Loading...
02-26-1973 MinutesCity of Salina, Kansas Commissioners' Meeting February 26, 1973 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, February 26, 1973, at seven 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: Ron Barta, Assistant City Attorney Norris D, Olson, City Manager D. L. Harrison, City Clerk Absent: L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney Mayor Weisgerber welcomed three City Commission candidates, Harold Fitzpatrick, Bill Usher, and Wayne Johnson, and School Board Candidate, Dr. Charles Olson, to the meeting. Mayor Weisgerber called for the approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 5, 1973. , Commissioner Losik said he wished to add, on Page 2, before the motion, that the City Engineer stated they had consulted with Planning, Kansas Power and Light Company and the Legal Department, and everything is in order. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 5, 1973 were approved as amended. THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the week of February 18 through 24, 1973 - "BROTHERHOOD WEEK". The proclamation was read by Commissioner Robert Caldwell, in the absence of Rev. Eldon Toll, Pastor of the First Covenant Church. STAFF AGENDA AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing for the vacation of a certain easement in Block 9 of the Replat of Faith Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, 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). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8276. The ordinance was introduced for first reading February 5, 1973. A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending the approval of a request filed by Philip Herzig, Attorney for Alonzo Wilson, Jr., for the vacation of Ash Street between Orange Street and Grove Street, and the alley in Block 5, Elm Grove Addition. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission, and introduce the required ordinances for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. Ordinance Passed: �a�.�� 5 tl3 Number: 'x27' Ordinance Passed: Y�cuo� �r1t1�_ Number: $218 A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission recommending the approval of an Agreement for Aerial Photography Services, submitted by Bucher and Willis, Consulting Engineers, Planners and Architects. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign, and to designate that the funds to pay for the services be paid from the Planning Department. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. THE ARCHITECT FILED Estimate Number 3 for Johnson Builders, Inc., in the amount of $1,663.20, and Estimate Number 1 for Lucas Plumbing and Heating Company, in the amount of $1,509.30, for Cultural Arts Office Space in the Salina Community Theatre. Commissioner Caldwell said he doesn't feel it is necessary to approve each individual estimate as it is submitted, since they have already set the funds aside for this purpose. The Assistant City Attorney advised that they have approved the contracts for these services, but they have not approved the actual expenditures of the funds. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to authorize the payment of the contracts, not to exceed the amount of the bids, for the general contractor, electrical contractor, and mechanical contractor. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. COMMISSION AGENDA "STATUS OF THE NDP APPLICATION FOR THE ST. JOHN'S PROJECT." (Sponsored by Commissioner Losik) Commissioner Losik said, "Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be placed on the agenda, because in view of what has been taking place at national level regarding funds and availability of funds and some of the information has been let out from the various departments, there seems to be some controversy as to just where we are at and what we are doing with this particular project. Now, in November, we had asked the City Manager to get proposals from the various consulting firms to prepare an application for this project. January 16th we received one, and of course there was no formal action taken on it, but yet the news media was quoting Mr. Worth of the Urban Renewal Office, stating that the City Commission authorized the preparation of this application for this project, and that it would be submitted. Now, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to just where we are at. So as of now, I would like to have it discussed as to what we intend to do. Do we proceed with this in view of the fact that we know monies are not available for it? We also know there will be new guidelines being proposed if money is released in the future, and so whatever is being done we should take an official stand on it and let the public be made aware of this so that everybody isn't hanging up in the air." Commissioner Ashton asked, "Do you think we should gamble right at this point to submit an application where the only thing we would have as any forethought would be the fact that there will probably be some funding to a program later down the road a little bit, but we don't know at this time what it would be and I question whether we should spend this money to get an application ready until there is some guideline as to whether there would be funding." Commissioner Losik replied, "Leon, you are right! These are the questions that are in my mind too, and I felt we should discuss them and come up because we are talking about $4,680 here and if this thing is going to go in and we know there is no money available, we may have nine months to a year from now have this thing come back and say well we've got to resubmit it in a completely different manner. Now these are the questions that are in my mind, and of course we should discuss them and come up with some decision so as the St. John's people, the people that live east of that area and the City -at -large knows what stand we have officially taken on this." Commissioner Cooper said, "I think when the representative was here in town from HUD and visited with the Urban Renewal and Housing Authority or Urban Renewal Commission and City Commission, that he stated at that time that the two blocks east of St. John's project would be considered a new project because it is not within the boundaries of the original NDP plans and as such it would stand a very remote chance of being funded. The rehabilitation part of the program that the City Commission had stated that they would like to see started out there in that area, again, might be a casualty of federal funding because he explained they had to be able to receive local financing, guaranteed local financing. I think the people in that general area, not only east of St. John's but in the general area of the rehabilitation program, would probably like to have some kind of conclusion on the part of this Commission as to what we may or may not be in a position to do at this time." Commissioner Caldwell referred to a letter received from Richard Worth, Urban Renewal Agency Director, which recommends that the City Commission proceed with the application for St. John's Military School, and was passed at their last meeting. Commissioner Losik asked, "Did they say any basis for their recommendation? Did they have any information that we might not have regarding that?" Commissioner Ashton commented, "Dick told me one thing when I talked with him a little bit today; he felt there was going to be some form of funding, and if we get our application in early that we would stand a better chance, and yet I hesitate to take that much of a gamble with that kind of money to get the application put together with no more assurance than we have at this point, but I don't know how the rest of you feel about it, but that would be my personal feelings." Mayor Weisgerber commented, "It is one of those rare things that comes along that, because of the change in the federal government operation, it is really almost impossible to know what really should be done. I certainly would like to get that project for St. John's if there is any way in the world to do it. But I don't really know whether we can count on anything or not." Commissioner Caldwell commented he would hate to deny them this, because if the application was filed, and they had it on hand, they would fund it. "It wouldn't be like waiting until the last minute to try and get something in. If we approved it, it would be on hand, it would be available so they would know we are concerned about it." Commissioner Losik replied, "According to the proposal, it would take 120 days following the date the proposal is accepted, so we are talking here a matter of four months down the road, and in four months it is very possible that some of these guidelines would be changed and we would have something better to proceed on. I am just wondering, with the time element now, if they could have done this perhaps, say in 30 days, and we could shoot it in. This would be a little different, but four months is a long time and the way things in Washington are changing, I don't know." Mayor Weisgerber said, "There is no way of second guessing what Congress will do." He then asked the City Manager, "In this application, because they perhaps figured on moving some of those structures, it included a considerable study, additional appraisal. Is there any way to reduce the cost of the consultant by tieing just to this project and without considering a survey of where houses might be moved? Or is this practical? I am not just sure exactly what is involved in the proposal. Mr. Olson suggested,"You at least extend to the consultant the courtesy of visiting with him sometime to see what input they can add. See if he has any ideas. They did spend some money to put the agreement together, and I feel as though they are entitled to a presentation, a visit with you. I would say some evening when you could just batter it back and forth across the table in here and see if they have any ideas or suggestions ... possibly cut the fee and reduce the services more. I am in no position to answer that question for them." Mayor Weisgerber said, "I know these things require an awful lot of complicated figures and some of it seems a little unnecessary to have." The City Manager said the number of parcels of land that are involved in the area is many more then he had originally thought. Mayor Weisgerber commented that they have to have appraisals on all of those. Commissioner Ashton asked, "Weren't they all willing to sell to Urban Renewal, or private enterprise could go out there, set up, and buy these. If they are sold there is no reason why they would have to go in and condemn any of this land, and outside of the relocation payments that would be made to the people that would be moved out of there, I can't see where there would be too much difference in the cost." The City Manager said, "The cost advantage would be the 3/4, 1/4 in acquisition, rehabilitation. That is quite a chunk." Commissioner Ashton commented that it would be quite a bit more, but if the time element is involved, they might be able to go out on theirown and get things started, if they wanted to do it as private business. Commissioner Cooper commented that when they talked with the gentleman from HUD he emphasized that the St. John's proposal was outside the NDP area, and they would have to submit separate applications. The City Manager replied that it is considered a new activity. Commissioner Cooper said, "Okay, so what we are really talking about now are two separate programs, is this not correct? The rehabilitation in that general NDP area down there and the St. John's two blocks east, which the rehabilitation program, they didn't hold out any sort of encouraging views for funding on that unless local funds could become available, and I didn't think they held out very much in the way of encourage- ment as a HUD program for two blocks east of St. John's, but it would have to be a separate application, is this correct?" Mayor Weisgerber said, "Perhaps St. John's had a little trouble by waiting to see what would be done on that park and of course they had to have re-hearings because they changed the area, All that took time, so as time went by, if we had not had the complications of that park project we might have had this completed early enough to have gotten in and done some good, but that is behind now." Commissioner Cooper said, "I don't think so because the monies that were allocated for this region were already more or less kind of earmarked, so I don't think six months one way or the other would have made this much difference, they had already made their decision." Mayor Weisgerber asked, "Well how would it be if we did try to get together and talk with him?" The City Manager replied, "All I would say is I think this would be the gentlemanly thing to do; you did instruct us to get a proposal. We asked the firm to prepare one. Now, these firms will not, as we have mentioned previously, right or wrong, submit proposals one against the other. You either accept this one or you reject it and then instruct us to go for another proposal, then you accept or reject that one. I feel that you have this obligation and this committment in that they were asked to prepare the proposal, whether you think it is a good one or a bad one, or too high or too cheap. I feel that you should extend to them the courtesy of an exchange." Mayor Weisgerber asked, "Would we also invite representatives of St. John's or should we visit with just the consultant?" The City Manager replied, "Possibly you would want them. I hadn't thought of this, but this would certainly be in order, as well as representation of the Urban Renewal Agency. This is a good way to get your exchange --- to get everybody involved in the same conversation." Mayor Weisgerber said, "Because of the complications involved, maybe we should do this." The City Manager said, "Maybe you want somebody from Kansas City out ... somebody from HUD." Mayor Weisgerber said, "We would have all the parties involved, and we can all talk it over together and try to come to an understanding, whether we should go or not go or else hold for awhile, if this would be the best way." Commissioner Losik said, "I would definitely want to have the meeting set up with somebody from Kansas City here because they would be able to give it to us probably as accurately as anybody." Mayor Weisgerber said, "I think from what he said the other day when we were there, maybe they have a little more educated guess than we do, but I think they are really pretty lost as to what Congress may really do with this. I think everybody is." Commissioner Losik replied, "Well, I think we are not asking them to tell us what Congress is going to do, Jack, I think we are asking them to give us their more educated guess than what anybody here at local level has and go from there on it. Now, if we don't feel they are in any better position to give us suggestions on this project, then I don't see why they even have the Kansas City office. I just have confidence that they know a little bit more. They know the tendencies, the feel of it, and even if there would be some monies allocated, is there something already, that they are aware of, that could have a higher priority than this small project? This is what I would like to have him here for." Commissioner Cooper said, "This is what he told us for this fiscal year, that the money had already, more or less, been earmarked for regional projects, and this would take all the funds and of course they had no idea where future funding is coming from, or how much, or in what manner, or what the rules will be. Now that is my idea of what he said." Commissioner Ashton said, "If the news is going to come out in the paper, I don't see any reason they should come out here, if they don't have any more to tell us than what they have already told us." Commissioner Cooper replied, "Nothing has changed that much." Commissioner Ashton said, "That was only two weeks ago." Commissioner Cooper said, "I think it would be helpful to the people in that general area if the City Commission, and probably the planners, and the Urban Renewal Board could hold some kind of a hearing or a meeting." A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to table the matter, until contact can be made with HUD to see if they will send a man out and to discuss it with our consultant. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. "COST OF LIVING PAY FOR EMPLOYEES". (Sponsored by Commissioner Losik) Commissioner Losik said, "Now last December we approved the Kansas -Denver Study, and it was approved unanimously, but we didn't approve the complete study, and as a result that obviously started some misconception as to whether cost of living should or should not be paid. On January 22nd, it was brought up again and it was clarified and approved unanimously that the cost of living would be paid. Now again there seems to be some misapprehension as to who is supposed to be paid this cost of living. Now I would take, and on a basis of the minutes of that meeting, read from that a quote that two separate areas. Now the City Manager replied, 'You have about $21,000 left which if you wanted to put in an across the board one percent, you could'. I stress that 'across the board'. Further on down toward the end, there was a motion made and then of course the City Manager stated, 'Before you get a second, may I make one last comment? ... Whatever we do for the employees in General Operating, we must do likewise for the employees in Flood Control, Sanitation, Parking Meters, Golf Course, Central Garage and Water and Sewerage." Now those two items would positively indicate to me that reference was made that all employees, all city employees, would receive this 1% cost of living, but now we find that approximately 14-15% of them are not, and frankly the explanation that was given was not too valid as far as I am concerned, and I would like to see that we start paying these people what they have been told they would get and that we go right along with this and pay it to each and every employee. Since cost of living is not base pay, nor does it pertain to job classification." Commissioner Cooper asked if the 1% has been implemented. The City Manager replied, "I will try to explain to you what we have done since our first salary study in 1967. You have your Catherwood report, schedule K as referred to. In that study you have grades 1 through 23 - you have steps A through G. Across the board cost of living increases in previous years since 1967 have been applied to those tables and those tables only, so if we say there is a three percent cost of living, each one of these figures in the schedule will be increased three percent right across the table. An employee's salary, his salary adjustment, whether he is step b, c, or d, he will remain at that corresponding step b, c, or d until he reaches his anniversary date. Upon reaching his anniversary date he will go to the next step until he reaches the maximum step of his respective class. Now this has been the history of applying the cost of living increase. I don't understand, I guess, what has been referred to as base pay and cost of living. We have a salary schedule, which has been applicable since 1967. When the cost of living was applied to it, it became the base pay for 1968, then when we apply the cost of living to the 1968 pay schedule, it becomes what we have always referred to as the base pay or the salary schedule for 1969 and subsequently each year thereafter. Now when we refer to a cost of living or an across the board increase, we have always applied that cost of living to every salary schedule in the pay plan. Now at this particular time, 1973, when you adopted the Kansas -Denver Study, it was viewed no differently than in 1967 when we had the Kansas League of Municipalities do the study. I had personnel, this afternoon, run through the effects of the 1967 salary study and we find it is almost identical to what happened in the 1973 study, we had 23 employees who are receiving more than the Kansas - Denver Study reported that they should receive as a maximum salary. In 1967, we had 21 employees involved identically the same way. There were 2 in the City Clerk's Office, 3 in Engineering, 1 in Inspection, 1 in Park, 5 in the Street Department, 1 in Cemetery, 1 in Flood Works and Dikes, 1 in Sanitation, 1 in Parking Meters, 5 in Water and Sewerage. This year, 1973, we have 1 in the City Clerk's Office, 4 in Engineering, 8 in Fire, 4 in Police, 6 in Water and Sewerage. If your intent is to apply this 1% cost of living in a manner different than what we have done since 1967, this is fine with us, but I will call your attention as a result of the study in 1973 these 23 positions vary from $3.00 to $66.00. If you apply the 1% increase to everybody's pay check, as compared to the salary schedule, that difference will range from $9.00 to $77.00. In other words you will increase the amount of difference between the salary schedule that Kansas -Denver worked up, and the pay checks that these particular employees will receive. Now, like I said, everytime when there has been a cost of living or an across the board increase given, there was one year in addition to the cost of living, I cannot tell you what year it was, July 1st the City Commissioners approved an across the board 2%. The cost of living went in January 1 and the across the board increase went in July 1. It was applied to the schedule. In other words we have never granted a cost of living, or an across the board increase that has not reflected to the salary schedule ..... not to the employee's pay check, but to the salary schedule. Do you see what I am trying to say?" Mayor Weisgerber said, "I see where the difference occurred alright. A person could read it one way or they could read it the other: Part of us evidentally read it one way and part of us read it the other way." Commissioner Caldwell asked the City Manager if it had been brought to his attention by any of the Department Heads about any of the salaries? The City Manager replied, "No, sir." Commissioner Caldwell said he thought if it had happened, they would have come to the City Manager first, if they had felt they were not being treated justly. The City Manager said, "There was some conversation in 1967. It was explained to the Department Heads and it was explained to the employees also with the idea that if they did riot understand it they could come visit with me or better still, we would have the gentleman from the League, who prepared the study, come out. In each instance we did check back with the employee and they did understand it None of_thern came -to me and we did not have to have the gentleman from the League of Municipalities come out. In this particular instance there were some who came to see Mr. Catherwood, prior to his putting the final document together. I cannot tell you how many or who or from what department. I know there were some who sought him. He stayed over an extra day and met with several, but I don't know who." Commissioner Caldwell commented, "I know at the time we adopted this report that it was stated some would receive certain benefits from it and some wouldn't; but they would not go down a step, they would always be moving up, and this was my interpretation of it at the time, and according to the minutes when we adopted it, I thought everyone understood it that way. I am sure that - well, I don't know what Mr. Losik is saying - however he may be right, I just didn't understand it that way." The City Manager said, "I might add here, now, that with the 1% applied to the salary schedule, not to the salaries, but the salary schedule, we had previously - remember I said 23 were paid more than the maximum called for in the salary schedule. With the 1% adjustment to the salary schedule, 8 of those 23 received some raise, but did not get the entire 1%. Ten reached the top or the top step reached them, and did not get a raise. In other words the 1% raised their schedule to exactly what Mr. Catherwood said the maximum of their range should be. In other words, if they were getting $633 a month, a 1% raise is $6. This took them to $639 a month and that is exactly the top step of their salary schedule according to the Kansas -Denver Study. There are still 5 who remain above the salary schedule with the 1% applied. Commissioner Cooper said, "Now wait a minute, I think where some of this is coming in at, we are talking about 2 separate things Norris. The 1% cost of living thing is variable, the pay schedule is not. This employee receives that amount of pay, whereas he may not receive a 1% or 2% or something cost of living, but you are including it - you are figuring it into his salary, and it really ..." The City Manager said, "It is his salary." Commissioner Cooper replied, "I know it is his salary, but I am trying to make a distinction. I know it is his salary, but what you are saying is you add this 1% on and this brings him up to another step or whatever it is in the pay schedule." The City Manager explained, "If he is getting $523, you add 1%, that is $5. His next pay check will be $528 a month. Commissioner Cooper repeated. "We are talking about two different things." Commissioner Losik said, "Mr. Mayor, I think the whole problem lies in that somebody here just doesn't want to accept the fact that a base salary is one thing, and a cost of living increase is something again. Those are two separate items. Now the fact that the man gets that 1% doesn't automatically say that his base salary automatically is 1% higher. His base salary is still the base salary, the 1% is a temporary increase to offset inflation. Now this is where we are getting into this rut. It doesn't matter whether the man is underpaid or overpaid, if a 1% across the board cost of living then that is what those people should get, because that is not his base salary as the job classification calls it. You are adding 1% on to that but you haven't changed that base — salary. Should we take and in July not have any more funds to continue this, they would drop right back to that base salary, and this is what I am trying to point out. We are talking about two separate things." Commissioner Ashton said, "You are still talking about the salary." Commissioner Caldwell said, "If they get a 1% pay increase it automatically moves their base pay up." Commissioner Losik replied, "No, Bob." Commissioner Caldwell said, "It has to." Commissioner Cooper said, "No." 1% to it.,, Commissioner Losik said, "No, No, No, You do not take Schedule K and add Commissioner Ashton said, "You have to in order to justify all these things and get it in balance." Commissioner Losik said, "That is right and that is why we didn't accept that one portion of this Kansas -Denver Study is because of this cost of living thing." Commissioner Ashton replied, "I know this is true, but the main fact that we wanted to get this laid out there so we felt that all of our employees were being treated fair, that the tax payers are being treated fair all the way through, because it was in balance with what they would get in like businesses in other places and whenever you add this 1% on, they are going to take more pay home and if they are already getting from $15 to $50 above what the job classification calls for you are sending it out more and more. This is the main reason we had this study, was to get things in focus and balance with the current trends of salary. Mayor Weisgerber said, "I might point out with this 1% added on - whenever the time would come that another increase would be given, all of our 300 some employees would get that increase except for the - there could be the possibility of only 5 men - after this increase to bring these other men up to the top. Of the 23 - 18 now will be up to the top, so there will only be 5 men who would be penalized on the next increase to some degree. Four men in the Water and Sewerage and one in the City Clerk's Office. Commissioner Cooper said, "You mean that is what we are quibbling over? Is four people that are going to get paid 1% more than this pay schedule?" Commissioner Losik replied, "No, we are not! No, that is not what we are quibbling over. We are quibbling over a principal." Commissioner Cooper said, "Alright now, I agree that there are two separate items. There is a pay schedule that has been adopted and a 1% cost of living, that I thought had been approved. Alright now, the cost of living is a variable thing, in other words they may get it next January, they may not get it next January, but the pay schedule is a fixed pay schedule." Commissioner Losik exclaimed, "That is right!" Commissioner Cooper asked, "Alright now, what is our problem?" Commissioner Losik replied, "Our problem is that all of the people did not get a 1% increase." Commissioner Cooper asked, "Why didn't they?" Commissioner Losik commented, "That is what I am trying to find out." Commissioner Ashton commented, "Their salary is over the job classification." Commissioner Losik replied, "It has nothing to do with the job classification." Commissioner Ashton said, "Well I'd go along with your program to give them a raise, if you wanted to do it this way and put them on the job classification that our consultant set us up on. Then you are putting everything in balance. But the way you are talking about it now - you are not getting anything in balance, you are just emphasizing and enlarging the condition of overpaying them." Commissioner Cooper said, "It is obvious with any pay schedule, that there will always be this handful of employees for some reason or another that whoever does the study says they are drawing too much money, so you could have six people do a study, and you would have some job classifications they say you are paying them too much. We budgeted $53,000 for the 1973 budget for this pay study. We adopted the plan - it cost something like $30,000. 1 am just using round figures - out of that $53,000 that was budgeted it cost something like $30,000 to implement that plan, now this left us with a balance of $20,000. Why, with that $20,000 balance is it not possible to give a 1% across the board to all employees?" The Director of Administration.said, "Your consultant has told you, when he looked at the salaries that the City was paying in December 1972, and by the way, those salaries that he looked included 5 cost of living increases since 1967. He told you you had 23 employees in the City that, based on those salaries, compared to the data he collected from other employers, were overpaid. Now we don't know if he was right or wrong. We are going by what he said based on the data he collected and his expertice. Now it has been said a number of times that if you apply that cost of living increase, that 1%, to those 23 people, you are going to compound it. You are going to pay them just that much more over what he told you should be paid to them compared to the other employers. Nothing different than what we have done since 1967. 1 don't know why you would want to spend $3,800 for an outsider to come in and give you a study and recommendation and then turn around and ignor it." Commissioner Caldwell moved that the issue be tabled until they can get some clarification from the staff as to where they are and what they are doing. Mayor Weisgerber said, "It would be somewhat expensive, but on the other hand we are going to use this thing for several years, could we clarify this thing by asking Mr. Catherwood to pay us a visit? Or is this wasted effort, perhaps?" Commissioner Caldwell replied, "I don't know, he paid us one visit and we don't seem to be going along with what he told us." Commissioner Losik said, "We are sidestepping issues. This thing has drug out and drug out. The motion is made now to table this thing again, not resolving it. If this be the will of the majority of the Commission I have to abide by it, but I certainly cannot feel that this cannot be resolved this evening." Commissioner Caldwell replied, "This is the first time we have tabled this, as far as I know." Commissioner Losik said, "It needn't be tabled tonight even." The motion to table the issue until the Commission gets more guidelines from the staff was seconded by Commissioner Ashton. Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Weisgerber (3). Nays: Cooper, Losik (2). Motion carried. PUBLIC AGENDA PETITION NUMBER 3299 was filed by Richard Bergen, 2327 Meadow Lane, for the rezoning of the East 95 feet of Lot 6, Block 6, Oakdale Addition from District "B" (Two - Family Dwelling House District) to District "C" (Apartment District). 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 3300 was filed by Mrs. Arthur Everhart, for the Curbing, guttering and paving on Otis Street between Third Street and Fourth Street. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3301 was filed by Herbert J. Simmons, protesting the paving of the 300 Block of South Third Street, between Mulberry and the river, as requested in Petition Number 3293. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to refer the petition to the City Engineer to be checked. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3302 was filed by Marion W. Pestinger, for the extension of sanitary sewer line and water line on Fifth Street from a point 450 feet north of Euclid Street to Stimmel Road. Mr. Pestinger was present and stated he knew the petition did not have 50% of the property owners in the area, but there are some expensive homes on the west side of Fifth and farmland on the East side, which the owner is out of town and could care less if there is water and sewer service. He added that it is very important because the water wells in the area are becoming contaminated from the ceptic tanks. Mayor Weisgerber commented the petition would be sent to the City Engineer for checking, and that it is possible for the City Commission to use some discretion when it comes to water and sewer lines. It is possible to put those in without the 50% that is required on some of the other utilities. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a report. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3303 was filed by Harriet T. Johnson and Others for the adoption by the Governing Body of the City of Salina, Kansas, of an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE'' repealing the 'Minimum Housing Code' of the City of Salina, Kansas." or submit the same to a vote of the electors, as required by law. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the County Clerk to be validated. Mrs. Harriet Johnson commented that the City Commission has the option of adopting the ordinance to repeal the Minimum Housing Code, or to put it on the ballot. Commissioner Cooper told Mrs. Johnson that the Commission is taking action today to verify the petition. Mr. Donald McConnell asked the Commission why the Salina Journal stated they were going to print the names of all the signers of this petition and why they have made such a hot potato out of it. "I personally cannot see some of the sections in the ordinance, and I am one of the signers, I know that you know me, and I would like to find out if any of the Commission had anything to do with this recall that people can come down here and take their names off the petition and so forth?" Mayor Weisgerber commented, "I don't think we would have much to do with the news media." Commissioner Losik stated, "I would like to repeat a statement I made right here at a previous Commission meeting that I would defend the right of all of you people to petition this Commission regardless of what the contents in the petition is, so I myself am for you people doing what you are constitutionally entitled to do. I'll support that all the way through." Mayor Weisgerber said, "Mr. McConnell, let me say this. So far as the news media -is concerned, anything that is a matter of public record, they have a perfect right to put on the radio or print, or however, as a Commission we operate pretty much in a gold fish bowl and someone who signs a public petition or anything that goes into the public records it is available if they care to use it. It is just sort of the way it is. I think those of us up here get a little bit used to that perhaps, maybe it is a little more worrisome to some of the public, but if you were for the petition and signed it, then why particularly would you object.to having it known that you signed it? Let me ask you this." Mr. McConnell replied, "I have no objections. I am proud that I signed it, but I think that they are intimidating the people that signed the petition. This is my whole contention here though. They have intimidated the voters who put you people up here in the chairs." Mayor Weisgerber asked Mr. McConnell if he read the editorial this evening? Mr. McConnell replied that he did, and that he also read what he had written previously. Mr. Bill Scholl exclaimed that the editorial is misleading. The part that he think is misleading is the part where they said it somewhat softens it and they have the right to appeal and therefore that makes it alright, that everyone has the right to appeal. He quoted Section 16-29 (1) and asked which is right, the Salina Journal or the Code? Commissioner Caldwell suggested he chew on the Journal. Mr. Scholl asked if it is going to be a matter of public record of the ones that have taken their names off the petition. He was assured everything is a matter of public record. The City Clerk reported there are affidavits to remove the name from the petition or to add the name to the petition. Mrs. Johnson commented that this ordinance was passed without being referred to the public for a vote. Mayor Weisgerber explained that the Commission does a lot of things that affect people, that this is an administrative law, and it is impractical to refer all of these things to the people. Mrs. Johnson replied, "Not so majora law, that governs the homes. There are some imperfections in that ordinance and I think we should have had more time to have seen what the people of Salina want. We should have had more time and it should have been done." Mayor Weisgerber explained, "But you see we didn't have a lot of time either, because of the federal rules and regulations during that week. I think it was the last week of May last year, we had a meeting about every day in order to get our house in order to qualify for federal funds, now this was one of the requirements. Some of these entry and penalty clauses may be a little subject to question, but that was what HUD required at that time, if they have eased this a little now, this may be a different thing, but it was necessary at that time. I don't think you were here during some of our talk on this, but we were aware that some of these rules and regulations were pretty stringent; so two things - in the first place we never envisioned, although the law says we could, that this Commission as such, and the staff as such, never envisioned going into a person's own home, where they owned their own home by forceable entry to enforce any of this, and in the second place we appointed an appeals committee of people that we felt would have an ear that was closely attuned to the person that might have problems that would do everything in the world they could, if there was an inspection on say a rental property, or change of ownership - this was never clearly determined because this moved rapidly, so we did all we could to ease this thing a little in the bill." Commissioner Cooper said, "I have some thought I would like to express. The suggestion has been made that the City have a public hearing on the Minimum Housing Code. I believe we should. The hearing would provide as detailed an explanation as possible and answer questions on how the code could affect you and your property. This is a federal code and, as such, has disadvantages on the local level. I do not know at this time if federal rules will permit amendment or revision. I was aware of these disadvantages when I voted for Minimum Housing. I was also aware of the consequences if the City did not meet HUD requirements. Presently existing programs as well as any future programs will not receive HUD funds if we do not qualify. The rights of inspection and some of the requirements of the Code do not meet my approval. I, along with others, do not understand how the Federal Government, in effect, can enforce a retroactive law. An amendment to the Code exempting home -owned, pre-existing conditions except for health and safety factors would, in my judgement, be a more true Minimum Housing Code. Because a petition was circulated, the people of Salina will have to make the same choice the City Commission did. The right of people to petition their governing body should not be tampered with. Mr. Austin's intentions to reprint the petition in the Journal is legal, but wrong. Just as wrong as the manner in which the petition on Urban Renewal # 2 was duplicated and signers personally contacted. This information is a matter of public record. But public records are not to be used to support personal objectives. To imply, by whatever means, that your opinions are right, and others are not right in having an opinion, creates some of the problems we have today. If we are willing to try and understand one another, hold a hearing ... as a community we can come through this confusion. We will all be better informed and as a result will have a better idea of what the Minimum Housing Code is all about, and I would like to see this Commission hold a public hearing on the Minimum Housing Code. If the petition is verified and it goes to the voters, I think the people in the community would be better informed." Mayor Weisgerber commented, "If we contemplate any change we surely should, I think at this point we should wait until we get the petition back." Commissioner Cooper said, "This is true, but I am not sure that even if we would contemplate any kind of an amendment or revision to the code that it would be possible to do, so in lieu of that fact, in other words, I don't know that the federal agency..." Mayor Weisgerber said, "That is true, this has to be checked out, in the mean time it should be pursued." Commissioner Cooper said, "Alright, in the event that they will not permit any kind of amendment or revision to the Minimum Housing Code, I believe a public hearing would serve a dual purpose. In other words we would be able to answer as many specific questions as possible. The City Commission would be technically, unofficially on record, but openly on record as supporting the fact that they are not going door to door invading everybody's privacy, that they have no intentions of abusing the Minimum Housing Code. I think the record, more or less, speaks for itself, but any time you cannot put into a law that you may not, somebody will, so I think we could serve more than one purpose by holding a public hearing on the Minimum Housing Code." Mayor Weisgerber said, "The reason that HUD has been so strict on this, I think, is that when you take a federal law, it applies to all the country and in these big cities they have some terrific slum problems, so they put quite a number of teeth in this thing with the idea that they wanted to get at some of the slum building owners in the bigger cities, then when you get down to the more rural areas like we are what they have determined for the cities maybe doesn't quite fit, so we --- you may have to word it their way, but you can use a little bit sometimes your own -- change the enforcement of it so that you are not that hard on your citizenry, because you don't want to be." Mrs. Johnson said, "Contact has been made and I disagree that it is a federal government ruling. It is local. It is city." Mayor Weisgerber said, "I have talked to people who have signed the petition for you but when they signed the petition, and the reason they signed it - they were told a number of things that were not in the law at all, quite a number of misrepresentations - now how did this come about? I Mrs. Johnson replied, "Quite a number of us carried this petition and everyone was advised to get it and read it, and a number of them did, and I carried one in my pad, and others carried them in their pad, they could stop and read them, and the important part was that they didn't get a ballot vote on it and that is so important. A law that is going to be over every home, It wasn't on the ballot and they didn't get to vote, and we cannot have things of such major importance without a ballot vote. Of course we have had here a fact - it has happened here in Salina and people are feeling, a number of people, they are loosing their freedom when they loose their ballot." Mayor Weisgerber said, "You are criticizing us for the way this was done, and I am coming back a little bit for the way you got signers on your petition, because there were a great number of misrepresentations made by the people who got signers and I am wondering why this was?" Mrs. Johnson related an incident about an FHA or VA inspection of a home on the market to be sold. Ron Barta, Assistant City Attorney said, "I believe that probably a misconception that you have is that in selling a piece of property, whether it be rental property or your own home that you, in order to get your lower money, require or ask for a VA or FHA inspection. In this inspection they have certain minimum requirements. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Minimum Housing Code in the City of Salina, and if you read the law of the Minimum Housing Code of the City of Salina, there are no requirements as to the heat of the water, the amount of the heat of the room, there is no requirement as to central air conditioning. These people make requirements on you in order to get the cheaper money, but in our code I have had people call me and say, no you are going to be required to put in central air conditioning. This is not true. We are not making those kind of requirements." Mrs. Johnson said, "Well, when that was said, and it came to my ears too ....." The City Manager said, "I believe the FHA and VA requirements are more stringent than the Minimum Housing Code Requirements in many respects. I want to try to protect our inspection department if possible. I have visited with all of them. We have a housing inspector, a building inspector, a building official, and electrical and plumbing inspectors. I should possibly comment here that this ordinance, the Minimum Housing Ordinance was first passed in Salina in 1966. It was amended in 1967, 1969, and 1972 by this Commission. I cannot relate the law or all the specifics of it or what each amendment related to. These can be researched as to exactly what amendments went in in 1967, 1969, and 1972, but the point I am making is that the Minimum Housing Ordinance as such is not a 1972 ordinance. It is a 1966 ordinance, amended in 1967, again in 1969, and again in 1972, and I have asked all of our inspectors -'have you ever gone into a home owned by any individual, your own home that you own, without invitation?' The answer has been no, that they have not. They have never gone into one without being invited, or unless they have been petitioned by five people living in the immediate vicinity. The petition provision is in the ordinance, and they have used it on occasion. if they come to you, it is also in the ordinance that you do not have to let them in, that they will then have to get a court order from a court of record. The men have told me they have never voluntarily picked a house to inspect without first having five complaints or by invitation. Do any of you have any examples of where this is not correct information?" Mr. Scholl related an incident of inspections, of which Commissioner Losik is aware, where they went into houses without an invitation. Mr. Scholl was informed that these were done by the consulting firm for Urban Renewal in connection with the downtown project. The Commissioners all agreed the discussion was not going anywhere, and there are a great many misconceptions concerning the Minimum Housing Code. The motion to refer the petition to the County Clerk for verification was seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3304 was filed by William E. Oehlert, Jr. and W. E. Oehlert, Sr. for the rezoning of Lots 5, 6, and 8, Block 4, Woodland Addition to the City of Salina, from District "B" (Two -Family Dwelling House District) to District "E" (General Business District). A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3305 was filed by Brown and Brown, Inc. for the installation of 8" asphalt surfacing, concrete curb and gutter along the North and East side, temporary asphalt curb along the south side and 6" cast Iron pipe water main on Dewey Street from the west lot lines of Lots 2 and 3, in Brown and Brown Addition and then Easterly for a distance of approximately 500 feet, including construction of complete intersection returns at Dewey and Bromac Streets. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a report. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3306 was filed by Lyle Melvin, Jr., requesting the annexation of all that part of the SE4 of Section 22-14-3 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Saline County, lying east of the right-of-way of Centennial Road and South of Republic and West of Cherokee Street, containing 30 acres more or less, all of which is hereafter referred to as Prairie Village Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Losik commented this is another request for annexation and asked that the Planning Commission be made aware of the need for guidelines for annexation. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3307 was filed by Ronald Barta, Agent, for the approval of the preliminary Plat of Marydale Addition to the City, of Salina, Saline County, Kansas. (A tract of land in the NE4 of Section 12-14-3 lying north of a line 200 feet north and parallel to the center line of the main track of the Union Pacific Railroad, less the roadway right-of-way for Front Street, Pacific Avenue and Ohio Street. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. PETITION NUMBER 3308 was filed by Ronald Barta, Agent for the rezoning of Marydale Addition from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "G" (Heavy Industrial District). A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION was filed by Jerry Abbott, d/b/a Reubens, 112 East Iron Avenue. (New application) The City Clerk reported the applicant has paid the proper fee, and the application has been approved by the Health Department, Zoning Officer and the Police Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the license. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. SURETY ON BAIL BONDS LICENSE APPLICATIONS were filed by: Ralph Bennett, d/b/a B & K Bonding, 651 South Ohio Jack Kindlesparger, agent for B & K Bonding Stephen Klingzell, agent for B & K Bonding Eric Kindlesparger, agent for B & K Bonding The City Clerk reported the applicants have paid the proper fees and have the required documents on file. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the license applications and authorize the City Clerk to issue the licenses. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A REQUEST was filed by the Salina -Saline County Health Department for Revenue Sharing Funds. A motion was made by Commissioner Los 1k, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to review this request with the others, and to substitute this letter for an updated letter which they are writing. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell, Ashton, and Cooper that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners adjourn. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. D. L. Harrison, City Clerk