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