11-20-1972 MinutesCity of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners' Meeting
November 20, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room,
City -County Building, on Monday, November 20, 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
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1972, were approved as mailed.
STAFF AGENDA
A PUBLIC HEARING was held on the proposed assessments for the improvements in
Engineering Project 72-542: (Miscellaneous Improvements)
The installation of paving on Woodland Avenue with 6 inch
reinforced concrete from Second Street to Third Street.
The installation of a water main in Meadowlark Lane from
Mars Avenue to Saturn Avenue.
The installation of curbing, guttering, concrete pavement,
water main, Sanitary sewer and drainage system in Bobby Place,
Mike Drive and Bret Avenue from Neal Avenue to the north line
of Bonnie Ridge Addition.
The installation of curbing, guttering, paving and grading
of Faith Drive from Meadowbrook Road to the east line of
Lot 15, Block 9, Replat of Faith Addition.
The installation of water main in Stimmel Road from
U. S. 81 Highway, East 876 feet.
The installation of sanitary sewer in Diamond Drive from
U. S. 81 Highway, West approximately 1,320 feet.
as authorized by Resolution Number 3117, passed by the Board of Commissioners
on the 10th day of January, 1972.
There were property owners present. No protests or changes were made in the
proposed assessment. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner
Caldwell to approve the assessments, and introduce the assessment ordinance for first
reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: �Q„o,., 191 L Number: 42 L o
T
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE repealing
Section 20-57 of The Salina Code which provides for pawnbrokers licenses in the City of
Salina, Kansas." A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik,
to adopt the ordinance as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell,
Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0). The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is
numbered 8259. The ordinance was introduced for first reading November 13, 1972.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Plans and Specifications for Engineering Project 72-551
for Parkwood Village Addition Improvements. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik,
seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the plans and specifications for Engineering
Project 72-551 and instruct the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be received December 4,
1972. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Plans and Specifications for Engineering Project 72-552
for sanitary sewer improvements for Brown and Brown Addition and the 81 Drive-in Theatre.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the
plans and specifications for Engineering Project 72-552 and instruct the City Clerk to
advertise for bids to be received December 4, 1972. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
award the contract for the City of Salina Audit for the calendar year of 1972 to Woods and
Durham. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Community
Improvement recommending that the City Commission approve the four block area bounded by
Santa Fe Avenue and Fourth Street, and Otis and Hamilton Streets for an urban renewal
project to be redeveloped as a park.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if anyone in the audience had anything to say.
i
Mrs. Brock said she thought everyone knew how she feels. She said she filed a
petition, and she and her neighbors certainly haven't changed their opinion. She said, "It
is such a vital thing with me that there isn't much to say except I just don't know what
direction my life will take if my home is taken away from me. I can't go into personal,
I you wouldn't be interested in that, but it would be just such a personal tragedy to me and
I am sure my neighbors would like to tell you the same thing."
I Mayor Weisgerber told the ladies the Commission wants to hear from them, and
asked Mrs. Brock if she could tell the Commission what the opinion is of the people who
live in this area and own their homes?
Mrs. Brock, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Harris checked the ballots from the Citizens'
Advisory Committee poll, and it was finally determined that 11 live in the area and want to:
sell; 8 live in the area and do not want to sell; and 14 live outside the area and are in
favor of the project.
Mrs. Fuller said she thinks there are 10 in the area who do not want to sell,
I lives in Washington and doesn't want to sell. She said there are the Summers, the Jackson,
Mrs. Priddy, Mr. Knight, The Lutheran Church, the Fullers, the Silers, the Pierces, and two
families of Brocks; and then the Roseberry's who don't live here, but don't want to sell.
i
Commissioner Ashton asked Mrs. Fuller if these different houses in this area are
average, or above average. He asked if they are houses which could be moved to a different
location, close to the park.
Mrs. Brock replied that the houses are liveable, and just as good as most any
place in town, and they do not want their homes to be moved. They want to stay there.
Commissioner Ashton said we are talking about taking a section and upgrading it
and possibly moving those homes to the upgraded location.
Geneva Pierce asked, "What will we profit by fixing up another area and moving us
over there, when you can fix up the area where we are living?"
Commissioner Ashton replied, "It would clear your park area."
Mrs. Priddy said, "I own five lots out there. I have four good houses and I
wouldn't consider moving any of them, because it does not pay to move houses, because I
know; and besides they wouldn't want to move my houses over they, and I don't want to move
my houses, not one of them. I would sell some of them, but I will not move them; but I
don't want to sell if I don't have to; and my home, I will not sell."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Then you have properties other than your home?"
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
introduce an ordinance for first reading repealing Section 12-40 of The Salina Code which
provides that the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Fire Department shall be ex -officio
j president and vice-president of the Firemen's Relief Association. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
i
Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: ��� �lg7i Number: 8261
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Plans and Specifications for Engineering Project 72-551
for Parkwood Village Addition Improvements. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik,
seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the plans and specifications for Engineering
Project 72-551 and instruct the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be received December 4,
1972. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Plans and Specifications for Engineering Project 72-552
for sanitary sewer improvements for Brown and Brown Addition and the 81 Drive-in Theatre.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the
plans and specifications for Engineering Project 72-552 and instruct the City Clerk to
advertise for bids to be received December 4, 1972. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
award the contract for the City of Salina Audit for the calendar year of 1972 to Woods and
Durham. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Community
Improvement recommending that the City Commission approve the four block area bounded by
Santa Fe Avenue and Fourth Street, and Otis and Hamilton Streets for an urban renewal
project to be redeveloped as a park.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if anyone in the audience had anything to say.
i
Mrs. Brock said she thought everyone knew how she feels. She said she filed a
petition, and she and her neighbors certainly haven't changed their opinion. She said, "It
is such a vital thing with me that there isn't much to say except I just don't know what
direction my life will take if my home is taken away from me. I can't go into personal,
I you wouldn't be interested in that, but it would be just such a personal tragedy to me and
I am sure my neighbors would like to tell you the same thing."
I Mayor Weisgerber told the ladies the Commission wants to hear from them, and
asked Mrs. Brock if she could tell the Commission what the opinion is of the people who
live in this area and own their homes?
Mrs. Brock, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Harris checked the ballots from the Citizens'
Advisory Committee poll, and it was finally determined that 11 live in the area and want to:
sell; 8 live in the area and do not want to sell; and 14 live outside the area and are in
favor of the project.
Mrs. Fuller said she thinks there are 10 in the area who do not want to sell,
I lives in Washington and doesn't want to sell. She said there are the Summers, the Jackson,
Mrs. Priddy, Mr. Knight, The Lutheran Church, the Fullers, the Silers, the Pierces, and two
families of Brocks; and then the Roseberry's who don't live here, but don't want to sell.
i
Commissioner Ashton asked Mrs. Fuller if these different houses in this area are
average, or above average. He asked if they are houses which could be moved to a different
location, close to the park.
Mrs. Brock replied that the houses are liveable, and just as good as most any
place in town, and they do not want their homes to be moved. They want to stay there.
Commissioner Ashton said we are talking about taking a section and upgrading it
and possibly moving those homes to the upgraded location.
Geneva Pierce asked, "What will we profit by fixing up another area and moving us
over there, when you can fix up the area where we are living?"
Commissioner Ashton replied, "It would clear your park area."
Mrs. Priddy said, "I own five lots out there. I have four good houses and I
wouldn't consider moving any of them, because it does not pay to move houses, because I
know; and besides they wouldn't want to move my houses over they, and I don't want to move
my houses, not one of them. I would sell some of them, but I will not move them; but I
don't want to sell if I don't have to; and my home, I will not sell."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Then you have properties other than your home?"
Mrs. Priddy replied, "I have three rentals, and they are all rented, and then
have a vacant lot on the north of my house, and I don't want to make another home."
Commissioner Cooper said, "I don't think the decision that is to be made today is
a park decision. I think the area has a park and has future plans for additional activity
type expansion area in the St. John's Project. Progress and improvement cannot be made to
an area where the actions used are dividing neighbors and displacing families. People have
a right to expect any improvement program to give them a choice of going or staying.
Government has the authority to force you to move from your home, but not the moral right,
unless it is necessary. We cannot continue a practice that is so totally unfair for the
sake of something called progress, when the real name is profit, and is being done at the
expense of a few. We must have a program that will rehabilitate and upgrade an area, not
divide and demolish. This is how Salina should direct its attentions and efforts, for when
you improve the neighborhood, you help the entire community. The City should not be
encouraged to become the biggest landlord in town, to demolish dwellings and then seek more
public funds because you are short of housing. Rehabilitation is what we need. I move that
this four block park proposal be denied."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Losik.
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Alright, but according to the rules, this cuts off debate
from the floor, let's let the motion stand a bit, if it is alright with you, so other
people out here who care to, may comment on this."
Mr. Solomon Oliver said, "I have been pretty well involved in this thing for quite
a while now, and for the past year that I know of, all of the investigation and everything
connected with this particular project have been based upon exactly what the people in the
area want. Now I think this is much bigger than that. I think it concerns all of Salina.
I think we ought to start thinking a little bit of what is best for Salina, rather than
just what those few families in the area want. Nothing factual has been presented so far
that even points to the fact that we need a park in that area. Do we need another park in
Salina? The population in Salina in the last 10 years has decreased by about 6,100 people.
Now if we want to put a park in that area, when you consider what we have already moved out
of Northeast Salina, what we are contemplating moving out with this project, and what we
are contemplating moving out with the St. John's Project. That takes about 30-50% of the
people out of the Northeast quadrant of Salina; so why should we put another park over there
when we are moving 30-50% of the people away from there? Can Salina afford a park? This
list that I have in my hand is a list of the properties over there and what I come up with
doesn't jibe at all with what the Citizens' Advisory Committee comes up with. I am a
member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, but I am not representing them, I am just
speaking as a taxpayer today. Now according to my count, there are 60 properties in that
area. Sixty individual properties. By that now, there are a lot more lots, but I am
talking about individual properties. When we move in and take over that area, if this goes
through, we take 60 properties right off the tax list to begin with; then we come up and say
we want to put a park over here. Alright, we have figures that say the park is going to
cost $585,000.00. People just kick that figure around like they are talking about $5.85.
That is a lot of money and somebody is going to have to pay for that. When you take 60
properties off the tax list and right away we hit the City with a liability for $585,000.00.
Now they tell me this isn't going to cost the tax payers anything. I am not stupid. You
don't get anything from the Government for nothing, even though the Government might be
footing part of this bill, Salina is also going to have to foot part of this bill, and it
is going to have to come from the taxpayers eventually, maybe not this year or next year,
but eventually it is going to have to come from the taxpayers. So I think all these things
should be considered, and the most important thing that I think should be considered is,
do we really need another park in Salina?"
Mayor Weisgerber said that was well put, and asked if anyone had any comments
who is in favor of the project.
Commissioner Cooper said she is pretty firmly convinced that the Community as a
whole would benefit from a rehabilitation program of the dwellings of people who do have
dwellings that are sub -standard, then you automatically improve the neighborhood. She added
that she agrees with Mr. Oliver that a park in that area is absolutely unnecessary.
Commissioner Ashton said, "I might make a couple of comments. I feel like
possibly there is a need for some kind of a facility out there that would join in with the
Salvation Army to make a recreation center out there. I personally feel that this would be _
a better place for a park than Thomas Park because I feel the valuation of this property as
commercial has become so high, and the noise and confusion that goes down this particular
street there now is so great that this ceases to be a good place for a park. I would
personally like to see some way we could dispose of the property of Thomas Park and unite
Commissioner Ashton asked where the profit is coming from?
Commissioner Cooper replied, "You were the one that was saying we should get rid
of Thomas Park because it has commercial value, displace other people so you can have
another park down there."
Commissioner Ashton replied, "There is no profit for anyone in this area
particularly. The people who live there would get their relocation payment and the appraisall
value of their property, and I think they stand more to win, than to loose on this whole
proposition."
Commissioner Caldwell commented, "I am not of the opinion we should drop the whole
issue. I think the survey indicated a number of these homes could be rehabilitated, and I
think this could take place without any of the homes being moved. I am not so concerned
about the park, the park to me is very secondary, but I am thinking about the people who
live in the area. If these monies could be used to rehabilitate the area itself. If we
deny this, then we will have to start all over again and will not have any of this money
available if it comes."
I
Commissioner Cooper said it wasn't suggested that we deny funding to rehabilitate
the area.
Commissioner Caldwell said again, "I am not worried too much about the park, I
am worried about the area itself. I don't want to deny the whole thing."
Commissioner Losik commented, "We are all saying basically the same thing. It is
my understanding that the Community Renewal Program is just.what it states. The Community
Renewal Program was designed to eliminate mass demolition and to do just what Bob is saying,
and this is what we are supporting, that these funds should be made available to these
people to upgrade their properties under the methods outlined, at very low interest, even
grants... and I would like to call for the question."
Mayor Weisgerber explained that the problem might be the wording on the agenda
and that the Commissioners have to be careful in this motion that they don't drop the
rehabilitation project through urban renewal.
Commissioner Cooper said, "The motion in no way inhibits any future rehabilitation
program for that area."
Commissioner Ashton said, "I think you are overlooking one thing. When you put a
park in an area it automatically raises the valuation of the surrounding properties and I
think the people in the North end of town need an incentive to start this program and upgrade
the area, and if a four block area would be adequate to set up a program to start something,
so that others would follow, this might be a way. I don't say this is the right way to do
it now. I feel that we should table this and give it some more thought. I think there is
some way of working this out so that we can help these people in the North end because it
is certainly not the intent of any of us to hurt anybody out there or create any problems
for them, but I think there is some way there can be a meeting of the minds. I think it is
going to take some time for people to go out and really get involved in it and see what the
solution is to it, because I think the intent of everyone is to upgrade your neighborhood,
make the valuation come up and take more pride in the whole area around there, and I think
this is one of the steps that could be the stepping stone to ..."
Commissioner Cooper said, "... that is called rehabilitation, it is not called a
four block park. Okay let's rehabilitate the area, Leon. Nobody is going to quibble over
that, but these people own properties they are satisfied with. They are not asking
anything from you or the City, or anybody else. Their properties don't need rehabilitating.
Okay then, let's help the ones who need the assistance, and leave the people who don't want
it alone."
this into one effort over there, because I feel the commercial value along the by-pass or
81 is much higher than the value of it as a park. I feel the people who live around there
i are trying to upgrade their part of the area and I feel these people who are living within
this particular area that is designated as a park, possibly could move their homes, the
ones that are capable of being moved, and move over a block, so that this area could be
cleared, and the conjunction of the Salvation Army and the park could be utilized as one
facility for the whole North end of town. Personally I would like to see some more study
on it. I feel the people have been rushed into something out there they haven't had time
to really see the pros and cons and whether it is for the best interest of the community
or not. I just feel like we have moved a little too rapidly on this to make a full firm
decision at this point."
Commissioner Cooper said she does not agree; "I think it is unfair to the people
in the area to have something like this hanging over their heads, not knowing whether they
are going to be in the urban renewal project or whether they can be left alone. I think
what you probably can't, or are unable to understand, is the fact that there are some
people who aren't interested in doing something just for a profit."
Commissioner Ashton asked where the profit is coming from?
Commissioner Cooper replied, "You were the one that was saying we should get rid
of Thomas Park because it has commercial value, displace other people so you can have
another park down there."
Commissioner Ashton replied, "There is no profit for anyone in this area
particularly. The people who live there would get their relocation payment and the appraisall
value of their property, and I think they stand more to win, than to loose on this whole
proposition."
Commissioner Caldwell commented, "I am not of the opinion we should drop the whole
issue. I think the survey indicated a number of these homes could be rehabilitated, and I
think this could take place without any of the homes being moved. I am not so concerned
about the park, the park to me is very secondary, but I am thinking about the people who
live in the area. If these monies could be used to rehabilitate the area itself. If we
deny this, then we will have to start all over again and will not have any of this money
available if it comes."
I
Commissioner Cooper said it wasn't suggested that we deny funding to rehabilitate
the area.
Commissioner Caldwell said again, "I am not worried too much about the park, I
am worried about the area itself. I don't want to deny the whole thing."
Commissioner Losik commented, "We are all saying basically the same thing. It is
my understanding that the Community Renewal Program is just.what it states. The Community
Renewal Program was designed to eliminate mass demolition and to do just what Bob is saying,
and this is what we are supporting, that these funds should be made available to these
people to upgrade their properties under the methods outlined, at very low interest, even
grants... and I would like to call for the question."
Mayor Weisgerber explained that the problem might be the wording on the agenda
and that the Commissioners have to be careful in this motion that they don't drop the
rehabilitation project through urban renewal.
Commissioner Cooper said, "The motion in no way inhibits any future rehabilitation
program for that area."
Commissioner Ashton said, "I think you are overlooking one thing. When you put a
park in an area it automatically raises the valuation of the surrounding properties and I
think the people in the North end of town need an incentive to start this program and upgrade
the area, and if a four block area would be adequate to set up a program to start something,
so that others would follow, this might be a way. I don't say this is the right way to do
it now. I feel that we should table this and give it some more thought. I think there is
some way of working this out so that we can help these people in the North end because it
is certainly not the intent of any of us to hurt anybody out there or create any problems
for them, but I think there is some way there can be a meeting of the minds. I think it is
going to take some time for people to go out and really get involved in it and see what the
solution is to it, because I think the intent of everyone is to upgrade your neighborhood,
make the valuation come up and take more pride in the whole area around there, and I think
this is one of the steps that could be the stepping stone to ..."
Commissioner Cooper said, "... that is called rehabilitation, it is not called a
four block park. Okay let's rehabilitate the area, Leon. Nobody is going to quibble over
that, but these people own properties they are satisfied with. They are not asking
anything from you or the City, or anybody else. Their properties don't need rehabilitating.
Okay then, let's help the ones who need the assistance, and leave the people who don't want
it alone."
144
Commissioner Ashton said, "You can't build ..."
Commissioner Cooper said, "... No, you want to clear everybody out, don't you?"
Commissioner Ashton replied, "No, I certainly don't. I want to leave everybody
out there in the area. Maybe not in the same block, but possibly move the house across the
block. They would still be in the same house, and they would still be in the same area, and
yet we would have the area that would be adequate for the park. I think it could be worked
out."
Commissioner Cooper replied, "We ll,I live by a park and it hasn't done a thing
for my property for twenty years as far as value is concerned, or anything else, in fact
unless it is something that is really rather well organized, the youngsters, I am talking
about young people in the neighborhood, don't really even use the park."
Commissioner Ashton replied, "This is why the Salvation Army tie in there would
make it much more advantageous."
Commissioner Losik called for a vote on the question.
The Mayor called for a vote on the question. Ayes: Cooper, Losik (2). Nays:
Ashton, Caldwell (2). Mayor Weisgerber voted Aye. Motion carried.
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "Let me say something to you folks out there before
you leave. I think maybe one reason we have gone ahead on this is because you are so
concerned about your homes and your property, but I think it is important that if you are
going to stay there, to have an interest in where you live; that you try to do something
to improve and help that general area; and what you may care to do, I am sure we would be
glad to help you however we can. One thing we probably need to keep in order to do this
and get funds to help if it works out that way, is to keep our Minimum Housing Ordinance.
Without that we stand to loose funds that might become available. And another thing, I am
sure there are some houses there that should come out. They have completely fallen down,
the roof is in, and the windows are out and this sort of thing. The City Inspector may
drive through the area and feel this house should probably come out, and he may feel if the
neighbors don't care, why should I care? So when there are things that concern you and
things you would like to do to improve your area, there are things we can do according to
law, and of course some things we can't do. But, if you have this problem off your mind
for a little while now, that has worried you for so long and so much, turn your attention
to things you would like to do to make that area better, and I am sure we will help you in
any way we can. This is the thing that really should have been done according to the big
reports that we get from our consultants. An area should be updated, maybe that isn't
quite the right word, but it should improve itself. Then, if in the future somewhere in
that area we do want to put in a park, perhaps in the block where the Salvation Army is,
and if those people want to stay in this part of town and they have a good house, they can
move it across the street, or just move it a block or two and have a good place to stay
in the area. So I am sure the Commission will work with you in any way we can, but I don't
really think we are that far apart up here in our thinking, as it may have sounded from the
vote."
Commissioner Losik said, "I think you are right Jack, 100/."
Mrs. Brock said, "I want to thank all the Commission very much, and I would like
to say we do want to improve our area and I want to say too, it is not just taking your
house and leaving, it is the trees and things you have planted. It takes a life time to
grow trees like I have, maybe I am just sentimental; but this is the most wonderful
Thanksgiving I think I have ever had."
Mrs. Priddy also thanked the Commission.
Mr. Olson said, "With Commission permission, now that you have made a decision on
the park project, may I be permitted to make some comments on the St. John's Project?
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Yes, we should clear this up."
Mr. Olson said, "In July, I believe it was, your intent was to refer the St. John's
Project to Urban Renewal to initiate a project. Mr. Duckers has called me a couple or
three times since then concerning this project asking what progress has been made on it.
I advised him of the action taken in July. He mentioned that Mr. Worth advised him it was
the City's responsibility to prepare the application. My last visit with Mr. Duckers was
to my knowledge the City had not initiated a contract on either the Northeast Industrial
Park, or the Central City project. Regardless of this, it would be my opinion that only
one application be prepared and that I would report to the City Commission as soon as the
park issue is resolved.
J
1
"This is the Central City (NDP) Application, a pretty good size Sears and Roebuck
Catalog. I am told that the application for the St. John's Project would be between 1/3
and 1/2 the size of this, or a combined project of the St. John's area and the park, should
your decision today have been affirmitive, would have been approximately the same size.
I did not bring this up before today, as I told Mr. Duckers, I felt it was wise to go with
one application whether it included one project area, or two. It would save some money, so
regardless of how the survey and planning applications have been put together in the past,
it would be my recommendation to proceed with the St. John's Project. Incidentally these
are the NDP guidelines that have to be followed in preparing an application. I made
comments at the last Citizens' Advisory Committee Meeting, or attempted to explain that
night that Phase 1, Step 1 should be coordinated with Phase 1, Step 2A, or the second step.
This is the first proposed step in this area, and it says spot clearance and rehabilitation,;
what you people have been talking about today. It would upgrade this area and should come
first, according to the Community Renewal Program, so that when you do move people from this
proposed project area, they have a nice environment to move into if they wish to do so.
It states that Step 3A should follow this one. You may still want to go with the rehab
program here, but certainly I am not an authority on this, I don't purport to be. I have
talked to the consultant, I have read this section of the book and I think it is in order,
either to instruct urban Renewal or myself to initiate with the consultants, a contract
proposal that would stipulate the scope of services to be performed in this area. It will
be in writing, if you like it fine, if not amend it or go to someone else for another
proposal. You are dealing with acquisition of property here and the like. If you want to
wrap these areas up in the same project, you will do some clearing, do some rehab, get
some loan money, get various activity going. This could be a project that might gain
pretty wide acceptance in the area. The St. John's project doesn't appear to have much
opposition as I understand it anyway. This would be getting things, I think, in the
order defined in the Community Renewal Program. In order to get with this St. John's
project, you should instruct somebody to proceed, the guidelines say it can either be the
City or the LPA. That is the Local Public Agency, or Urban Renewal. I will do it if you
instruct me to."
Commissioner Caldwell asked if this could be done today.
Mr. Olson said, "Yes, you can instruct me, or you can instruct the Urban Renewal
Agency to initiate a contract with scope of services defined and submitted to you for this
particular project area."
Commissioner Caldwell moved to instruct the City Manager to obtain a proposal
and scope of services necessary for preparing an NDP application for Phase 1, Step 1 and
Phase 1 and Step 2A, as recommended in the CRP. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Losik. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Community
Improvement recommending the water distribution and rate study be referred back to the City
Commission without a recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded
by Commissioner Losik that the letter be accepted. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
COMMISSION AGENDA
"FURTHER DISCUSSION OF WATER RATES" (Sponsored by Commissioner Losik)
Commissioner Losik said, "Jack, I think it is quite apparent, and I think it has
been pretty much accepted by the community as a whole that a water rate increase is required,
Now, our decision is which rate schedule to follow. There are three rate schedules in there,
(referring to the Wilson and Company Study) the present one, one proposed, which we call the
low rate with grants, then we have the second proposal, or the third one, if you so desire,
which is the high rate without grants. In going over this and having been briefed on it by
Mr. Crawford and his people, I don't think we have only the decision to make as to which
one of the proposed rates that Wilson and Company report gave us. In reviewing them,
Mr. Mayor, I would hereby make the motion that we accept Table 2A of the Wilson and Company
Water Distribution Study, dated 18 August 1972, which is the proposed water rate schedule
with grants. The low rate schedule. Now the second part of this is that our accounting
procedure be amended to establish two specific funds so as to separate the revenue received
by the Sewage Department and the Water Department, and no provisions of transfer of funds
from one department to the other, and that both of these items be adopted with an effective
date of 1 January 1973. This is my motion Mr. Mayor."
Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion.
146
Commissioner Ashton said, "I think it is pretty much the contention of all the
Commission because this is subject to change later down the line if we find we cannot live
with this rate. I think it will boost our economy and keep our bond ratio above the 1.35
which is necessary and I feel if we have some other indebtedness which comes along that we
can issue bonds for it. I think one thing that has not been taken into consideration too
much, was that about 6 to 9 months ago we received a sheet from the Water Department
stating that our large industrial users were running us in the red. The more water they
used, the more money we lost because the treatment of the water was costing more than
we were selling it for. This new rate should eliminate this loss so it would actually
come in as a plus figure for industrial users."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I am kind of curious on one thing here on this double rate
schedule, and by double rate, I mean the schedule that was proposed either with or without
federal grants. Now how were those federal grants handed down from HUD. About a month ago
in this meeting I got a fair blast because I was somewhat tying the water rates to the
petition that was circulating for Minimum Housing in as much as if we lost our Minimum
Housing Code we would loose these grants, or could stand to loose these grants. The only
clear way that there would not have been a tie would have been if we had agreed to the
higher rate, in which case it wouldn't make any difference if we got the grants or not.
So my curiousity, Mike, is to your friends who are circulating that petition, you say there
is no tie between the two and then today you propose the low rate. I can't quite get the
change of mind, or see quite how you explain this."
Commissioner Losik replied, "Jack, I can only explain it in that I have faith in
humanity and people in this community. I don't think I could give any better explanation
than that."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "That really isn't one at all you know."
Commissioner Losik replied, "I don't think any explanation is in order since I
feel we have established that one doesn't tie in with the other. Let's talk about water
rates."
Mayor Weisgerber replied, "It does tie in with the other."
Commissioner Losik said, "So does the Regional Planning, and so does the Citizens'
Advisory Committee. We could go on and on, and this idea of running scared because
somebody is circulating a petition shouldn't keep us from making a decision based on
recommendations from consultants who have been paid to furnish us with this, and this is
what I am proposing."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well don't we have to proceed on the basis of what we
have going for us right now? Don't we have to proceed on that basis? Right now we are in
a position to apply for HUD funding. We are not in a position to apply for EPA funding,
but we are speculating on it because we anticipate further down the road being able to do
something; so, we have to go -on the basis of what is available to us at the present time,
and if something comes about that changes this, then we just simply have to alter our
plans, but we can't delay doing something simply because somebody might not agree with us."
Mayor Weisgerber replied, "No, nobody said anything about delay, and so far as
Regional Planning is concerned, that will be worked out, whether it winds up being an
eight county or a four county area. I think it can be done either way. So I don't think
Regional Planning is a problem. The problem is, we feel we are going on this lower rate
and we will apply for these funds. Do we then also cover from the public in Salina the
fact that if this petition should come in and that if there should be a vote on it, that
this means nothing in our water rates? I don't think this is being honest with the people.
It will affect our water rates, as`federal standards and regulations are today. There is
no way to divorce the two, it is in the report, it does enter into it. A month or so ago,
I was told there was no relation between the two, and then also the Citizens' Advisory
Sub -committee was also told that they shouldn't pay any attention to the possible federal
funding, that they ought to recommend the high rate based on the fact we might not get it,
and then all of a sudden we come here and find we are going to accept a rate based on the
fact that we are going to get all of this federal money. It intrigues my curiousity a bit
how this thing can turn around so."
Commissioner Losik replied, "It is not turned around. It was never off the track
to begin with Mr. Mayor, and I would call for the question again."
Mayor Weisgerber asked, "I have asked the question and you continue to dodge it,
if we go on this minimum rate, how do you tie this in with HUD funding and to Minimum
Housing?"
Commissioner Losik said, "Jack, I don't think that you are tying in anything here.,
First of all, you are running scared; worrying about what is going to happen if it happens.
Frankly Mrs. Cooper brought it out very clearly, we go with what we have in hand. This is
what we have in hand. Today we are eligible. Today we are making our decisions. Now, if
you want to know also I think it is a back up, if we were forced into it, there is also
some funds that we have that will be available to us that we could use for this. Now, I
don't think that there is this big a problem, I think you are kind of making a mountain out
of a mole hill. You are trying to bring in some other issues here, and frankly as far as
I am concerned, we are talking about water rates on what we have available to us today.
We are eligible today to apply for grants. This is what I am basing this on."
Mayor Weisgerber asked Commissioner Losik why he went to such effort to inform
the sub -committee that they didn't need to take this into consideration.
Commissioner Losik replied, "For the same effort I told you and the rest of you,
I don't think we have any business in any way influencing a petition that is circulating.
Frankly any petition that is circulating is just that. This Commission, the Staff, our
only job is to act on that petition when it is properly presented to us, not until then."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Alright, let's get the petition next on our sub -committee.!'
i
i
Commissioner Losik asked, "What do you want to do, delay this further for another
thirteen years?"
i
0
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Why do you say you are acting on this information today,
i when you told them to act as though the funds are not available?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "That is right, and I was there, and I told it to
them because there was two of us there, and this is what I said, 'We do not have any
guarantee even though we are fully qualified that we are going to get these funds.' In
addition to the minimum housing that Citizens' Advisory Commission, because it is citizen
participation, i5 as much a part of the workable program that qualifies us for these funds.
If that commission wasn't even operating, then we would not be eligible. There is more
than just the minimum housing that qualifies us for these funds, and we must meet all those
i requirements, not just one, so this is the basis for it."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I am not necessarily opposed to your motion, I just think
it is an interesting turn around and reversal of position."
Commissioner Losik replied, "Jack, it might be catching then."
Commissioner Caldwell asked if they might want a higher rate?
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I think we have two ways to go. I think we can either
j do it this way on the basis that if we do not get the funds that somewhere down the road,
perhaps 2, 3, 4, maybe 5 years, that we may then have to have another increase; or, I
i think we could have gone on a compromise proposition in which we would say that we would
take say somewhere from 25 to 30%, would probably be sufficient, over the minimum rate.
In that case we would kind of be guessing at how much federal funds we might or might not
get. We will certainly get some of them. It isn't likely that we will get all of thein.
I think we really have 2 choices, either go on the low rate with the good possibility that
we will have to raise the rate later, or else we can try to guess at what this will be.
The advantage of perhaps going 25-30% above the minimum rate might be because of the
complications of issuing bonds in a smaller amount later. We might also be able to,
the way this program is outlined by Wilson and Company, cover a little bit longer period
of time."
Mayor Weisgerber asied if they could issue all the bonds they need and then raise
the rate later if needed in order to meet our bond and interest requirements. Would we
have to have two different bond issues?
i
The City Attorney explained that at the point where you make the decision as to
how many water department revenue bonds are needed, the bonding companies and everybody
else would require a feasibility study and unless the rates at that time were sufficient
to amortize these bonds out, certainly the bonds would not be saleable. In fact at that
point they would come up with a rate study and you would have to raise your rates to that
point, if necessary, before you issue bonds. If the rates were sufficient at that point,
of course, the study would come in at that point. You would have to restudy it, if you
were going to issue revenue bonds.
Mr. Robert Crawford, of Wilson and Company, said, "Conversely, you could tailor
the improvement program to the funds that you have available. Just cut back on what you
are planning to build and only issue bonds for that much, and then depending on the grant
situation and/or the actual revenue situation, you could increase for the lower priority
items later on."
4 ) A
The City Manager commented that it is going to cost additional money to come back
in another four or five years with a small i-ssue. He said it is more expensive to issue
two or three smaller issues as compared to a large issue of the same amount. He said he
hopes, after the Commissioners make the decision, that we could consult with a financial
bond house to give us some guidance along this precise line.
Commissioner Cooper said, "I don know, maybe I look at it from too simple of terms,
but I think what we are talking about here is bond interest rate difference. If we go with
the low water rate increase, then we wouldn't be obligating ourselves for all of the long
term capital improvements, we would be pulling back on our capital improvements program or
not projecting it as far out as we would if it were the higher rate, but what we are talking
about is actually bond interest difference. It would be cheaper, as far as the City is
concerned, to issue all the bond obligation for the capital improvements because of the
preferred interest rate than it would to have two bond issues, this is what you are saying.
Well, what I am thinking is it would be better for the water customer to be paying the
lower rate, spending his money however he wants to, and then if we find we need to have
another issue, then he would simply have to pay the higher interest rate."
Commissioner Losik said, "It is a matter of what you are going to pay for the
money for going whatever route you are taking."
The City Manager replied that, "1/10 of 1% in interest over the amortization
period that we are talking about here is a pretty good amount of money; so I think if we can
find an independent financial firm who will give us a fair price for running this data
through the computer, it would be worth it to the City."
Mr. Crawford commented that the rate you adopt will give a certain amount of
revenue each year, you are going to have to tailor an improvement program to that rate,
which means you are going to have to look at these priorities and probably drop off a
few projects, and just where that money is or projects are, will depend on the study that
Norris is talking about from the financial advisor. This is what you are really looking at."
Commissioner Ashton asked Mr. Crawford, "Wouldn't it be advisable just to cross
those bridges when we get there? We set this up this way, we know it is not going into _
current expenses because the income now will take care of the current, I mean all of the
rate increase will go into capital improvements program, and if we go along with this
rate for two years, and we see that we have to have some of this, then before we would
issue bonds, we would have to increase the rate at that time. The $2.00 rate doesn't
look as bad as the $2.25 one. Possibly we could look at this as we go along with the
idea that we would raise it in the event that we have some capital improvements that we want
to put into being."
Commissioner Losik commented, "I think you are right in that I think from here on
out we shouldn't permit this to go unattended to as it has been in the pase. Now, I don't
say this to be critical, what I am saying is we should set this up and just as you
recommended that every two, three or four years really look at this thing 1ong and hard,
and --- if it is doing fine, fine; but if it isn't it should be adjusted right then and there."
Commissioner Ashton stated, "Our bond ratio went below 1.35 only two years ago.
We were in good standing up until that point, so actually we haven't been in trouble too
long on our rate, but it is just now catching up with us and I think we should adjust it
and keep up with the times."
Mr. Crawford said, "I flight just add to that point, actually you are not in too
much trouble now. You were only 1.32 last year which is not too far below the 1.35 bond
requirement, but the problem is you have not been able to make improvements."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "We are not able to make the improvements we need to
make. We have to get this water treatment plant done, that is the prime thing."
The Mayor called for a vote on the question. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3288 was filed by Roberta S. Kaufman and Phyllis Debold for the
rezoning of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Block 1, Replat of Edgemere Addition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the
petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PETITION NUMBER 3289 was filed by the Salina Airport Authority Board of Directors
to declare and post a 20 mile speed zone on Kennel Road from the South City Limits north
to the terminus of Kennel Road. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by
Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the Traffic Engineer. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
I
i BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 72-552 for Sanitary Sewer Improvements
for Brown and Brown Addition the 81
and Drive-in Theatre:
Earth Excavation, Inc. $11,457.80
Stevens Contractors, Inc. 13,120.00
Abbott Construction, Inc.13,139.25
Smoky Hill, Inc. 14,352.00
Engineer's Estimate 14,800.00
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
award the contract to Earth Excavation, Inc., in the amount of $11,457.80, subject to
checking by the City Engineer, and to introduce the contract ordinance for first reading.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: ���_p �9,e� �� 1972- Number: 2Z6
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE levying
special assessments on lots, pieces and parcels of ground in the City of Salina, Kansas,
for the purpose of paying a portion of the cost of:
The installation of paving on Woodland Avenue with 6 inch
reinforced concrete from Second Street to Third Street.
The installation of water main in Meadowlark Lane from
Mars Avenue to Saturn Avenue.
The installation of curbing, guttering, concrete pavement,
water main, sanitary sewer and drainage system in Bobby Place,
Mike Drive and Bret Avenue from Neal Avenue to the north line
of Bonnie Ridge Addition.
j
The installation of curbing, guttering, paving and grading
of Faith Drive from Meadowbrook Road to the east line of
Lot 15, Block 9, Replat of Faith Addition.
The installation of water main in Stimmel Road from
U. S. 81 Highway, East 876 feet.
The installation of sanitary sewer in Diamond Drive from
U. S. 81 Highway, West approximately 1,320 feet."
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik 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 8260. The ordinance was introduced for first reading November 20, 1972.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE repealing
Section 12-40 of The Salina Code which provides that the Chief and Assistant Chief of the
Fire Department shall be Ex -officio president and vice-president of the Firemen's Relief
Association. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton
that the ordinance be adopted 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 8261. The ordinance was introduced for first reading
November 20, 1972.
THE COMMISSIONERS considered an ordinance establishing the monthly water rates
to be charged and collected for water service furnished to users of the waterworks system
of the City, amending Section 35-55 of The Salina Code and repealing the existing section,
providing for an effective date of January 1, 1973.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if there were any comments.
Commissioner Losik said, "There is only one I have Mr. Mayor. I think the
ordinance on the water rates themselves, I don't see anything there, they have used the
exact schedule of rates as recommended, but there is one other portion of this motion that
the accounting procedures be changed, and we haven't got that set up in any way."
Mayor Weisgerber said that wouldn't require an ordinance.
Commissioner Losik replied that it would have to be covered some way.
The City Manager said he talked with Commissioner Losik a little before the
meeting, just as they passed through. He said, "The present accounting procedures are
set up as a combined water and sewer utility and the 3.6 million dollar bond issue of
1961 was sold, and the bond covenants written combining the utilities. It would be my
opinion if you want to undo this, you would probably have to go back and go to all of the
present bond holders of that combined utility, this may be possible and it may not, in
order to separate the utility into a separate water utility and a separate sewerage utility.
I was under the impression, and this we would intend to do with the engineers in our
biennial report which is also called for in the bond covenants, hereafter to request them
to place emphasis upon the water utility's ability to stand on its own feet as well as the
sewerage operation's ability to stand on its own feet, even though they are both, accounting
wise, considered as a single utility."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, that definitely was not what was implied, that
isn't what the minutes read, and as far as that goes that is the key to it. This is why
we are in the problem we are in is because we have used funds from one portion to carry
the other, and had that not been done, then this problem would have come to light sooner
and we would have corrected it sooner, maybe 10 years ago. Now the motion definitely
stated,'The second part of this is that our accounting procedure be amended to establish
two sepcific funds so as to separate the revenue received by the sewage department and
the water department, and no provision -of transfer of funds from one department to the
other',and that was the motion, and that is what we passed unanimously as a part of the
increase in the water rates."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "Well, I don't think we were aware of this particular
tie. I thought we were going to do this; I am trying to think back on some of the
conversations that we had with Mr. Crawford on a different accounting system in general,
computer or however it is being changed, so that the figures are kept..."
Commissioner Losik said, "... well the figures are already being kept separately.
We get a report of that, but that is not the problem, because the problem that existed had
we not combined these two, then the previous Commissioners, with the City Manager and other
consultants probably would have corrected this deficiency that has existed here for these
eleven years."
Mayor Weisgerber commented that he follows the thinking on that, but at the
present moment we have a bond issue and can't separate them unless we recall the whole
issue.
The City Attorney said, "I am sorry but I didn't research this because I was
unaware of this. Now, these bonds were issued before I became City Attorney but I know
that we pledged the revenue from both departments to pay off this bond issue. Now whether
or not you can still separate it, you still have a pledge of both funds for the payment
of it, this I am not sure, and I certainly wouldn't want to tell you now you could or
could not do this without checking into these bond covenants as to what they say. I know
at this time both the water and sewage departments were combined into one utility, and
the funds of both were pledged for the payment of these bonds. Even if we separate them,
I know this, that both funds would be pledged toward the payment of these bonds because
there is no way you can get around that, because the bond covenants provide this."
Commissioner Losik said, "This is all well and good, but any future bond issue,
could be pledged on the basis of each individual."
The City Attorney said they certainly can.
Commissioner Losik said, "What I am saying is from the legal standpoint of what
is already existing, both funds can be obligated, which they have been; but for the
future, for any future bonds, then this is what the purpose of this is set up for and
this is the intent that I had meant by making the motion the way I did, so that should
we run into problems, then immediately it is caught quickly and somebody can act on it
quickly."
Commissioner Cooper stated, "And the idea is this, both funds are supposed to be
self supporting. They are not supposed to use the sewer department funds to beef up the
water department funds. The rate increase should provide the water department with
enough revenue to do the capital improvements, and in the event that we don't receive
additional funds, then the rates will have to be increased again. I think this is
understood, but at the same time, in the future do we not want to keep the two funds
separate so that you know the water department is paying its way and the sewer department
is paying its way?"
1
1
1
5` ►'b
15 1
The City Attorney said, "What you are saying, for accounting purposes, you want
to have a breakdown on each. As far as the payments of these bonds, and the interest as
it comes due, I don't know how you would prorate it between the two funds, because they
are both pledged for it."
Commissioner Losik replied, "As far as I am concerned, Larry, this is an
accounting procedure. They can go ahead and prorate it. The point that I am getting at
is that we don't continue this kind of thing in the future, because first of all, if we
go to sell bonds for water lines, let's call it water lines, water mains, which is a water
department deal, then we only obligate the revenue that will be coming in from this new
rate increase, and not the revenues of both, and in the mean time we are hung with this.
Now, how to break that out and prorate it, I don't know. That would be an accountant's
job; but what we don't want to do is get ourselves involved in something like that in the
future, when we go in. We go into the sewage treatment for example, we are going to be
asking for funds from E.P.A. on that end of it. Then if those are approved, then the
bonds we would issue would be strictly for that type of a deal, and this is what the
revenues would be pledged from, that particular source, rather than the combined source."
The City Attorney said, "I think this is true, but I think that what we are
saying now is, break them and keep track, but how are you going to prorate these bond
payments, if you have $50,000 coming due in January, who is going to determine whether
$40,000 is coming from water and $10,000 from sewage, or visa versa? It just can't be!"
Commissioner Losik replied, "Well, somebody is going to have to do it, because
you can't continue doing the same goof up time and time again. This is where our problem
lies. As I say, I'll repeat it again, had this been separated and not been combined back
in 1961, somebody would have jumped on this water deal sooner and would have corrected it
instead of waiting as long as we did. It gave us a false sense of security. It gave us
a false sense of income, and really it wasn't there. This would be just like taking
another department, creating it into combined, and then running them together financially
and find out that one is losing money and should be corrected from the financial standpoint.
This is what we are trying to eliminate."
The City Attorney said, "I have not researched this,>so I am not in a position
to tell you today that you can or cannot do this. I would be happy to take a look at it,
but what I have said, these are problems that I forsee in the future if you do try to do
this."
Commissioner Losik said, "That, Larry, as far as the existing bonds and the
existing pledge of the combined revenues is something that would have to be broken out,
prorated some way, I don't have the answer to that, somebody has, I know. But future ones
shouldn't be taken and combined and these mon4es intermingled, because we are going to just
continue doing the same thing we have been doing."
Commissioner Ashton asked if the two departments overlap as far as the personnel
is concerned.
The City Manager replied that in some instances they are the same people,
some operations are separated.
r
Commissioner Ashton commented, "There is a direct relationship here, the way I
see it, and I don't think it is that important that we separate them this much because
it more or less is a combined operation and it is all going to come out of the same fund,
but as far as changing so that there bre adequate fees to take care of the billing, the
things that we were discussing, now this could be just an accounting procedure within the
office so that it would give credit more to the one department to set it up. I don't see
why we have so much problem over it."
The City Manager said, "i wasn't here at the time the departments were combined,
but I would assume that the two utilities were combined because of an interest rate advantage.
This would almost have to be and for simplicity in accounting. Now, our biennial reports
in the past, I believe, have fairly evaluated the water utility and the sewage utility,
even though they are in a combined fund, and it is only in the last report that indicated
that our water utility had fallen below the 135% revenue called for in the bond covenants.
This happened because we tightened our belt on capital improvements, but had we spent more
money on capital improvements, this would have dropped below the 135% that much more.
Now I see what you are saying. I don't know how much additional work we may have to get
into -- this is strictly an auditing and accounting procedure. We may have the auditors
take a look at it and see what they would come up with and recommend, as far as a projection,
an estimate of cost and this type of thing. I think the future bonding amounts and rate
definitely will influence the final decision."
} .; A
P -a
Commissioner Losik asked how long the water department has been losing money?
"How many years?"
The City Commissioners, the City Manager, the City Engineer, the Director of
Administration discussed the ratio of the bonds, the biennial report, and the profit and
loss statements, and the City Engineer said he would research the question for the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Caldwell said, "I think before you go try to figure it out for us
at this particular Commission meeting, we could call another session for that, because you
are going to be doing that for idle time. I would think we could consider that at another
time, because that is going to be time consuming. This is a question that could have been
asked some other time, other than at this particular commission meeting."
Commissioner Cooper replied, "Now wait just a minute ... we had a motion last
week, it was approved unanimously, and now we are informed that you can't do this."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "The establishment of the new water rates and dividing
the accounting procedures are both important, yet they are two separate things. This
ordinance, as we have it, has to do with the water rate increase."
Commissioner Losik said, "The water rate period."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I think we should see what can be done with this other,
but we just as well go ahead and get this water rate increase started so that the necessary
changes can be put into operation to get this going, then the other can be followed up
later, that would be a separate item."
The City Manager asked, "Would that be acceptable with everyone? If you do that,
then we would come back with a report next Monday."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "in the mean time, what I think should be done on
this, in my own opinion, is that we had better chat with whoever the likely people are to
purchase these bonds and also to those who hold our bonds now, and find out how they look
at this thing; what difference this may make in interest rates that they charge. We better
know from the City's cost point of view on bond issuing, how the finance people approach
that."
Commissioner Losik said, "This is what Larry said he would look up."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "We need this information in order to make some
intelligent decisions on the other end of this."
Mr. Harris, Director of Administration, reported that the present issue was
designed by First Securities of Wichita. The utilities were combined and the rates for
both were set up at that time.
Mr. Harrison, City Clerk, said, "One of the main reasons they were combined was
for collection purposes. The way I understand it, you have no control over collection of
sewer fees. You can't go out and turn somebody's sewer off. They are on the combined
department and a combined bill, and if somebody doesn't pay the whole bill, they can turn
the water off. The ordinance was adopted in 1961 as a combined utility to sell 3.6 million
dollars worth of bonds and the ordinance is about that thick and all the way through it, it
talks about water and sewerage combined utility."
Commissioner Ashton asked if it wouldn't have to stay that way as long as there
are bonds outstanding?
The City Attorney explained, "We have pledged the revenue, there is no question
and they are going to be a first lien on them regardless of whether you divide the funds
or not. They are going to have a first lien on those revenues that come in, I don't care
if you say this is sewer and this is water, there is still going to be a first lien on
them. Now as far as future financing, I don't think you can sell any revenue bonds anyway.
They are going to be a second lien on the water department funds whether they are water
department funds or sewage department funds, because normally revenue bonds aren't that
saleable. Normally you can't sell a second revenue bond issue, and about what will have
to happen will be to pay off, recall, the revenue bonds that are outstanding now and I
think in that one we probably did recall some outstanding revenue bonds and pay off the
debt. This is about the only way you are going to issue another set of revenue bonds.
No one wants to buy revenue bonds that are a second lien on the revenue; so what you have
to do in these situations is to recall the others, pay them off and then issue another
bond series. I am sure this is what you are going to do in the future or go General
Obligation Bonds, and I am sure you don't want to go General Obligation bonds; so you will
probably recall the bonds and pay them off, and maybe issue two separate issues; make a
I
sewer bond issue and one of them a lien on the water. I don't think anybody can tell you
right now how they are going to finance it until it actually comes up. The bonds that
are outstanding now are so scattered that I don't think there is any question that we could
not contact the various owners of them. They are scattered all over the United States,
I am sure, because they have been sold."
The City Manager said we will try to have the report next week.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
introduce the Water Rate Ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
Ordinance Passed: 1912 Number: �2G5
A LETTER was received from the Building Code Advisory Board recommending the
adoption of the Mobile Home Ordinance. The Board reported there was a recommendation to
have the section on "Park Water Distribution Systems" comply with Fire Department
requirements for fire protection. A check with the Fire Department confirmed that the
section, as written, complies with current N. F. P. A. requirements and that no modification
of this section is needed. Further, the Board recommended that the portion of the
"Environmental Standards" section dealing with disconnection of services to violators be
written to read "30 days" (Page 4, Line 6). The remainder of the proposed ordinance was
recommended for approval as written. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded
by Commissioner Ashton to accept the letter for further consideration. Ayes: (5).
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Building Code Advisory Board recommending the
adoption of the proposed Mobile Home Craftsman and Apprentice Licensing Ordinance. A
motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to accept the
letter for further consideration.
Commissioner Losik asked, "How do we set here asking for inspections or requiring
inspections on work that will be proposed, and it is my understanding that the State has
adopted a method of inspecting and putting seals of approval on these units from the
standpoint of alteration, installation and it defines what has to be done. Now we are
not equipped right now, with mobile home repairmen or craftsmen in any way after the first
of the year to comply with what the State is doing."
Mr. Boyer, City Engineer, explained that the new State Law, becoming effective
January 1st, concerns the construction of mobile homes and the installation of the plumbing
and electrical work within the building itself. He further explained that a good share of
the work done under this license will be in the park in connecting up the home after it is
moved to the location to be sure it is properly connected, and the normal routine
maintenance work within the park.
The Commissioners and the City Engineer discussed the qualifications and testing
and inspections required of craftsmen to work in the City.
Mr. Logback, Logback Mobile Home Service, was present and said, "I submitted this
back about three years ago in this sense of the word; but the reason for it was the fact
that my work then was basically heating and cooling, but in order to put in an air conditioner
they said I had to get an electrical contractor to come in and approve the work, and then
call the City, and I asked the question as to what it would take for me to take the test,
and they said I had nothing to base my experience upon, because mine has been mobile homes
since 1962, and so consequently there was no avenue for me to even prove my qualifications
to take the test or anything else in the electrical field, or in the plumbing field. I do
hold a master gas fitters card for the gas hook up, but the original question was, how am
I able to take the test or to prove the qualifications I have?"
Commissioner Losik asked Mr. Logback if he has seen the ordinance as it is
proposed?
Mr. Logback said he saw an early copy which was considered by the Building Code
Advisory Board about a year ago.
Mr. Jim Morrow said, "I am a journeyman wireman, I think you have ordinances that
do not prohibit these people from doing this type of work providing they prove their
qualifications. They are evidently trying to alter this thing to where it would be an
individual situation. I have seen no recommended ordinances on the changes, and I certainly
would like to see one before you pass this thing, because we have gone through this in the
past. I don't know of anyone who wants to prevent the gentleman from doing the work,
providing he meets the same qualifications and posts the same bond and requirements you
already have in ordinances covering these as it relates to electrical work or plumbing.
I just hope there is some way for people in the industry to have access to that before it
is passed."
The Commissioners and the City Engineer discussed the requirements of the
qualifications of craftsmen to do the different degrees of work.
The City Engineer explained that these people are wanting to do a general type
of maintenance work within the mobile home park.
Commissioner Losik commented that he thinks we are right where we were four or
five years ago. "I think what we ought to do is go along with Bob on this deal, and I
call for the question, just accept this as such, because I can see now this hasn't been
resolved. We'll have to get some more work done on this."
The City Engineer commented, "Certainly you are never going to get everyone in
favor of the thing,"
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I didn't anticipate that it was resolved. We have to
have time for people to express themselves, so we just accept this."
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending the
approval of a proposal submitted by Darrell Powers of Oblinger-Smith of Wichita, on
November 21, 1972, for a Flood Plain Zoning Regulations Study, in conjunction with the
present work for the Metropolitan Planning Commission, at a fee of $500.00. A motion was
made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to approve this study, with
the expenditure to be paid by the Planning Department. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending
rezoning to District "B" (Two -Family Dwelling House District) for Lots 1, 12, and 13,
Block 7, Replat of Faith Addition. Rezoning to District "C" (Apartment District) was
requested in Petition Number 3283, which was filed by Harry Sinsabaugh and George
Etherington. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
accept the recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission and approve the rezoning
to District "B", and to introduce the rezoning ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). --
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: 0 1912- Number: $2-4,
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending
the denial of Petition Number 3207, filed by Larry Dunlap for the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5
and the South 87 feet of Lots 2 and 3, Replat of the West Half of Block 10, Riker Addition,
from District "D" and "A" (Local Business and Second Dwelling House District) to District "EE"
(Local Service District). The Metropolitan Planning Commission said the request is contrary
to recommendations made by Darrell Powers of Oblinger-Smith, and is contrary to the intent
section of the existing "EE" ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded
by Commissioner Cooper to accept the recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission
and deny the petition. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending the
denial of Petition Number 3285, filed by Harry Steele, for the rezoning of the East 120 feet
of Lot 15, and the East 120 feet of the South 60 feet of Lot 14, Block 15, Belmont Addition,
from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "EE" (Local Service District).
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept the
recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission and deny the petition. Ayes: (5).
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending the
denial of Petition Number 3286, filed by A. B. Seelye Company, Inc., (George Etherington),
for the rezoning of the East 120 feet of the North 5 feet of Lot 14, and the East 120 feet
of the South 60 feet of Lot 13, Block 15, Belmont Addition, from District "A" (Second
Dwelling House District) to District "B" (Two -Family Dwelling House District). A motion
was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept the recommendation
of the Metropolitan Planning Commission and deny the petition. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3289, which was filed by the Salina
Airport Authority Board of Directors to declare and post a 20 mile speed zone on Kennel Road
from the South City Limits north to the terminus of Kennel Road, and recommends the posting
of a 30 mile ppeed zone on Kennel Road from the South City Limits north to and including
the Saline County Highway Department entrance. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik,
seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the recommendation of the City Engineer and
post the 30 mile an hour speed signs. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 6 for Engineering Project 72-544 for
street improvements in Lakewood Park, for Smoky Hill, Inc., in the amount of $3,964.68. A
motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to approve the
estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A9
PETITION NUMBER 3290 was filed by,C. L. Clark for the approval of the
1 preliminary plat of Interstate District Southwest of 1-70. A motion was made by Commissioner
City of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners Meeting
November 27, 1972
There was no meeting of the Board of Commissioners today, because a quorum was
not present. National League of Cities Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1
Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning
Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Recreation Commission regarding the installation
of lights on the ball field area at Centennial Park. The Recreation Commission states it
has sufficient budget to install a 7 light pole assembly. A motion was made by Commissioner,
Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the letter of request and authorize the
installation of the lights at the Recreation Commission expense. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
I
A TREE TRIMMING LICENSE APPLICATION was filed by Ben Ferguson, d/b/a Welsh Tree
Works, 622 South Third. (New). The City Clerk reported the applicant has paid the
required fee, and has the proper bond and insurance on file, and that the application is
for the balance of 1972. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner
Losik to approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the license.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik that
the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners adjourn. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
City of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners Meeting
November 27, 1972
There was no meeting of the Board of Commissioners today, because a quorum was
not present. National League of Cities Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana.
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1
City of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners' Meeting
December 4, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room,
City -County Building, on Monday, December 4, 1972, at four o'clock p.m
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
Mayor Weisgerber asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes
of the meeting of November 20, 1972.
Commissioner Losik said he has one addition. "This would be on page 6 of the
minutes, if you count the pages there, and it would be about mid -way down, just before the
statement, 'Commissioner Caldwell asked if this could be done today.' Now there was a
statement in there after Mr. Olson got through that I made and I feel it very appropriate
and should have been in there and I stated that, 'Mr. Olson just confirmed that I did do
my homework. The City did not initiate previous applications and he also confirmed what
Solomon Oliver said that it will and does cost the taxpayers money for these projects.'
Now that was stated and I would like to have that inserted into the records."
Mayor Weisgerber asked if there is any opposition to putting this into the
records. There was none.
corrected.
Mayor Weisgerber asked for any other corrections or additions.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 20, 1972, were approved as
STAFF AGENDA
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 72-551 for Parkwood Village Improvements:
Part I - Earth Excavation, Inc. $77,027.35
Stevens Contractors, Inc. 82,250.00
Smoky Hill, Inc. 92,521.00
Abbott Construction, Inc, 98,162.50
Engineer's Estimate 111,520.00
Part II- Brown and Brown, Inc. $170,565.25
Smoky Hill, Inc. 178,547.75
J. S. Frank Construction Company, Inc. 194,037.50
Abbott Construction, Inc. 196,837.50
Engineer's Estimate 197,726.00
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to award
the contract to Earth Excavation, Inc., for Part I, in the amount of $77,027.35; and to
Brown and Brown, Inc., for Part 11, in the amount of $170,565.25, subject to checking by
the City Engineer, and to introduce the contract ordinances for first reading. Ayes: (5).
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: _Le" it lR12_ Number: 2�Z
Ordinance Passed: 112— Number: ?L6, 3
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 72-552 for Sanitary Sewer Improvements
for Brown and Brown Addition and 81 Drive-in Theatre:
Earth Excavation, Inc. $11,457.80
Stevens Contractors, Inc. 13,120.00
Abbott Construction, Inc. 13,139.25
Smoky Hill, Inc. 14,352.00
Engineer's Estimate 14,800.00
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
award the contract to Earth Excavation, Inc., in the amount of $11,457.80, subject to
checking by the City Engineer, and to introduce the contract ordinance for first reading.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: 1)9cv X en �1 Q11 Number: