagher was also present to give a brief overview on item #6 for the request of attachment and detachment of areas in Fire Districts #2, #3, #4, and #8. In 1989 an agreement was signed by the County Commission, which also is the Fire Board, to create a co-response area in Fire Districts #3. The agreement allows Fire Districts #3 and #8 to both be dispatched to a fire in an area that is north and West of the Pleasantview area. The area encompasses six sections in the Southern portion of Fire District #3. When Fire District #8 responds to the coresponse area they are to be reimbursed by Fire District #3 at a rate of $100 per call, plus expenses. The issue of who responds and the time it takes came into play with an auto accident several weeks ago when Fire District #2 was to respond and it took them 10 minutes. The vehicle was on fire near Fire District #8 s fire station, yet they were not dispatched. This raised concerns with local Pleasantview merchants. Mr. Meagher stated there were two methods to change a fire district. He then discussed the two ways to make a change, one being by petition and then a resolution the other by contact. If the petition was used it would require the owners of ten percent of the area to be attached/detached to sign a petition. As K.S.A. 19-3604 states if the Board of county commissioners finds the petition is sufficient, the Board may adopt and publish a resolution attaching or detaching the lands described in the petition to or from the fire district. The resolution shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the lands are located. Suh publication shall include a map showing the territory of the district and the lands proposed to be attached to or detached therefrom. If within 30 days after the last publication of the resolution and map, a petition protesting the inclusion or detachment of such lands, signed by the owners, whether residents of the county or not, of more than 19 percent of the area of the lands sought to be included in or excluded from the fire district is filed with the county clerk, the resolution shall have no force or effect. If such a protest petition shall not be filed within such time, the resolution shall become final. The other option is to adopt contracts that would establish a co-response in each of the Fire Districts around the Pleasantview area to allow Fire District #8 to provide an initial response. This could be done at any of the upcoming commission meetings. There is a deadline of July 1 st for taxing units to be changed, so there is not enough time for public notices to be published and the protest period to expire
for the resolution to be effective January 1, 2016, which is required if a petition is submitted to the County Commission for consideration. If a petition was submitted and the proper notices were given and there was not a sufficient protest, the attachment/detachment could take effect by January 1 st, 2017. County Counselor Joe O Sullivan pointed out that the agreement in 1989 agreement between Fire District #3 and Fire District #8 provided that Fire District #8 would automatically respond to a six section area situated in Fire District #3 near the Pleasantview area. The agreement required Fire District #3 to compensate Fire District #8 for each emergency response made by District #8 to this area. The agreement came about following a structure fire in the six section area. District #8 with a fire station located at Pleasantview much closer than District #3 s station in Nickerson was not dispatched to the fire. He referred to an Attorney General s opinion which affirmed that fire districts were restricted to providing services within their respective districts and were prohibited from responding out of their respective districts except under a Mutual Aid Agreement or except when compensated for responding out of district. Mr. O Sullivan indicated that one potential solution to having the nearest fire station respond to an emergency would be to consolidate the various fire districts into one district. He said that consolidation would allow for greater efficiency and improved allocation of resources within the district. He also indicated that when this subject had been considered by the Board in prior years, significant opposition existed among the district fire chiefs and other patrons in the districts. Mr. O Sullivan also referred to the agreement for emergency services between Fire District #2 and the City of Hutchinson. The cost for the services is apportioned between the District and the City in accordance with the appraised value of real estate located in each. The District s current mill levy to fund the contract is approximately 21 mills. The Agreement guarantees continuation of emergency services to the District even if the District suffers a loss of valuation; but he cautioned that any effort to voluntarily transfer property from Fire District #2 to another fire district would impact the contract and require prior consultation with city officials. Emergency Management Director Michelle Abbott was in the audience and spoke about the responsibility of both the 9-1-1 dispatch and the fire chief s. She stated that seventy-seven percent of calls that come through dispatch are cell phones so the call could be mapped at a different location since the
person may not know exactly where they are when calling in. She also stated that an advantage of having a fire station close benefits the resident on their insurance premiums. If a person calls in with a landline than there is a primary and secondary fire district dispatched if needed. Fairview Service Owner Keith Nisly, a Pleasantview merchant, spoke to the Board on concerns from area businesses. He thanked Mr. Schlickau and Mr. Meagher for meeting with him and others. Mr. Nisly said three businesses were in fire district #4 and others were in fire district #8. Still another like Stutzman Greenhouse, were split down the middle with one side of the street in fire district #4 the opposite side in fire district #8. The bank is in fire district #2 where the accident happened several weeks ago. Mr. Nisly stated that it took them over 10 minutes to respond since they came from the Hutchinson area, whereas fire district #8 is in Pleasantview. The merchants were concerned with response time in critical conditions and the distance from fire stations. Fire station #4 was 10 plus miles away in Arlington, #3 was 13 miles away in Nickerson, #2 Hutchinson was a couple miles away and #8 was in Pleasantview a half mile away. He asked about co-response and related confusion from years past with fire districts handing over command from the first responding fire district to the fire district that would handle the call (i.e. #8 responded and in #3 s area to handle). Mr. Nisly questioned whether residents would be double billed for both stations responding and liked the mutual aid resolution the Board signed earlier in the year. He stated that 70 to 80 percent of residents preferred to detach from their fire districts and attach to fire district #8. Mr. O Sullivan stated there was no double billing because cost was not an issue, the level of service was. Fire Chief Lyndon Ropp was present and stated that on eighty percent of calls; one or two trucks could take care of the call. He preferred doing the mutual aid. Mr. Schlickau stated that he understood the concerns expressed by the Pleasantview merchants, where four fire districts converged, creating confusion. Mr. Schlickau also stated that there was not adequate time to pursue the process of attachment/detachment prior to the July 1 st deadline for this taxing cycle. Pleasantview merchants, fire district representatives, and county staff could designate co-response areas through resolution that may satisfy the concerns in a more expeditious manner.
Mr. Nisly added one more comment to redo the lines to eliminate the four corners spreading out the lines so they don t come to a point. He also asked if the time frame of July 1 st could be moved. Mr. O Sullivan replied no the county would have to recreate tax districts before July 1 st, 2015 and so the effective date would have to be moved to July, 2016. Mr. Meagher pointed out that they would have to go over taxing districts to make the most sense of them before continuing. Mr. Meagher also presented the sale tax report stating both were up from last month with the revenue tax up $107,000 and sales tax for the new Correctional Facility up $131,000 from same time last year. Mr. Deming expressed concern for legislation being discussed that would affect Reno County. He was speaking about the Donovan Bill which could result in Kansas counties losing $39 million next year and $175 million over the next four years. He also stated that late last week it was discussed that government entities might have to pay sales tax on construction. He suggested sending an email to the Reno County legislators informing them of the potential for higher local property taxes from these two proposals. The Board agreed to have Mr. Meagher prepare an email. Mr. Schlickau opened the meeting to other business. Noxious Weed Director Jay Burns met with the Board for his regularly scheduled meeting. He discussed various current issues not requiring action by the Board. At 10:15 the meeting adjourned until 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, June 2, 2015. Approved: Members of the Board of Commissioners:
cm Approved: Chair, Board of Reno County Commissioners (ATTEST) Reno County Clerk cm Date