07-17-1972 MinutesCity of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners' Meeting
July 17, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room,
City -County Building, on Monday, July 17, 1972, at four o'clock p.m.
The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and a
Moment of Silent Prayer.
There were present:
Mayor Jack Weisgerber, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Leon L. Ashton
Commissioner Robert C. Caldwell
Commissioner Norma G. Cooper
Commissioner Mike Losik, Jr.
comprising a quorum of the Board, also:
L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney
Norris D. Olson, City Manager
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
Absent:
None
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 1972 were approved as mailed.
STAFF AGENDA
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for the Slurry Sealing of Certain streets. (Engineering
Project 72-549).
Ballou Construction Company, Salina, Kansas $74,066.00
Aubel Asphalt, Inc., Hays, Kansas 83,565.00
Asphalt Paving, Inc., Wichita, Kansas 85,785.00
Engineer's Estimate 77,565.00
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the low
bid of Ballou Construction Company for $74,066.00. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE establishing
the rate of fares for taxicabs operating within the City of Salina, Kansas, amending Section
34-68 of The Salina Code and repealing the existing section." A motion was made by
Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to adopt the ordinance as read and the
following vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0).
Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8232. The ordinance was
introduced for first reading July 10, 1972.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE ratifying
and confirming a contract with Stevens Contractors, Inc., for the construction of certain
improvements in the City of Salina, Kansas, and providing for the issuance of temporary
notes to pay the cost thereof, pending the issuance and sale of bonds." (Lateral Sanitary
Sewer 514 to serve Lakewood Addition - Engineering Project 72-547). A motion was made by
Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to adopt the ordinance as read and the
following vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0).
Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8233. The ordinance was
introduced for first reading July 10, 1972.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing
for the amendment of Zoning Ordinance Number 6613, and the Zoning District Map therein and
thereby adopted and providing for the rezoning of certain property within the City and
prescribing the proper uses thereof." (Rezoning Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, Block 3, Replat of Edgemere Addition from District "A" (Second Dwelling House
District) to District "C" (Apartment District) which was requested in Petition Number 3243,
which was filed by John Wagner and Eugene Addison) A motion was made by Commissioner
Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to adopt the ordinance as read and the following
vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0). Carried.
The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8234. The ordinance was introduced
for first reading July 10, 1972.
rj`
THE MAYOR explained that the 1973 City Budget has been presented to them, and
that once the budget is authorized for publication and a hearing date is set it cannot
be increased; however, it may be decreased. He added that after the formal budget hearing
and it is sent to the County, it may neither be increased or decreased.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
set the date of August 7, 1972, as the date for Budget Hearing for the 1973 City Budget,
and instruct the City Clerk to publish the notice of hearing. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
Commissioner Losik stated it might be advantageous to set that as a night meeting
to consider just strictly the budget. He said he thought it worked quite well last year
and we didn't disturb the rest of the meeting by people having to wait for that to be
accomplished.
Mayor Weisgerber recalled that that was the first day of the fair, and the
Commissioners participated in the parade, and then came back in the evening to consider
the budget.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that if this was the first item on the agenda,
he thought everyone interested in the budget could probably come in the afternoon.
Commissioner Ashton commented that they did not get that much comment last year.
Commissioner Losik said he thinks something as important as the budget, and the
way money is now, he thinks the Commissioners should make themselves available at all times
that the people want them to. He said he hated to limit the hearing because they had to
engage in some social activity.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if they should set the hour this week, or set it next week?
The City Clerk explained that the publication sets the hour of the hearing, and —
that last year the hearing was advertised to be held at 4:00 o'clock, then it was recessed
until 7:00 o'clock.
The City Attorney explained that if they hold the meeting at any time other than
4:00 o'clock, they will have to call a special meeting. He recalled that last year the
hearing time was set for four o'clock, with the understanding that it would be recessed
and adjourned, and they would come back in the evening. This was made known through the
news media.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that if there is going to be a night meeting for
the budget, they should have a night meeting for everything, rather than have two sessions.
Commissioner Losik said this is agreeable with him.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to call
a special meeting for 7:00 o'clock on August 7, 1972, to consider all items on the agenda,
including the budget hearing. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY COMMISSIONERS considered the City submitting a request to the Kansas
Police and Firemen's Retirement System for a proposal for coverage of the Police and
Fire Department personnel.
Mr. Bill Harris, Director of Administration, said "In a telephone conversation
with Mr. Crowther, Counsel for the Kansas Police and Fire Retirement System, told me that,
first of all, he would suggest that he come out and visit with members of the two departments
and of course the Governing Body, to endeavor to get all the questions answered prior to the
actuary study being made. Part of the data to be supplied for the actuary study depends on
whether or not the employee would prefer to come under the State Retirement System or stay
with the present one. Even though the employee is not bound to this first committment, they
do need to know which way he thinks he would prefer to go. Obviously for the employee to
make that decision, he needs to have his questions answered about the two plans, programs,
or funds, in order to be able to make a valid comparison. Mr. Crowther said he would be
available to come out anytime, even yet this week, or next week, whatever would be
convenient here.
"Now so far as the cost involved, we have estimated, on the basis of information
he supplied us, it would cost about $770.00 to have the actuary made. This was for the two
departments, a total of about 134 policemen and firemen. The way they arrive at this is
$100.00 base cost and then $5.00 for each employee. It takes about three weeks for them
to get the information back from the New York firm that does the study, after the data is
supplied to them, and this data I speak of is the information we obtain from the various
employees. However, one significant point he made, should we have an actuary made now,
i
they would require another one if we go beyond the affiliation date, which is January 1st
without affiliating. This is the only time an employer can affiliate with the State program,
on January 1st of each year. What I am saying is, if we had one made now, which we can
certainly do, and we did not affiliate on January 1, 1973, or any subsequant year, they
would require another one to be made prior to affiliation. This is a policy ruling of the
Board of Trustees. He said the reason for this is that they, through experience, have
had some employers come up, after they have been in the program for a while, and say we
have been mislead. We didn't think it was going to cost this much. They want everyone to
enter into it with their eyes wide open.
"The first year, it will cost you 16%, now this is the employers contribution,
the employees share for his contribution is set at 7%. 7% for the initial year, and for
subsequant years until such time as the legislature would change it; however the employers
contribution will vary after the first year. They have been running as high as 25-30%;
however, this last year those enrolling only new employees ran about 14-15%. The reduction
was due to returns on investments. That is pretty much the size of the information we
have from them up to this point. If you have questions, I will attempt to answer them,
but I think, as he suggested, it would be wise, before we apply for the actuary, to get hirr
out her to visit with the employees and you people, if you would like to spend some time
with him to get any of your questions answered."
Mayor Weisgerber commented that we are too far along with the budget for 1973 to
make any major changes. He said this is a program that will require quite a little outlay
of money. If we have an actuary study made this year, then we will have to turn around and
do it again next year, so really there is no need to do it this year, if we can't go into
the program and then have to repeat the survey next year.
Mr. Harris said, "We can, as I understand it, affiliate January 1st, and say that
only new employees are going to be enrolled in it. Employees hired after that day would be
automatically enrolled in the State plan. Now you don't need an actuary study for that.
It would cost you 16% the first year on the participating employees salaries, but obviously
with just new employees being involved, this isn't going to be a large amount. It would be
16% for each, based on the salary of each participating employee. Then you can have the
actuary made to see what it would cost to enroll present employees.
"Now just in round numbers, our present recommended budget for salaries for the
two department totals almost a million dollars, $986,944.00, well, if even 50% of them
wanted to enroll in it at 16%, we are talking about almost $80,000.00, so we are talking
about a very significant chunk of money."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Without surveying the whole thing and knowing for sure what
we want to do, maybe it would be advisable to start the new men in the program and next year,
after the survey, to alter our own in some manner and maybe not necessarily put all employees
under it. I hate to do it piecemeal without having a survey, and I hate to have a survey if
we can't implement it, and then have to resurvey next year."
Mr. Harris said, "He told us some of the cities have followed this procedure, just
initially enrolling new people, as of the affiliation date. Some of them have later on
enrolled their older employees. I think we would all agree we should at least get our new
people onto the State program. In order to enroll future employees, or people hired after
your affiliation date, say we join January 1, 1973, they do not require an actuary study to
be made. Where the actuary comes in, relates to your present employees, before you enroll
them in it, they require you to have the actuary made. If we had one made now, and did not
enroll them January 1st, their Board of Trustees would require us to have another actuary
made prior to affiliation."
Commissioner Losik said, "Before we do either one of them, this actuary study
should be accomplished, because this will go on for years and years and years. We are
talking about $700.00. 1 don't know of a better way to spend $700.00 than to get it firmed
up. Now you gave us an estimate. We don't know if the present employees will want to go
under it, on the other hand it might be because of the way the dollar situation is going,
to be in the future, we may not have any choice, because the number of people that are
planning to retire and will be retiring, that is going to throw quite a strain on the
City funds, so it might be advisable for us to take the big chunk; but until we get this
actuary, to actually have it studied, we are just grasping at figures and I would recommend
that if your reasoning is sound, it might be and it probably would be the best to go ahead
on an attrition basis type deal and start your new employees after the first of the year
on an affiliated basis, and as money becomes available, then you would switch the older
employees to the thing; but until we get those actual dollar figures, there would be no
way for us to make this decision."
164
Commissioner Cooper said, "These people want to come out and visit with the
employees. The employees may or may not elect to use this plan, this is one of their choices,
is it not? First we have to know how many people might be agreeable to it, or want to do
it; then you would have to have your actuary to see what the cost would be to the City."
Mr. Harris said, "Our recommendation would be, before ordering the study to be
made, have him come out and visit with the people within the next week or two weeks, and
see what kind of reading we get from that, and get their questions answered, and then at
that time, if you see fit, apply for the study to be made; however, we definitely want to make
you aware, that if we go beyond the affiliation date that you would be required to have
another study made. You might be talking about $1,500.00 total, as opposed to something
over $700.00.
Commissioner Cooper said with that kind of understanding, I would suggest we let
them go ahead and visit, so we can get an idea of what number of people we are really
talking about.
Mayor Weisgerber said this is an area where we have a lot of need and corrective
action needs to be made.
Mr. Harris asked the Cowmissioners when they would - like Mr. Crowther to come to
Salina.
Commissioner Cooper said not this week.
Mayor Weisgerber said the Commissioners will be getting together a few more times
before August 7th to discuss the budget, maybe they could work this into one of those
meetings.
It was agreed that Mr. Harris should set the meetings up between Mr. Crowther and
the two departments. Then make the City Commission aware of the date, so that they can
visit with Mr. Crowther if they so choose.
None
COMMISSION AGENDA
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3263 was filed by E. S. Hampton, Attorney for Litowich Estate,
requesting the rezoning of Part of Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and all of Lot 16, Block 1, in
Morrison's Replat of part of the Replat of part of Morrison's Third Addition from District
"B" (Two -Family Dwelling House District) to District "C" (Apartment District). A motion
was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to refer the petition to
the Salina City Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Salina Community Theatre, requesting the approval
of the plans and specifications for the revised plans for the Salina Community Theatre
building.
Mr. Jack Stewart and Mr. John Shaver presented the new plans for the Salina
Community Theatre and asked for the approval of the revised plans, which would enable the
Salina Community Theatre to build. The approval of the plans and specifications is a
necessary step under our January 12, 1970 agreement between the Theatre and the City.
Mr. Shaver explained that the major change is the taking of the addition to be
added to the south of the building, and placing that space in the basement under the stage
area. He explained that in doing this the biggest savings in cost resulted, and it resulted
in having a little more square footage. He explained that there has been a slight reduction
in the seating capacity of the auditorium, from 302 to 290. He said the size of the
auditorium was not reduced, they just took out some of the seats, and that put it in a
fire code category that allowed them to effect some other economies in the construction.
He said when you get to 300 seating capacity, or above, you are required to fireproof a
lot of the structural members, and do a lot of extra things that are more expensive, but
the matter of reducing the number of seats to 290 effected quite a bit of savings in cost.
Mr. Stewart said in the original plan, the area known as the private area of the
Community Theatre, which could be locked up, was in a semicircular pod off one side of the
building, and that has now been eliminated, and in lieu of that, we have created a room
in the basement, the same size as the stage area, and that basement will become the private
area of the Community Theatre, which can be locked up. It will be used for storage,
rehearsal, etc. This area is about 32' x 601.
Mr. Shaver added, in going to this change, and if you go ahead with the Cultural
Arts Addition, that would be placed on the Iron Avenue side, rather than on the north side
of the building, as was originally shown, that would make a better appearance on the building
and would functionally help out a great deal to have inside access from the front of the
building to the stage, without having to go outside, and we hope there would be some dual
use of the space between the Cultural Arts people and the Community Theatre people.
i
i
s
Commissioner Cooper asked what this does in the way of dollars and cents?
Mr. Stewart said it cuts the cost to $197,000.00 from $251,000.00. We have
reduced the cost about $54,000.00.
Commissioner Cooper said this also changes the outside dimension of the building,
doesn't it?
Mr. Shaver said, "No. The only change is eliminating that one wing off the side
of the building and placing it in the basement."
Commissioner Cooper asked if the available space for parking was based on the
original proposal?
Commissioner Losik said, "We are talking about roughly 1,000 square feet by taking
that circular portion off. Now, what is the total square footage, as outlined there, not
counting the basement. Just the auditorium, lobby, and so forth."
Mr. Shaver said he didn't recall, he would have to check his notes.
Commissioner Losik said he would like to have that figure.
Mr. Shaver said he can get it, but he doesn't have it available right at the
moment.
Mr. Stewart said he seemed to recall that the total building, as originally
designed, was around 8,500 square feet.
Mr. Shaver said it is now a little more than the original agreement.
Commissioner Losik said if he had those figures, why not get it for them, so we
won't be guessing at it.
Mr. Shaver said he can get it for them, if it is that important; however they
have complied with that requirement in the original agreement on the square footage.
Commissioner Losik said, "We are talking about revisions and we are talking
about figures, and I think we would like to have those figures. I think we should ask for
it. You wanted it approved toady, and I think this information is very pertinent."
Mr. Shaver sa id,"You are talking about more square footage than you approved
before. I don't see the point. I don't object to giving you any information you want."
Mr. Stewart explained that the public area remains absolutely unchanged. The area
that is going to be used as the lobby, the auditorium, and the stage facility is exactly
the same as it was before. What has been taken off is the private area which used to be
on the ground level, and put in the basement.
Commissioner Cooper said, "What you are saying is Area 1 has remained the same,
and Area 2 is the only thing that has changed. Your agreement that you made reference to
in here, says that you will have approximately 8 - 9 thousand square feet in Area 1 and
Area 2 will not exceed 10% of the entire building, and you are saying that with your
revisions you comply with this?"
Mr. Stewart said the public area did not change.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the square footage of Area 2 changed appreciably?
Mr. Shaver said, "Yes, it got bigger."
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton that the plans and specifications for the
Community Theatre building be approved, with the stipulation that they file a compliance
bond, submitted to the City, and a Statutory bond.
Commissioner Losik asked about the performance bond, and asked if that was with
the Community Theatre and contractors.
Mr. Stewart explained that is the Statutory Bond.
Mr. Bengtson explained that it guarantees that no mechanics liens can be filed.
Commissioner Losik seconded the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
I C (i
Mr. Stewart said when he wrote the letter to the City Manager to have this item
on the agenda today, he also asked to have steps taken to have the site cleared.
Commissioner Losik explained that Dean Boyer has that well in hand, that he
is coordinating the volunteer labor with B. J. Frick and the City equipment.
A LETTER was received from the Cultural Arts Commission requesting the City
Commissioners discuss the rebidding for the Cultural Arts Office facility.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested they have the City Attorney draw up a General
Improvement ordinance, so they can receive bids on it.
The City Attorney said if the Commissioners are going to rebid it, they would
have to call for bids and would have to publish notice that they will be accepted, and this
procedure calls for three publications.
B. J. Evans, Program Director for the Salina Cultural Arts, said Chairman
Dr. Nickell was unable to be here today, but they would like to ask the Commission to
approve the rebidding for this facility, and if there are any questions, Mr. Shaver would
answer them.
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Let me brief this thing. We agreed that we would build
with City funds, a Cultural Arts office, providing it was within the Engineer's estimate.
It placed the case of the Cultural Arts in a rather awkward position to be hooked on as
an alternate bid. The Cultural Arts wound up in the same position as the Theatre building,
in that the base bid was above the estimated cost. In the case of the Theatre building,
they are not a legal entity as we are, and they were able to negotiate with the contractor
and make changes in the building, so they were able to negotiate and bring the cost of their
part of the building down within the funds they felt they have. Now legally, the City
cannot do this. If bids come in, if the bids are over the estimate, the City has no choice
but to reject those bids; however, also within the legal framework, the City has the right
to rebid this and relet this again. Now I think some of the work has been done with the
contractor and perhaps with the sub -contractor, and has given the Cultural Arts Commission
cause to think, without our changing the estimate, leaving the estimate the same, if we
will accept bids again on this, they may be able to get within the original estimate, which
will leave us in a position to accept those bids and proceed with the building. It works
differently in the case of the theatre, than it does in the case of the Cultural Arts, so
what they are, in effect, asking when they come on the agenda is that we do what we can do
legally and ask that this building be rebid. Now since the contractor is already involved
in the building, they are familiar with the specifications and plans and time is of some
importance. Aside from the possibility of publication difficulty, if we choose to, I
think we could call to have this building rebid next week. We need three publications of
the notice to contractors."
The City Attorney said they probably could publish Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
Mayor Weisgerber said, "If we do this, and if the bids come within, and if we
decide to accept them, then it is also necessary, by State Law, to know how we are going to
pay for this. If we take bids next week, we may not make the final contract until we
proceed a step or two further, as far as getting this properly allocated. If we choose to
do this and follow the correct legal procedures it can be done in that way."
The City Attorney said, "This is correct, if you decide you wanted to ask for bids,
you could and normally you provided in your bids that they must remain open for a period of
thirty days, so you will have that time to determine how you are going to finance it, and
of course you would have to make that determination before you committed the City on it."
Commissioner Losik asked if we are asking for bids on the same specifications?
Mr. Shaver said, "No."
Mr. Stewart said there have been some interior changes that would be comparable
to the Community Theatre portion of the building that involves changes in lighting and
electrical work.
Commissioner Cooper asked why the Commissioner has to wait to decide how it is to
be financed, if they feel fairly confident that it will come in under the $25,600?
The City Attorney said they wouldn't want to authorize the issuance of bonds
before they actually know whether they would go ahead with the project. He said they wouldn't
want to introduce an ordinance to issue bonds before they actually make a firm committment.
1
1
11
Mayor Weisgerber said there may be a problem in getting the information to the
contractors.
Mr. Shaver said,"The information is ready to go out to them. It is waiting your
action. It would be a very easy matter for them to bid in that short a time."
Commissioner Ashton asked if there have been enough changes made so that, under
the new specifications, bids would come under the estimate?
Mr. Shaver said, "Very definitely. But to be safe we thought we should make
some interior changes."
Commissioner Losik asked, "Other than changing the location to the other side,
is it still going to be 1,300 square feet on a two level arrangement?"
Mr. Shaver said that is correct.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
set the date of July 24, 1972 to receive bids for the Cultural Arts Commission office space,
and instruct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Weisgerber (3).
Nays: Cooper, Losik (2). Motion carried.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and
Commissioner Losik that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk