December 19 , 2006

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:45 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.  

It was then, moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purpose of discussing possible acquisition of real estate with the justification for the executive session to keep possible terms and conditions or acquisition of real estate confidential at this time.  Motion carried unanimously. 

The City Commission returned to regular session at 6:15 and following a short break returned to regular session at 6:35 p.m.

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION: None.

 

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes from December 5, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of October 16, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 258 vendors in the amount of $3,080,389.95.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to The Bourgeois Pig, 6 East 9th; Don’s Steak House, 2176 East 23rd; and The Salty Iguana, 4931 West 6th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Mark Desetti to the Bicycle Advisory Committee, to the position which will expire December 31, 2009; reappoint Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Shirley Martin-Smith and Rick Marquez to the Community Commission on Homelessness, to terms which will expire December 31, 2009; appoint David Dunfield to the Public Transit Advisory Committee to a term which will expire December 31, 2009; reappoint Richard Heckler, Marie Stockett, Chris Cobb and Lauri di Routh to the Recycling Resource Conservation Advisory Board to terms which will expire December 31, 2009; and reappoint Bob Schumm, Stuart Boley, and Linda Hyler to the Sister Cities Advisory Board to additional terms which will expire December 31, 2009.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids one vibratory roller for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

                        BIDDER                                                          BID AMOUNT           

                        Martin Tractor                                                  $31,000

                        Murphy Tractor & Equipment                          $33,500

                        Sellers Equipment                                          $41,594

                        Victor L. Phillips                                              $44,510

                        G.W. Van Keppel                                            $45,956

 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Sellers Equipment, in the amount of $41,594 because the low bid from Martin Tractor did not meet specifications and the bid from Murphy Tractor Equipment was less advantageous than Sellers Equipment bid.  Motion carried unanimously.                           (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for one mini packer refuse truck for the Parks and Recreation Department.  The bids were:

                        BIDDER                                                          BID AMOUNT           

                        American Equipment Co. bid 1                       $54,870

                        American Equipment Co. bid 2                       $54,486

                        American Equipment Co. bid 3                       $58,658

                        Roy Conley & Co.  bid 1                                 $54,922

                        Roy Conley & Co.  bid 2                                 $57,630

                        McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing                No bid

                        Corbin Equipment                                           No bid

                        Key Equipment                                               No bid

                        KCR International Truck                                 No bid

 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Roy Conley & Co. in the amount of $54,922.  Motion carried unanimously.    (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for one to extended van with options for the Parks and Recreation Department.  The bids were:

            BIDDER                                                                      BID AMOUNT           

            Laird Noller, gasoline engine                                       $22,054.38

            Laird Noller, diesel engine                                           $26,382.38

            Shawnee Mission Ford, gasoline engine                    $22,269.00

            Shawnee Mission Ford, diesel engine                        $26,759.00

            Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, gasoline engine                      $24,992.00

            Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, diesel engine                          $29,802.00

            Van Chevrolet, gasoline engine                                  $25,291.42

            Van Chevrolet, diesel engine                                      $29,927.42

            Roberts Auto Plaza, gasoline engine                         $25,526.00

            Roberts Auto Plaza, diesel engine                             $29,290.00

            Crossroads Chevrolet, gasoline engine                     $25,704.00

            Crossroads Chevrolet, diesel engine                         $29,588.00

            Crown Chevrolet, gasoline engine                              $26,369.95

            Crown Chevrolet, diesel engine                                  No bid

 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Laird Noller Ford in the amount of $22,054.38 including additional options in the amount of $494 for a total of $22,548.38.  Motion carried unanimously.                     (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the recommended bids for water treatment chemicals in 2007.  The bids were:

2007  WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS – UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

PRODUCT

VENDOR

BID

QUICK LIME – BULK, PEBBLES

Mississippi Lime Company    

$101.00/ ton*

 

US Lime Company

105.00/ ton

QUICK LIME – BULK, POWDER

Mississippi Lime Company

101.00/ ton*

 

US Lime Company    

105.00/ton

CHLORINE – 1 TON CYLINDER

DPC Industries

537.00/ ton*

 

Brentag Mid South

540.00/ ton

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

775.00/ton

POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON – BULK

NORIT

827.00/ton*

 

F2 Industries

850.00/ ton

 

Cal Pacific Carbon

900.00/ton

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

1249.00/ ton

CARBON DIOXIDE - BULK

Air Liquide     

48.50/ ton*

 

EPCO

56.50/ton

 

Ethanol Products

75.00/ton

SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE – 50# BAGS

Calci Quest

1,180.00/ton*

 

Carus Chemical Co.

1,320.00/ton

 

Harcros Chemicals

1360.00/ton

 

Shannon Chemical Corp.

1,367.67/ton

 

Univar

1,438.00/ton

 

Brentag Mid South

1,544.00/ ton

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

1,700.00/ton

SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE – 50# BAGS

Brentag Mid South

628.00/ton*

 

Harcros Chemicals

680.00/ton

 

GS Robins & Company

700.00/ton

 

Univar

822.00/ton

SODA ASH – BULK

Harcros Chemicals

243.00/ ton*

 

BHS Marketing

1,330.00/ton

AQUA AMMONIA – BULK

Harcros Chemicals

283.00/ ton*

 

GS Robins & Company

330.00/ton

ALUMINUM SULFATE – BULK

Univar (no guaranteed price)

322.00/ ton

 

G.S. Robins & Co

324.00/ton*

 

Harcros Chemicals

325.60/ton

 

General Chemical Corp.

359.00/ ton

 

GEO Specialty Chemicals

421.50/ton

POLYMER – BULK

Polydyne, Inc.

720.00/ton*

 

GS Robins & Company

940.00/ton

 

CIBA Specialty

1,100.00/ton

 

Consolidated Companies

4,200.00/ton

 

Consolidated Companies, Alt.

2,500.00/ton

QUICK LIME – BULK, PEBBLES

Mississippi Lime Company    

$101.00/ ton*

 

US Lime Company

105.00/ ton

QUICK LIME –PEBBLES, 96%

Mississippi Lime Company

101.00/ton*

SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE – BULK

Brenntag Mid-South

.7330/gal  

 

Vertex Chemical

.7843/gal

 

DPC Industries

.7950 /gal

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

1.25/ gal

SODIUM BISULFITE – BULK

Univar (shipping not included)

1.10/gal

 

Harcros Chemicals

1.765/gal*

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

1.7675/gal

 

PVS Chemical Solutions

1.77/gal

FERRIC CHLORIDE – BULK

OFS, Inc

.92/gal*

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Inc

.99/gal

 

PVS Technologies

1.29/gal

POTASSIUM PERMANGANATTE – 55 lb. PAIL

Univar (no guarantee of price)

1.96/lb

 

Harcros Chemicals

2.09/lb*

 

Brenntag Mid-South

2.12/lb

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

2.12/lb

 

Altivia Corporation

2.87/lb

POLYMER, TOTES

Polydyne, Inc.

1.02/lb*

 

CIBA Specialty

1.21/lb

 

G.S. Robins & Co.

3.50/lb

 

Consolidated Companies

2.10/lb

 

Consolidated Companies, Alt.

1.25/lb

FERROUS CHLORIDE, 1025 N. MN

OFS, Inc.

.92/gal*

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Inc

3.50/gal

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Alt.

.985/gal

FERROUS CHLORIDE, 3613 Brush Creek

OFS, Inc.

.92/gal*

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Inc

3.50/gal

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Alt.

.985/gal

FERROUS CHLORIDE, 720 Grant

OFS, Inc.

.92/gal*

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Inc

3.50/gal

 

Kemira Water Solutions, Alt.

.985/gal

 

 Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                           (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for cardiovascular equipment for the Parks and Recreation Department.  The bids were:

 

            BIDDER                                                                      BID AMOUNT           

            Advanced Exercise Equipment                                  $23,955.00

            Central States Fitness System                                  $24,495.00

            Magnum Fitness System                                            $25,155.00

            Orthotech Sports Medical                                           $29,435.00

            BNS Sports.Com                                                        $29,892.02

            Fit Equipment Commercial                                         $35,500.00

 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Central States Fitness System in the amount of $24,495 because the bid from Advanced Exercise Equipment did not meet specifications.  Motion carried unanimously.                 (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve purchase of two slide-in water tank and pump units for the Fire/Medical Department from Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Inc., for $43,982.  Motion carried unanimously.                              (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an Engineering Services Agreement with Black and Veatch Corporation for $216,835 for the design of the Stoneridge Elevated Water Storage Tank and site improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                           (7)

Ordinance No. 8058, amending the franchise fee for Worldnet, L.L.C., was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (8)

Ordinance No. 8059, amending the franchise fee for the World Company, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (9)

Ordinance No. 8041, a joint City Ordinance/County Resolution follow-up to the previously approved update to Chapter 9, Horizon 2020, Park, Recreation, Open Space Areas and Facilities, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.       (10)

            Ordinance No. 8053, rezoning of (Z-12-80-05) establishing the 8th and Pennsylvania Overlay District, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.            (11)

Ordinance No. 8054, amending rezoning of (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres from M-2 (General Industrial) District and M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to CS (Commercial Strip) District, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive request from Landplan Engineering, PA, for formation of a benefit district for Oregon Trial Park.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                               (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Shirley Roberts, 1538 Delaware Street, and a Subordination Agreement for Nicole Demby, 1072 Home Circle.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (14)

Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, Ordinance 8061, a text amendment concerning the inclusion of private dining as a special use.  He asked whether a private dining establishment in certain RS, RSO and RMO districts would be required to meet the City’s commercial kitchen standards as if they were in a strip mall or free standing building.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said as part of the Special Use Permit (SUP) there would be a site plan submitted and then construction plans would need to be submitted to Neighborhood Resources for building permits for implementing that use.  She said it would be location specific if the proposal was a structure that did not have a commercial kitchen that would be a requirement because it would be a commercial use.  If it were a structure that already had a commercial kitchen installed, then it would not be specific to that SUP.  She said the building code would cover that requirement.

Commissioner Schauner asked as far as the location at 917 Delaware, would they be required as a condition of getting an SUP to submit a site plan and satisfy those commercial requirements as well.  He asked if they would have to go back through that same process.

Stogsdill said yes.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle to adopt on first reading Ordinance 8061 for text amendment TA-10-12-06, amending sections 20-402 and 20-1724 of the Development Code and adding sections 20-539 concerning the inclusion of private dining as a special use.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (15)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

David Corliss, City Manager, said the City Commission had an update on the construction of Kasold between Bob Billings Parkway and Augusta Drive.  He said they could see a number of the photos that highlight the excellent progress of that work. 

Also, there were a number of in-house items such as the recently adopted new City Code was now online through the great work of Scott Wagner, Legal Assistant, and a number of other people; employee meetings to discuss changes to Deferred Compensation 457 Plan; and the trees planted in West 6th Street islands.

Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to congratulate staff for their efforts in getting the commuter bus running from KU, Haskell, Johnson County Community College, and KU Edwards Campus. 

Corliss said that was a good item as well.  He said he knew Cliff Galante, Transit Administrator, and a number of other staff members set a good example of interlocal cooperation.                                                                                                                                     (16)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Receive report from Shirley Martin-Smith, chair of the Community Commission on Homelessness.  

 

            Shirley Martin-Smith said after working together for almost a year, the Community Commission on Homelessness, (CCH) agreed to participate on a retreat that was held on December 7th.  The purpose of the retreat was to try and move beyond personal frustration and discouragement, to produce a plan to implement the task force recommendations for consideration by the City Commission.  At their retreat, it happened that their Chair, Jane Faubion, resigned her position as chair on the CCH due to a career change and subsequent increased workload.   The CCH elected her to finish Faubion’s term as chair and she was happy to serve with Kim Gouge, Vice Chair, both representing business on the CCH. 

As a result of the retreat, they had been able to move beyond their differences and had a plan of work over the next 6 months to gain ground and focus on what must be done to move the task force recommendations forward.  The work plan would establish a common vision and desired outcomes for emergency shelter and service delivery for those who experience homelessness.  She said they would be taking the plan to the public with the assistance of the Community Cooperation Committee and that committee was responsible for doing their outreach and gathering information from the public so that they could bring their recommendations to the Commission. 

She said they anticipated a study session with the City Commission in June to review the recommendations and possible funding sources for those recommendations.  She said they knew this was an aggressive agenda, but they were committed to the task they had set for themselves and the City Commission had asked the CCH to do when they were appointed.  She said they have also asked the Salvation Army, ECAN and the Housing Authority to be part of their work groups over the next 6 months and to participate in the their meetings.  She said those groups agreed to do so, and wanted to be part of creating the plan and recommendations. 

            Mayor Amyx said the City Commission looked forward to that study session in June, if not before, and they could go over any host of items at that time.

Commissioner Highberger thanked the CCH for all their hard work.

Commissioner Rundle said a special thanks to Martin-Smith, along with Margene Swarts, Community Development Manager, and other staff.                                                  (17)

Consider request from Marcia and Steve Riley for the use of City streets on April 15, 2007 for marathon/run event.

 

            Neil Salkind, Vice President Health Care Access, said their firm provided Health Care for the uninsured.  He said their patients consisted mainly of working people not receiving benefits at their place of employment.  He said their staff worked for under market wages.  He said they provided services that saved the hospital approximately $6 million a year, which occurred by treating people and therefore, not needing to go to the emergency room. 

He said he wanted to discuss the City Commission consideration of forgiving the costs that would be associated with this event.  He said a regular visit to the doctor cost, $50 - $100.  He said their charges were zero, $10 at the most if someone could afford that amount.  He said he wanted to emphasize the importance of even the most modest savings because it provided an enormous amount of assistance in helping people who otherwise would not be able to be helped because they had limited resources as well. 

Commissioner Highberger asked if Salkind had an estimate for the amount of funds that were expected to be raised from this event.

Salkind said Steve or Marcia Riley could answer the question. 

            Steve Riley, Co-Director of the event, said formerly this race was to benefit the Raintree Montessori School, but because of health issues, the race was cancelled.  He said they decided to go on with the race and approach Health Care Access with the idea they would be the beneficiaries.  He said this run would showcase historic and notable places in Lawrence.  He said Raintree was a big destination and thought they had over 1600 registered last year from 20 states; just over 50% were from outside Lawrence.  He said they have a lot of out of town and state people coming in.  He said it was a well known established running event. 

Mayor Amyx asked about the estimate after expenses.

Marcia Riley, Co-Director, said last year they generated about $21,000 and there was prize money for the race.  She said they wanted a good quality race that attracted runners and would be a wonderful fundraiser.  She said where many races in the area had not grown, Raintree had grown exponentially.  She said this race had outgrown the bike path where the race was first started.  She said many people supported the run because of Raintree, now it was supported because of Healthcare Access Clinic.  She said when they realized the clinic had a $38,000 budget cut this year they decided the clinic was the place to receive those benefits and they were hoping to raise $21,000.  She said there was a lot of expense this year, such as Police and Fire and Medical and tried to work very closely with the City.  She said they were hoping to make a big dent in Health Care Access funding loss.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the proceeds of the 2007 race go directly to Health Care Access.

Marcia Riley said for the 5K and the half marathon, the proceeds would benefit Health Care Access Clinic.  This year, the logical bridge was to help the Huston Family, the grandchild of Leanna and Keith McReynolds, who had a number lot of health problems.  She said this year Health Care Access knew this run would benefit only the Huston family.  Next year, the entire run would benefit Health Care Access.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there were three separate runs.

Marcia Riley said there were three separate races:  a half marathon, which was 13.1 miles, a 5K, which was 3.1 miles, and then a one mile fun run. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the proceeds from the fun run only would be going to the Huston Family and the other proceeds would go to Health Care Access.

Marcia Riley said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the overhead costs.

            Steve Riley said there was prize money, approximately $300 for first place and $200 for second.  He said they had awards and administration fee of $5,000.  He said they also had t-shirt awards and food.  He said there was sponsor support for this race. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the $21,000 figure mentioned earlier was a gross amount or net. 

            Marcia Riley said that that amount was net.  She said she had been really working hard on sponsorship.  She said Luminous Neon Inc, a local company, would supply the signs and that company wanted the City to be notified of those signs.  She said this year their half marathon fees were from $30 - $35 a runner; the 5K fees were $20 - $25; and, the fun run was from $10 – $12.  She said a place like Kansas City to have 1,000 people to show up for a race was nothing, but for Lawrence, 1,000 people was a tribute to what the Raintree Run had built up to be. 

            Steve Riley said there were a number of small cities that brought people and had landmark races.  He said there were comparable size cities that did bring in large races that enjoy the benefits from those runs.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the race drew participants from a broad area. 

Steve Riley said they had 20 different states from the register, and 52% were from outside the Lawrence zip code.

Mayor Amyx asked about the course and how long sections of those streets would be closed.

Steve Riley said there would not be any places that were technically closed.  He said traffic would be allowed to go on the streets, but they would have volunteers at every intersection and warning signs.  He said downtown would be restricted from going into Massachusetts Street from approximately 8:00 – 8:50 on a Sunday morning and from 23rd Street to 19th and Learnard, in-going traffic would be restricted for that same period.  He said those were the only two areas that would be restricted. 

Mayor Amyx asked whether 23rd Street would be closed.

Steve Riley said no, 23rd Street would not be closed.  He said the run would be directed under the bridge just north of Haskell and 23rd Street was not affected at all.  He said they had permission to run on Jayhawk Boulevard and Oread Avenue.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they anticipated this event being annual and would ask the City for assistance annually.

Steve Riley said he hoped it would be an annual event and would appreciate any assistance.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be an expectation that event would ask the City to help sponsor on an annual basis in asking for assistance. 

Steve Riley said yes.

Mayor Amyx said half of those runners would be coming from outside the Lawrence area.  He said without spending someone else’s budget, having visitors come to this type of event was something the City Commission should look at.  He said if the City Commission wished to proceed with this event, this event should be looked at first because this seemed to be a bed tax funding source. 

            Nikki King, Health Care Access Clinic, said she wanted to publicly thank the Riley’s and the Riley’s were part of the response in answering the call for help from the clinic because of the massive cut from state funding and the clinic was looking locally for help.  She said this was a gift that came to the clinic and ongoing potential funding source that could grow and grow.  The Riley’s had worked tirelessly and knew it had been a very big undertaking for them to move this course off of the nice, safe compact bike path and into the City. She said the Riley’s had seen the value of the clinic’s services and wanted to help the clinic grow and do more to serve the uninsured of Douglas County.

Secondly, on the personal side, she witnessed her husband’s first marathon in Tucson last weekend.  She said she appreciated what all it took to pull this type of event off.  She said she was excited for Lawrence and the potential of all those visitors so Lawrence could showcase their town. 

            Karin Feltman, Lawrence, said she worked at Lawrence Memorial Hospital and volunteered at Health Care Access.  She said she wanted to thank the City Commission for considering this event and was asking for City Commission support from the Emergency Room (ER) and community standpoint.  They enjoyed a wonderful relationship with Health Care Access and knew in the ER appreciated the clinic in referring their patients to.  She said many times the ER had patients that needed to be referred to other doctor’s offices and some of those offices would not treat those patients and those patients could not pay or did not have insurance.  The only other option, besides sending them to Health Care Access, would be for those patients to come back to the emergency department and incur another emergency charge and take up another bed that someone in the community needs and might be unable to be seen in a timely fashion because they had rechecks or visits coming into the ER.  She urged support of the request to continue the relationship because it was a great service to the community and hospital.    

            Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, spoke in support of the request.  He said he had the opportunity to use the services of Health Care Access.  He said due to his former homeless situation he was unable to pay for his services, but now was able to pay the minimum charge of $10 every time he visited the clinic.  He said he found the clinic to be extremely beneficial to the homeless community and especially to him.  He said he recommend the fee be waived or find another source to pay for that event.

Mayor Amyx said this event was a good idea and encouraged the Riley’s to work with staff.  He asked the City Manager to work with the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau to work on that particular request if this event was going to be an on-going request.  

He asked staff to draft a policy regarding those types of events so there was some type of consistency on how those future events were looked at and funded. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she appreciated the comments about Health Care Access because it was one of her favorite organizations in town and the clinic served the community well.  In many ways, this clinic saved the community money when strictly looking at the financial aspect, which was not the way she would prefer to look at that clinic because the service to the community was invaluable.  She said King was to be applauded for the good work she did at the clinic.  She said she was very supportive of the run and the proceeds going to Health Care Access.   She said she was a little concerned about the administrative costs and would like to get some comparative information about that with other communities. 

She said the City had outstanding police and fire/medical staff and she wanted to make sure the work with those departments was done in a cooperative manner because those departments were the experts and knew how to make this event safe for the participants. 

She said regarding future policy, at one point, the City Commission had requests for outside agency funding, outside of the City’s budget cycle.  She said Commissioner Rundle, at the time, introduced some good criteria to help assess the needs because the City Commission would like to help everyone.  She asked staff to find out other community’s practices for those types of special needs and still maintain some health of the City’s own budget. She said she supported waiving those fees, but asked that the money be capped at $5,600.  She said if more money was required, that it be absorbed by the sponsors of the race.

Commissioner Rundle said he would welcome the opportunity to have a broad discussion about the guest tax funding.  He said obviously, it seemed clear this was an investment that had a payback in terms of public health costs and bringing in those sales tax and guest tax dollars from outside the community.  He said driving the sales tax and tourism into the community was something that should be practiced everyday. 

Commissioner Highberger said it was a great event and obviously Health Care Access was a worthy recipient of those funds.  He said he was somewhat ambivalent about waiving fees.  He said on one hand, as Vice Mayor Hack pointed out, it was essentially out of the budget cycle request.  On the other hand, there was the economic development consideration which was one of the items identified in the staff memo, which was close to a policy already, about things to consider when deciding to waive the fees.  He said he would be willing to waive the fees this time, but really liked the Mayor’s idea of looking at the Convention and Visitors Bureau money for this event in the future or even for this time if it was a possibility.

Commissioner Schauner asked staff if CVB funds could be used for this purpose. 

David Corliss, City Manager, said staff could look at the City’s Reserve Fund.  He said the $5,600 could be absorbed, but he wanted to discuss this event with Judy Billings, Executive Vice President, Convention and Visitors Bureau, about making recommendations to the City Commission as the City Commission funded those types of events.  He said CVB funding could be looked at for 2007 and in coming years.  He said the CVB was dependent on that revenue source and would not want to change rules midstream on their budget because the CVB did not have much flexibility for funding.  He said those events did bring in a number of people that sleep, eat, and other things while they were in this community.

Commissioner Schauner said he also echoed the concern of other Commissioners about out of cycle requests.  He said the City Commission found themselves in this trap of having to say “no” to good causes, and clearly this was a good cause.  He said he would like to see a revisit of the mid-budget funding policy.  He said he would also like to see if CVB could provide any sense of how many additional beds were sold the night before that race.  He said it would be nice to have something other than just guesstimates about what this event did in terms of sales tax revenue at least at the hotel and lodging level.

Marcia Riley said they reserved rooms in different hotels for the participants.  One year they reserved over 40 rooms, at Best Western Inn which sold out and would reserve rooms at the Holiday Inn Express and Days Inn for this coming year.  She said they received calls from runners from out of town, all the time, about rooms being filled and wanting to know where to stay.  She said they did reserve rooms for runners and those rooms were always filled. 

She said they were getting neighborhoods involved in hosting water stations and cheering people on the run.  She said it was nice to hear from the Neighborhood Associations about how they were really excited to be involved in this event.

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to waive the fees as requested, but cap the City’s expense at $5600; and to direct staff to look at Convention and Visitor’s Bureau funds for this purpose and to develop a policy for guidance on future requests of this type.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                    (18)

 

 

 

Conduct public hearing to consider the vacation of 7.5’ utility easement along the southern part of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, Bobwhite Addition, as requested by Bobwhite Meadow LP.

 

            Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said Bobwhite Addition and Stephens-Noller Addition were attempting to combine a shared water detention facility for stormwater.  He said the City’s Stormwater Engineer looked at that request and thought it was a good idea.  He said all utilities and property owners were notified and staff received no objections.  He said staff recommended approval of the vacation. 

Mayor Amyx said as utilities were needed on that future site, he asked if utilities would come from the east and head to the west along the southern line.

Soules said utilities could come down so far, but not through the detention center because of potential standing water. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about the area to the south that was undeveloped.

Soules said there would be utilities at Research Park Drive and there was an easement that ran along the backside of those lots that were developed and there were probably sewer mains that could be tied into.

Mayor Amyx asked if there was enough space in those easements for utilities.

Soules said there should be enough space.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Soules was sure the utilities ran through the back of the property instead of the front.

Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said the sewer line runs along Bob Billings Parkway.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the sewer line ran south on Research Park Drive or along the back of the properties that abut Stevens Addition.

            Herndon said this utility easement ran along the back of the lots which was mostly for electrical, cable, phone, and other utilities.  He said the sanitary sewer line that would serve those two lots ran along Bob Billings Parkways.  He said there was another run of sanitary sewer to the south that the property to the south would be served by.  He said there was also a utility corridor along the south edge and in his discussions with Soules and through site plan reviews for the property, which was a recently approved site plan, utility access was abundant. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if serving all the undeveloped property to the south of the property would not be inhibited or made more difficult by the vacation of this particular easement.

Herndon said one of those particular runs would be intended for electrical, phone, or cable, services.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the access points.

Herndon said there was a median break on Bob Billings Parkways which access into the lot would occur one day.  He said the recent site plan was for another property.  He said access was limited to 300 feet to Bob Billings Parkway to its access point.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a planned break in the median to access Bobwhite Addition rather than a cross access easement.

Herndon said it was not a planned break, that break existed today and was constructed on the 15th Street project at the time 15th Street was widened. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously. 

            Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Order of Vacation.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (19)

 

Receive recommendation from the Board of Directors of the Lawrence Public Library for a new library facility.  Receive staff report concerning debt and operating budget financing options.

 

            John Nalbandian, Chair, Lawrence Library Board, said the library has experienced unprecedented growth in the last 8 years.  The one fact that really turned his head on the library was the number of card holders.  He said there were 70,000 card holders in the Lawrence Public Library.  He said that number was purged every three years for people who did not use their cards.  He said it was purged down to 50,000 card holders and that amount went back up as people moved to Lawrence.  He said this year, for the first time, they were reaching the one millionth item would be circulated from the library.  The library staff estimated that would occur on Thursday afternoon between 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. 

He said when the library was considering expansion of the services, in order to respond to this kind of demand, the City Commission told the Library Board two things: 1) look and find out what a 21st Century library would look like; and, 2) make sure to focus on the downtown.  He said they thought the City Commission was trying to capitalize, at that time, on the economic benefits a library would bring to downtown.  He said from past experiences they knew that a new library would dramatically increase a patronage and the number of people that come and use the downtown.  He said at the same time they talk about an economic benefit, it was also clear from other new libraries, that libraries have become the new community centers.  Libraries were places where people from all walks of life were coming together.  He said they were what he called a “social intersection” and they wanted that to reoccur downtown.  He said they developed a library proposal that would have matched any other contemporary library in the country.  He said they wanted to leverage a private investment to see what they could generate in terms of public/private proposals.  He said unfortunately, they got what they asked for.  He said it was unfortunate because the price tag was too much and the public/private proposals were blockbusters and were more than they could realistically get their hands around and they were taking time to regroup.  He said they asked themselves how they could back off from the original goal and not sacrifice what was essential to a 2025 projection.  He said they thought they were bringing to the City Commission a realistic proposal.  He said what the Library Board would like the City Commission to accept was the Library Board’s recommendation which included a site and also included the scope of the project, the $94,000 and $30 million estimate.  He said the Board would like the City Commission to ask staff to develop a work plan and timetable that included an opportunity for the City Commission to discuss some type of funding mechanism for that project.

Steve Clark, Gould Evans, said their current purpose was to present a plan in a downtown location and where the best location was for Lawrence as a whole.  He said consultants took a look at the library.  He said what the Library Board was currently presenting was not the consultant’s idea of what Lawrence should have.  He said they listened to the community and City staff and had been working on this project since November and December of last year.  He said there were numerous public meetings and while there were discussions about the details of the project, they focused mostly on the services that would be provided and how they would serve the community.  He said the report indicated the number of comments of the library staff as a whole and what they had done.  He said the question was about how big they could build that library.  He said the original program was almost 140,000 square feet and by a couple sets of revisions and keeping the collection items at about 80% of a 140,000 square foot library, and also by making sure they did not cut any important programs, the square footage was down to 94,000. 

He said the library currently had crowded situations.  He said what they got with this proposal was upgraded space for those programs and dedicated spaces.  He said the library would also increase the per capita collection size from 3.18 to 3.43, with the increase in population.  He said that meant as the population increased, they were also increasing the per capita through maintaining the collection size by 80%, they were going to take them out to 2020, which was a good window to build and give the city a chance for other strategies. 

He said they developed a budget that was based on the cost per square foot which was $215.  He said what that meant was with the library and parking was about $21.7 million; the furnishing, equipment and signs were $2.7 million; and the library foundation was committed to raising $2 million to the equipment and signage.  He said other costs with escalation would add up to about $30 million in total project costs. 

He said their process was to identify what kind of criteria they might use and then remove the criteria they felt would not be differentiating criteria people saw across the board.  He said they also had some special considerations and additions that cropped up.  He said they used library function as the top criteria, planning and neighborhood issues, parking, access to parking, phasing and operational functions.  There were a number of things they kept constant, for example, they did not think it was appropriate to use the numbers of the developers and thought they would build the building cheaper because that was a simply a cheaper building which might or might not be what the library still needed to have. 

He said concerning the sale of the current site, some of the proposals said they were going to discount their number by the sale of the current site.  He said they did not feel in the subcommittee and the board that they could count on them signing that, so they took that one off the table as well. 

He said concerning aesthetics, they also thought every team would be happy to design a library in a way the library wished it would look.  He said they thought that could be considered across the board.  He said developer qualifications would be something they could look into if they decided to enter into some negotiations. 

He presented a site plan of the Eldridge District and a score sheet.  He said they used three rankings.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the check meant.

Clark said the check meant that it basically met the criteria of the library.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the plus meant it met and exceeded it.

            Clark said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the dash meant.

            Clark said the dash or minus meant they had concerns developing that.  He said in this case, the concern for the feasibility of moving the post office and also the time to get that accomplished.  He said this had been narrative in the report, parking as an example was seen as a plus instead of a check in this case because of the bulk of parking in this particular proposal allowed flexibility.  He said by moving the library over, it would lessen the competition of parking. 

Commissioner Schauner said if the library was built on the site as per the recommendation of the current post office, he asked if that ground cost was included in the numbers presented.  

            Clark said no.  He said that would be part of the negotiation with the developer.

Commissioner Schauner said that number at $30 million really was not fully complete if it left out the ground cost.

Clark said it was a budget for the library to be constructed and they kept those other sorts of land costs out.

Commissioner Schauner asked if any of those numbers were numbers that did not take into account land costs unless it would be the current site.

Clark said even on the current site it was basically not going to apply because they would not get a discount for using the land.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they had any additional costs for ground if they built on a different site.

            Clark said yes. 

Commissioner            Schauner said if there was a swap, for example.

            Clark said yes.  He said in this case, they would not renegotiate.    

David Corliss, City Manager, said the responses to the proposals were proposals from property owners for sites and what Clark and the library had done was said that for $30 million the library could get a 94,000 square foot facility that did all of those things for library criteria and the appropriate parking.  He said from that point, there were recommendations for sites and did not have the rest of the negotiation or detail items that had to be worked out.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to be clear the numbers the City Commission  were seeing did not take into account any ground costs, whether there were any or not.  He said the only thing they knew were the costs to construct the building, furnish the building, and parking.

Corliss said for $30 million they get a 94,000 square foot library facility and the appropriate parking for that size of facility in a downtown setting.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to be clear that any number seen on any of those proposals would have some potential for additional costs for the ground on which the property sat.

Commissioner Hack said she did not know if that could be said completely.

Corliss said they could say the possibility existed for that to be true. 

            Commissioner Schauner said for example, if they swapped current site for post office ground, they would have give up something of value to get the post office site, which was a cost.

Clark said the 800 New Hampshire proposal included some concerns about planning issues, parking, phasing and operational costs.  Some of those concerns were not concerns that had been validated but were raised as questions. 

He said 9-10, LC, directly north of the Arts Center, the main questions relative to the operational cost was the configuration and everything else had to do with concerns of the neighborhood and the current district. 

He said the current site main issue was the construction disruption, safety concerns and also the competition for parking on the site.  Even though they had doubled the parking pad on the site currently, but the competition for the parking spaces remained the same because the demand for the library went up.  He said they ranked the options scientifically. 

He said their recommendations were:

1.      Recommend the Eldridge Redevelopment Plan site location as the best for delivering services in the future;

2.      Request that due diligence on the feasibility of moving the post office begin immediately; and

3.      Recommend that the City budget for Library operations in 2009 be set at $5 million.

 

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss to review the funding options staff memo.

Corliss said staff worked on a memorandum that provided the City Commission with some background on possible operational cost impact and debt service impact for this project.  He said right now there was no debt service on the current library and the library relied heavily on the City for property tax revenues, roughly 90% of the library’s operational budget was the City’s mill levy which was 3.2 mills right now.  He said in discussions with Bruce Flanders, Library Director, one of the questions staff had was what the impact would be of essentially doubling the size of the library.  He said concerning operational costs, one way to look at it was square footage in the sense there would be square footage for the number of books in the library, services, staffing, and operational costs and it made sense to look at the square footage and essentially if they were doubling the square footage, they would need to double the amount of property taxes the community provided to the library.

He said the library was currently at 3.2 mills and estimated the new library facility would cost about $5 million in property taxes in 2009 to operate.  He said there was a Charter Ordinance that capped the library mill levy at 4, but there was a provision in the Charter Ordinance that allowed that number to be exceeded by the passage of an ordinary ordinance.  He said it would make sense for them to get that cleaned up before they use property taxes as a funding source.  He said they thought the mill levy to operate the facility in 2009 would be 4.9 mills.

He said then they looked at opportunities to build a $30 million facility and they would need to use debt for that facility.  He said there was not a statutory requirement that there be an election for debt for public library in a dollar amount, but the Commission has through all of those discussions throughout the past several months indicated that because of the size of this project it would be appropriate to put before the voters. 

He said the memorandum indicted the mill levy estimates to what a $30 million bond issue would be and that would be roughly about 2.5 mills for a 20 year issuance for that facility. 

He said they also had as an option for a sales tax as the City Commission had been previously briefed.  The Kansas Legislature had given cities additional sales tax authority.  He said they currently have a City 1% sales tax and they were also the beneficiary of the county’s 1% sales tax that was enacted in the mid -1990’s. 

He said the City Commission had additional information in the memorandum that outlined sales tax revenue and also did not need to go to a full 1% sales tax.  He said currently the 1% sales tax brought in $12 million per year.  If the City had a 1% sales tax, the City could pay off a $30 million bond issuance in 3 years.  He said sales tax enactments by cities required an election regardless if it was used for debt purposes or not.

He said obviously they could combine those revenue sources and could do it all with sales tax including an operating fund for library services with property taxes or a mix.  He said staff still had not come up with different combinations as to what that would be. 

The other thing the memorandum did not go into was using tax increment financing for some of the public improvements such as a parking garage.  He said he thought it was a little premature to begin those discussions and might be something to proceed with.  He said if this choice proceeded, staff had been in some discussions with Thomas Fritzel about what he wanted to do with Eldridge redevelopment projects and it did make sense to explore tax increment financing as a means to help pay for some of the public improvements.

Commissioner Schauner said one of the underlying assumptions with respect to the mill levy increase was necessary to support operating and maintenance, and/or the debt financing of the construction, was a 5% annual increase in the assessed valuation.  He said based on recent conversations he asked Corliss if that was a reasonable number.  He said he thought they were talking more like 3 – 4% as a reasonable assessed valuation increase year to year.

            Corliss said the information they had from the County was the assessed valuation growth for 2007 building the 2008 budget was likely to be between 4% and 5%.

Mayor Amyx said his property did not go up by much and doubted half of the properties in town went up. 

Corliss said he did not think properties went up.  He said the properties might have gone up 1% or 2% and there was also a 2% growth in new construction which would get to 4%.  He said that was not the 5% in the memo.  He said when he and Ed Mullins, Finance Director, discussed that amount, they recognized it was over a period of time and historically had higher assessed valuation growth than 5% or 4%.  He said if they were at 4% to build the 2008 budget, they were lower than the 5% that was in the memo but over time they were likely to average 5%.  He said they could be more conservative and have a lower number, but staff was comfortable with the 5% for that longer range debt commitment.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the memo, the 1.642 additional mills for operating and maintenance, and assumed that was a number they would see increase as general operating costs go up over time, and 2.5 mills on debt service on the construction site, totaled just over 4 mills and a mill raises in the range of $800,000 this year.  He said they would be looking at roughly $3.3 million annually in debt and operating and maintenance expense.

Corliss said one of the significant things to point out was the City was at 26 mills and change right now.  He said if this scenario was used and they relied on property tax and were at 7.5 mills, they were at a healthy percentage of property taxes for library services.  He said one of the concerns that he relayed to others, was when making decisions about this, they needed to see all of the City’s capital needs.  He said the City Commission was going to discuss in January, the City’s capital needs.  He said a lot of the capital needs had a funding source.  He said people pointed to the wastewater treatment plant and the City was ready to embark in the next few weeks on bidding the Clinton Water Treatment Plant expansion, that had a separate funding source, the water and sewer rates.  He said not to minimize that impact to the Lawrence citizens and the rates they paid, but it had a dedicated funding source. He said they had other property tax needs.  He said Kasold was a $6 million commitment to rebuild that.  He said he did not want to be frightened by those numbers, but the City Commission needed to see those numbers all at once and recognize they could do a lot of these projects, but in many cases, they had to prioritize when they would be able to proceed with each one of those projects.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission needed to setup that discussion to look at all of the current projects.  He said the City Commission had some major concerns to consider in the next few years.  He said he wanted to thank everyone who had been involved in this project.  He said now it was the City Commission’s job to weigh the library, along with the other projects.  He said maybe the library was the highest priority in this community, but he did not know if the City Commission was ready to make that decision, but thought the Commission needed to address other projects. 

He said as much as he would like to see a bond issue placed on the April ballot that could not happen because the City was not ready.  He said the City Commission and Library Board needed to have discussions to make sure everyone was on the same page and supportive of the same plan.  He said it would be good for the City Commission to have discussions with the Library Board of Directors in conjunction with staff to look at other priorities over the next couple of years and place a priority system that the public would know the direction the City Commission was headed in terms of financing.  He said the City Commission needed to be careful in setting their priorities on how the public’s money was being spent.  He said it was important for the public to recognize the City Commission took their jobs very seriously and make sure the money that was collected from those taxpayers went in the best direction the City Commission knew how.

Commissioner Schauner said the part of the proposal Clarke went through indicated the Library Board made a commitment to raise in the neighborhood of $2 million.  He asked Nalbandian if $2,000,000 was realistic and how long would that fund raising project would take. 

Nalbandian said they were trying to make sure the money that was raised by the foundation was not for the building itself, but for things that went into the building so there was variation in how much they received and what they could put in.  He said that number came from what other communities had raised.  He said there were a number of fundraising efforts that were going on right now.  He said they had been cautious about trying to get a realistic idea of what that number was.  He said that number was based on the number they saw in other places. 

Mayor Amyx asked if Nalbandian would be in support of a study session to go over the recommendation, take public comment, address the items on how the site was selected and funding sources.  He asked if Nalbandian believed that April was too early to hold an election on any type of bond issue or funding for the new library.

Nalbandian said he thought if it took a public vote, April was too soon because even if the City Commission asked for a public vote in April, he thought they needed to design this building in order for people to get a sense of what the building would look like, the location, and other information.  He said they needed a picture that was more or less realistic and they were not prepared to design the project itself and it was going to take some time to do that.

He said as to the study session, he thought that if the City Commission’s primary goal was to determine where the library fit in a set of priorities, the City Commission did not need a study session to talk about the pros and cons of this site and they did not need the pros and cons if it was going to cost $35 million or $25 million.  He said if they were going to decide on priorities, he believed the City Commission had enough information to decide where the library would fit. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she would like discussion with the Library Board and staff as to that specific location.  She said she understood the plusses and the minuses and absolutely trusted their judgment because she did not believe the City had another Board or staff that was as committed to this facility.  She said on the surface it seemed okay, but she did not know if that was the generally feeling of the City Commission and moving the Commission to Nalbandian’s direction might be important.

            Nalbandian said what might be useful was a written report.  He said they could be a little more explicit on the discussion.  He said if they wanted to talk about that in a study session they could do that.

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission was going to waive the idea of study session at this time, he asked for additional information in a report format.  He said the City Commission should look at other issues and package those issues all together in an election because they knew there were other items waiting.

            Nalbandian said the Library Board needed to know, at this point, where this project fit in the City Commission’s priorities.  He said the Board would encourage the City Commission, if the Commission could not endorse this project at this time, the Board would encourage the City Commission to go ahead and do what was needed to find out where this project would fit.  He said given the amount of money that a one cent increase would generate, he could easily see the City Commission packing a library with a set of other proposals and coming up with something that would take the City into the 21st Century.

Commissioner Schauner said the mood about this presentation tonight had been a little somber and did not reflect the level of support on the City Commission for a significantly improved library facility.  He said the somberness came from the question of how they would pay for that facility.  He said as the Mayor indicated, there were a number of competing priorities from things as humble as streets to sewers and things that were really basic to their mission.  He said he did not want the Library Board to walk out of the meeting believing the City Commission had a low level of enthusiasm for an investment of this quality.  He said he did not think that would be an inaccurate take away.  He said to the extent the City Commission could find a way to present an attractive proposal to voters, whether it was in April or August, it was a worth while endeavor and thought they were committed as a Commission to doing that.

Nalbandian said he was having a little déjà vu, because in the mid 1990’s the City was faced with needing a jail, expanded visiting nurses facility, Bert Nash and the Health Department needed new facilities, the school district wanted to build a second high school and they were trying to figure out how to fund a Parks and Recreation Master Plan.  He said the City Commission combined those needs and challenged the City Commission with that same task. 

Commissioner Schauner said one of the challenges for management was to look at the raised revenue from the Parks and Recreation sales tax.  He said he thought they had some of that debt coming offline in the near future while and Parks and Recreation had the lion’s share of that money for some time and that might be the way to do some additional capital projects including the library facility without additional ad valorem tax and/or sales tax. 

Vice Mayor Hack said it would also reduce property tax which was another huge component.

Commissioner Schauner said in the last three years or so, every time the City Commission built a budget, he thought the assessed value had gone up on property in the last three years, but believed the mill levy might be lower than it was in 2003.  He said this Commission and its predecessors had done a good job in keeping that mill levy down, but people were still paying higher taxes for other reasons out of the City Commission’s control such as the appraisal of property and other taxing entity’s mill levy increases. 

Nalbandian thanked the Commission for their encouragement and interest.

Mayor Amyx asked how quickly that information could be obtained for the City Commission. 

Corliss said it would be good if the Library Board could rearticulate what the Board was asking for such as the pros and cons of the site.  He said what might be just as valuable was if Commissioners had specific questions about why this site was selected versus other sites.  He suggested that information be sent to him, and he could work with Clark and others and articulate that information.  He said Clark told staff about the criteria that was used and it was a matter of judgment on how they wanted to judge those certain items and they could go into further detail if individual Commissioners or the full Commission wanted.

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commissioners had any additional questions, to have those questions to Corliss by January 5, 2007.  He said he would like the Library Board to respond to those questions within one week and then have this matter back on the agenda for a public hearing and discuss the recommendation of the Library Board and get answers to the funding plan and what items were needed to take to the public for an election.   He said the City Commission needed to give direction regarding the location on whether they concurred with the Library Board.  

Nalbandian said he wanted to be clear about want they wanted from the Library Board.  He asked if the City Commission wanted the Library Board to help with response to the City Commission’s specific questions.

Mayor Amyx said whatever additional questions the Commission might have.

Nalbandian asked if the City Commission would work with Corliss to establish a process to develop priorities.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission would look at other items to see if there was a package that could be combined similar to what was accomplished in the 1990’s.

Vice Mayor Hack said if there was any additional information in terms of the Board’s decision making process that information would be helpful.  She said if this was a summary of all that information, she could work through that summary.

            Nalbandian said Clark indicated the information was in the report that was presented to the City Commission without going into a level of detail they would not be comfortable going into.

Commissioner Highberger said at the risk of being too frank, one of the main concerns about this decision was his sense for this proposal was the library has not been the first priority in the proposal and the location had been dependent on other concerns of the developer.  He said he needed to be reassured that this location was good for the library. 

Nalbandian said if looking at the criteria used, they prioritized the criteria and function was the highest priority.  He said they were trying to be sensitive to the idea of bringing it back.  He said subsequently, he talked to the developers and indicated they needed to work with the City and find a way to make sure this project was the City’s project and not the developer’s project.  He said he was trying to respond to what he knew Commissioner Highberger was sensitive to and the Board was sensitive to that issue as well.

Commissioner Highberger said he wanted it to be clear that he was very enthusiastic of this project and a project that needed to move forward for the City of Lawrence, but the City Commission needed to be careful about how they spend public funds.  He said he did not think any City became great by being stingy, either.  He said the City would bare the benefit of a lot of sacrifices other people had made in the past that gave this City some of the great things it had.  He said they needed to be willing to take a look at it themselves and appreciated all the hard work they put into this.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the parking load availability at the current site as redeveloped as compared with the post office site as recommended.

Clark said the minimum parking at the post office site was 260 parking places, but the library would like more parking.  One of the difficulties in evaluating the proposals was basically any proposal could give the library more parking if they paid more for it.  He said basically, if they tried to get to an apples and apples consideration, just because one person said they could provide more parking, did not necessarily mean the others could not.  He said all of the structured parking included underground components except for one that used the City garage. He said to that degree, the current site could use more parking if they paid for it going down.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the price tag was $30 million at the Eldridge site and if they provided the same 260 parking places at the current library site, what did that do to the price tag.

Clark said technically it was the budget and not the cost estimate.  He said they were calculating the City could get 260 cars for that budgeted money.  He said in both situations on the library side and post office side, they were building, in essence, the same parking garage for the same number of cars, which could be considered as equivalent.   

Mayor Amyx said those were the types of questions to expect over the next couple of weeks.

Bruce Flanders, Library Director, said the Lawrence Public Library was experiencing a renaissance in service and their services and usage at the library were exploding.  He said they had seen a 66% increase in library usage in the last 8 years which made them feel very proud and pleased because it was being done on an operating budget that was at the 25th percentile relative to libraries in peer communities.  He said he thought they were providing tremendous value for public dollars in the library and extending service each and every day as they reinvent library service and move into the 21st Century. 

He said they were in a facility now that was perhaps dramatically undersized for Lawrence today as the Carnegie Building was in the mid 1960’s for a community that had a population of 40,000.  He said they were experiencing that same level of crowded, difficult service in the building that was spacious in 1972, but now that building was dictating what services they could provide to the community rather than allowing them to extend service further. 

He thanked the City Commission for their consideration and interest in the library and they would follow up to respond to the Commission’s questions and hopefully provide the information to make a good decision. 

Mayor Amyx said with the additional questions the City Commission planned to ask along with the information from the City Manager concerning other items the City would face in the next year, this item would placed on the City Commission’s agenda for a public hearing. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she did not think the City Commission was at a point to make a decision as to location, funding, or where this project fell on the priority list.  She said the City Commission needed to receive more information and then have the public hearing.     

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Hubbard Collingsworth asked if the library would be built on the piece of ground that was supposed to be the hotel component and how many spaces would they get out of the parking garage in addition to the additional parking to bring it up to the 260 level.

            Corliss said the Library Board was recommending the City work with the Eldridge Redevelopment Group to acquire the post office for the location and not pursue the 900 Block of New Hampshire site.  He said the City was not focused on that parking possibility.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the $2,000,000 contribution from the Library Foundation, which brought it down to $30 million, he asked if that money would be used to enhance the newly constructed facility or was it a $2,000,000 reduction in what their costs of construction would otherwise be. 

Flanders said that would be a reduction in the expenses that would otherwise be incurred.  He said as pointed out in a financial chart, there would be approximately $2.7 million in costs to furnish the library and that would be offset, to a larger extent, by private funds they anticipated raising through the Library Foundation.  He said those funds would be used to equip the library with furnishings, equipment, technology, computer access, shelving and things that would be contained within the expanded library building.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was an expectation that if the $2,000,000 had not been raised by the time the building were completed, that equipment would not be in place.

Flanders said they could make due for a period of time, with existing shelving and furnishings from the current building.  The Library Foundation was waiting for a clear direction from the Library Board and City Commission in terms of the feasibility of this project and taking this project to the public for vote, at which point they would begin to actively fundraise.  He said it was their anticipation that a large portion, if not all, of those funds could be raised so the timing would be right to equip the building when it was constructed.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Flander’s belief, at the moment, the equipment of the new facility with different shelving, computer systems and so forth would be largely paid for through this contribution from the Library Foundation.

Flanders said yes.

Clark said to clarify, in all the libraries they have worked on, the $2.7 million was a good average number to outfit the facility.  He said it was an actual budget number to fill out the interior.

Betty Alderson, Lawrence, commended the Commission for not making a decision at this time.  She said she did not know if the City Commission was just receiving a report from the Library Board or if the City Commission was going to act upon the site because she had some of the same questions that Commissioner Highberger had.  She said she, for one, was totally in favor of the library expansion, but had a lot of questions about a public/private partnership.  She said she would need additional information before she would be ready to vote on using tax dollars.  She said she would not have a problem on voting on an increase in taxes on the library and thought there were other people who felt the same way.  She said she wanted to know where the development would be located and the parking.  She said she was in favor of parking garages because land was valuable and if they could go up and use some of the air space and park and try to use the “T” more.  She said the public needed more information and the location of the library.

Mayor Amyx said the Commission would be asking those types of questions before they made a decision some time next month. 

Commissioner Rundle said he supported the library expansion.   He said he agreed with the comments in the report that the library should invigorate the downtown area because it would be a boost to the library expansion.  He said it was appropriate to consider the expansion of the hotel.  The redevelopment part of this issue was something the City Commission needed to participate in designating the types of things they wanted to see.  He said a proposal with a overwhelming impact could invigorate downtown although he realized they did not have the luxury of going back to the beginning and deciding all of this issue two years ago.

He said he also thought the City deferred much infrastructure including the library over the years and the inflationary factor of buying for today was not as cheap as buying 10 or 12 years ago.  He said he was concerned about the feasibility and thought the City Commission was painted into a corner.       

            Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to defer receiving a recommendation from the Board of Directors of the Lawrence Public Library for a new library facility until such time as individual Commissioners provide questions to staff and the Library Board and library staff provide responses to those questions and additional information.  Motion carried unanimously.   

    (20)

Consider approving Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA-2006-01), Horizon 2020, Chapters 4 & 5.

 

David Guntert, Planner, presented the staff report.  He said Chapter 4 was the growth management chapter in Horizon 2020 and also Chapter 5, which was the residential land use chapter in Horizon 2020.  Those chapter amendments originated from the Board of County Commissioners and were initiated for a public hearing back in January of this year.  Those amendments were part of the overall package of documents that were coming forward in dealing with how rural development was handled and the new subdivision regulation, specifically those portions that dealt with rural development.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 2006 on the two chapter amendments and forwarded those chapters to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval on an 8-1-1 vote.  Those chapter amendments were before the Board of County Commissioners in October and passed the chapter amendments on a 3-0 vote. 

The documents that were part of their packet reflected the changes made by the City Commission, Planning Commission, and the League of Women Voters.  He said staff provided a brief comparison of Chapter 13, which was a document the Planning Commission developed regarding rural development.  There was a new chapter added to Horizon 2020 and how those recommendations in Chapters 4 and 5 related to what was done by the Planning Commission. 

Commissioner Schauner said there had been discussion about the concept of transferable development rights.  He asked how Guntert would describe the status of that discussion to date.

Guntert said the Board of County Commissioners was opened to that discussion and would like to proceed with that discussion with the Planning Commission about looking at transferable development rights as one method for working to protect those sensitive areas from development.  He said he did not know if that discussion was on any mid-month agenda with the Planning Commission yet.  He said both the Planning and County Commissions were interested in pursuing transferable development rights.

Commissioner Schauner asked how complex a process was it to develop that type of a document. 

David Corliss, City Manager, said he was not aware of a lot of active use among Kansas land use practitioners.  He said there was some local knowledge and thought it was a major undertaking in its implementation, but conceptually they could probably agree on certain parameters.  He said he thought it would be a multi month effort to agree on the parameters and the adoption.  He said what were they willing to give additional land use rights for, what were they exchanging, was it a palpable situation, and how were they going to regulate and monitor it, but it could be done successfully in other communities and staff was up to the challenge to understand and proceed to follow the City Commission’s direction.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx asked about the road classification maps and were those maps considered to be part of Horizon 2020 or as a subdivision regulation.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said those maps were part of Chapter 4 in Horizon 2020, the Comprehensive Plan. 

Guntert said those maps were also part of Chapter 8 in the Comprehensive Plan which was the transportation chapter.

Mayor Amyx asked if they had dealt with Peterson Road extended twice before.

Guntert said he believed the City Commission had addressed the Peterson Road extended twice before.  He said the Planning Commission felt there needed to be an additional east/west arterial, north of 6th Street.  He said the Planning Commission was not necessarily hung up on where that location needed to be on the map so much as the concept of an additional arterial, north of 6th Street was felt to be important to carry traffic.

Vice Mayor Hack said she understood the County Commissioners had agreed that it was not a placement of the road, but even though it was in the County, they were deferring to the City for some location issues.

Stogsdill said the last time this City Commission saw this issue was when the update to Chapter 8 was before the City Commission and the major thoroughfare map included that alignment and the County Commission had specifically approved the Chapter 8 update so that they would defer that decision to the City Commission because whenever that road would be constructed, it would be within the city limits as opposed to the unincorporated area.  She said the Chapter 8 action from this body was basically on hold and waiting to come back.  She said those maps were reflected those updated designation for collectors and arterials, but clearly it was a concept of having east/west transportation network and not specifically a particular alignment.  She said she knew the Planning Commission also in the latest Capital Improvement Projects, added a project to look at exploring the environmental and construction assessment needs of a road in that general vicinity as opposed to a particular alignment to begin that process.

Mayor Amyx said once the Chapter 8 changes came back to the City Commission, he asked if the City Commission would be deciding the alignment of roadway or the concept of an east/west roadway.

Stogsdill said she thought it was the concept and the City Commission could add specific language to the map to specifically place that caveat on the map for those purposes as opposed to identifying a particular location. 

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission’s action was dealing with the comprehensive plan, he asked if the City Commission would be saying that Peterson Road was going to be the roadway that was extended west of Folks Road.

Stogsdill said she did not believe that was what the Commission was relaying. 

Commissioner Rundle said he would support keeping it out there, but it was a signal the City Commission had a major planning issue to deal with.  He said in an email from Stogsdill talking about substantive changes, he asked if she was referring to the regulations, planned amendments, or both.

Stogsdill said the first part of the email indicated that she thought they could certainly on a simple majority or hopefully a unanimous vote, approve the comprehensive plan amendments tonight.  She said those amendments had not changed at all since the Planning Commission recommended approval of those amendments.  She said the issue about the substantive changes was related more to the number of changes that had occurred to the subdivision regulation text and either that needed to be supermajority vote or returned to the Planning Commission and then come back to the City Commission.

Commissioner Rundle said he read that if the County moratorium expired, that because of the work that had been done inventorying county buildings, they were not going to see a sudden wave of five acre plots being proposed for development.  He asked if it was such a bad thing if the moratorium expired and the City Commission still had not finished tidying it up.

Stogsdill said she understood that tomorrow night the County Commission had two resolutions on their agenda.  If the City did not adopt something tonight, the County had a resolution ready to go that would be an interim solution resolution for the unincorporated portions of the County.  She said the moratorium expired December 31st and the County Commission had indicated many times they did not intend to extend the moratorium.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was not a bad thing if the moratorium expired.  He asked if the City would see a wave of applications for development.

Stogsdill said she understood it was the County Commission’s intent that that moratorium would expire and they had a version of those regulations in place so there would not be exemption ability at all.

Commissioner Rundle said current build through regulations should help control it.

Stogsdill said yes.

Mayor Amyx said on January 1, 2007, the County Commission’s intent was to have regulations in place that mirrored what they already had, whether or not the action the City Commission would take was positive or not.  He said there was language being added to the County’s resolution that those would remain as the authority of the County until such time the County or City Commission would take action to also adopt those regulations and then they could go back under the joint resolution. 

Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Highberger said the Rural Planning Subcommittee made a great effort drafting Chapter 13.  He said there were a couple changes in the draft Chapter 13 he would like to see included in amendments to 4 and 5 which was specifically Goal 1 - Cost of community services would be recovered from residential development in any unincorporated area, and Goal 5 - Preservation of prime farm ground be encouraged.  He said they might need to go back and revisit the subdivision regulations and those chapters after they see action for a while.  He would like to see those put on the table for consideration at that time. 

            Moved by Hack, seconded Rundle, to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and direct staff to prepare a joint City Ordinance/County Resolution.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (21)

Consider adopting joint City Ordinance No. 8064 and County Resolution No. _____, adopting subdivision regulations for the City and the unincorporated area of Douglas County. 

 

            Sheila Stogsdill, Interim Planning Director, presented the staff report.  She said the draft dated December 19th reflected the outcome of the Mayor’s subcommittee work from last week to work with representatives of the Planning Commission, County Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Highberger, and the Mayor to look at potential changes that would satisfy the concerns that Planning Commissioners had raised regarding the County Commission changes. 

She said she provided the City Commission with an outline of those specific changes and there were two additional changes needed to be made in Section 20-809.  She said subsection 809(e)(2)(iv) should read, “A drainage plan for major subdivisions if within the city limits or for major, non residential subdivisions that were located within an urban growth area would be required with a preliminary plat.”  She said that would be a slight change that staff realized there was a problem with the drafted text. 

She said there was a recommended change that was not in the document to Section 20-812(a)(2)(i).  She said that change came as a result of the Division of Water Resources review of the proposed county zoning regulations to change the floodplain requirements in the UGA and basically struck the last clause of that sentence and would state: “Location of any area designated as floodplain or regulatory floodplain location and direction of the flow of existing water courses and the surface elevation of the regulatory flood would be shown on the preliminary plat without having, when it had been established by the Federal Insurance Administrator or the Lawrence City Commission.”  She said that change was necessary from the Division of Water Resources standpoint in terms of how the floodplain regulations would be adopted. 

Basically, those regulations provided two different administrative mechanisms for residential divisions of property within the Urban Growth Area.  One mechanism was a cluster development for properties between 20 acres and 40 acres and the other mechanism was a large parcel division for properties that were over 40 acres.  She said those were the only types of developments that would be seen in the Urban Growth Area and each of those administrative mechanisms required a build out plan and a 40% set aside of future development area so that as those properties were developed, they were looking at how they would eventually provide infrastructure and would be able to look at how structures were located so that they could easily be absorbed into the urban fabric when the property was annexed into the city and should alleviate extension of infrastructure costs to the City.

She said outside the urban growth area there was one administrative process that was outlined for divisions of property for residential development and then there were changes to the subdivision requirements for property in the City and some additional administrative provisions for lot split recombination so it could be done administratively and some sort of minor subdivision that would create four lots administratively.  Again, trying to streamline that process and reduce the number of divisions of property that needed to go through the Planning Commission process with once a month meeting and a month a head deadline. 

She said she had identified for the Planning Commission how it was going to be applied to property, there were some things that needed to be modified.  Once those regulations were adopted, text amendments would be seen, potentially a text amendment a month going to the Planning Commission for several months in order to tidy that section of the code.  The document, as it had been revised in the last week, answered the questions that had been asked in the last three months since the Planning Commission had made the recommendation and the document was very solid and worthy of City Commission consideration.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss was comfortable with the City’s interests being protected with the language that was in the proposed text amendment.

            Corliss said at their meeting, staff insisted that observation needed to be dedicated to the County, but also to the City.  He said staff did not want to go back to their successors in title to try to receive a dedication to the City at some point.  He said language stated: “The separate instrument shall be satisfactory to the County Counsel and City Manager.  He said staff would work on a standard agreement that would make it clear as to what it was protecting, how it could be enforced, and the consequences of enforcement.  The City would only have regulatory authority once the property was within the City, but the County would need to enforce it otherwise, just as the County would be enforcing other things in the unincorporated part of the County otherwise.  He said he had a comfort level as much as he had with all other enforcement issues of a similar nature.  He said he did not have authority over the County, but he had good relationships with the County and County Officials would ensure that would be taken into account. 

He said they agreed within two years of the date of annexation, the conservation easement would expire.  He said there was concern the conservation easement should not go on into perpetuity because once property was coming into the City, they were getting those initial questions about development and what was going to happen to the property.  He said it did not mean the property was not going to be developed, because in many cases it was not going to be.  He said when they look at what was placed in a conservation easement the property with the physical characteristics was not able to develop.  As the property came into the City, staff would have those discussions with the property owner and thought that would be part of the annexation plan or discussions with that property owner and would be consummated concurrent with the annexation. 

He said it was a new instrument for the City and had used conservation easements on some occasions.  He said that instruments intent was not to allow development beyond the certain envelopes and to preserve certain physical characteristics knowing that they did not know how property was going to be ultimately developed to urban density development until it came into the City.

            John Miller, Staff Attorney, said staff sent information to the County Counsel for their review and staff did not receive any negative comments or feedback as a result of modifying the language.  The modification of the language was better than the previous version of the subdivision regulations and as a result of the December 12th discussion, staff thought they improved the cluster language and the large lot language with that addition.

Commissioner Rundle said the language stated it would expire after the expiration date within two years after the date of annexation, unless the City took further action.  He asked what action the City would take if they wanted it to be perfected.

Corliss said one thing was to enter into a new conservation easement that excluded the County and would be a conservation easement between the City and property owner that would run with the land and reflected the fact that probably some of the property was going to be developed, but other portions of the property would not be developed and would essentially be a new instrument.

Commissioner Rundle asked if those easements needed to be secured with payment such as paying for the development rights.

Corliss said in exchange for being able to develop, they were placing a portion of their property that had the characteristics that were outlined in the conservation easement.

Commissioner Schauner said the consideration for the conservation easement under regulations while the ground was in the County was the ability to develop the remaining 60%.  He asked what the consideration would be for making the conservation easement permanent, more restrictive, reduced, or some change, after annexation.

Corliss said the main reason why property owners wanted to be annexed was because those property owners wanted City services.  He said that would be the consideration that in exchange for the extension of utility services to the property, they wanted a small, urban density development on that 60% of the property and if the City thought it were appropriate, it would be okay, but the City would want the property owner to enter into a separate conservation easement on the remainder of that property and dedicate that property.  He said he envisioned it as looking at the listing of FEMA 100 year storm, floodplains, jurisdictional wetlands, stream corridors, prominent natural geographic features.  It was the kind of property that was not likely to be economically developed that was outstanding reasons why the City wanted to conserve it.

Commissioner Rundle asked if there was anything that spoke one way or the other of the County being able to revoke those if it was not annexed or was waiting to be annexed.

Corliss said it was an instrument that ran with the County, the County and the property owner could modify that instrument, but except that, it was also conveyed to the City so the City had the protection they would have to come to the City as well.  He said the value was they had to deal with the City on that issue.

Mayor Amyx asked if there was any expiration from the time prior to annexation unless a separate agreement was between the County and property owner subject to the City Commission’s approval because the City’s name was on it.

Corliss said the City did not have any regulatory authority, but the City was a party to it and they would need to come to the City.  He said he could envision situations where they would all agree and the Planning Staff would recommend the wrong property had been put into the conservation easement and needed to be changed.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought that example would be a substitution of property.

Corliss said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that was the point at which some transferable development right activity might be appropriate where they could transfer that 40% for some other 40% of some equal parcel of ground that would be more appropriate for development and more consistent with maintaining seamless urbanization.

Corliss said that activity was very likely to occur because when a property comes into the City, they were going to want to maximize the development.  He said it was not likely the suburban and rural property owners were going to be developers.  He said it was more likely that development interests would be the developer.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the interplay was between this annexation of the property, 40% of the conservation easement, and the impact fee structure.  He asked if there would be anything inconsistent with any of those co-existing.

Corliss said one of the key issues of impact fees was there could be a dedication in lieu of paying the fee.  He said if someone had property worthy of park or open space, it might be an exchange of impact fees on that particular development.  He said or the property owner might want to transfer that impact fee waiver to other property in exchange for the public getting something.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City wanted some guidelines developed before sealing a request for release of annexed conservation easement property; some sort of objective criteria that they could use for determining whether to agree to transfer or dedication in lieu of.

Corliss said absolutely.  He said the City needed guidelines confirmed by the City Commission because staff would be making major decisions.  As those areas were planned where those tools would be used, it would be part of the additional analysis.

Mayor Amyx asked if those tools were needed upon adoption of the subdivision regulations that asked the Planning Commission to consider those types of changes and that additional language to be part of the document.

Corliss said he did not think it needed to be part of the document, but part of the work plan.  He said staff needed to become more knowledgeable about TND and the use of those types of instruments.  Historically, they did not have that level of regulation in the unincorporated part of the County.

Commissioner Highberger said regarding Commissioner Schauner’s question about how impact fees related, he said this document required park land dedication.  He said it was a step down that road already.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that dedication would be part of the 40% conservation easement or just an addition. 

Commissioner Highberger said it would be decided project by project.  He said it did not specify where in the parcel it would be located.

Stogsdill said it was the dedication that was related to subdivisions so it was particular only to the City subdivisions and was not related to that 40% which was only specific to the unincorporated area.

Commissioner Highberger said when a property came into the City some of that 40% could be satisfied.

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff was confident the language was sufficiently clear to prohibit subdivisions outside the Urban Growth Area.

Stogsdill said residential subdivisions, yes, especially with the additional language she read to the City Commission for Section 809.

Corliss said it prohibited residential subdivisions outside the corporate limits of the cities. 

Commissioner Highberger said they would potentially still be getting development, but it was not technically a subdivision under the regulations and just wanted to make that clear.

Vice Mayor Hack said it did not prohibit all development outside of the City limits, but restricted it to certain levels of development.

Mayor Amyx asked Stogsdill if she felt comfortable with being able to administer those guidelines because there was a lot of administrative approval throughout this document.

Stogsdill said staff knew it would be a challenge because there was going to be a learning curve, and staff had spent a fair amount of time in the last couple months to try to get familiar with it because staff had a number of calls as people were trying to figure out what to do.  Part of that challenge was the text was changing and made it more difficult for staff to get familiar with it.  She said they were quite confident that staff would be able to administer it, but was not sure it would be extremely speedy for the first applicants because there were a lot of concepts here and it was going to take a lot of effort and probably a fair amount of group teamwork effort in terms of reviewing those build out plans and making those decisions as to the right configuration, but was confident that staff would be able to do that.

Commissioner Highberger asked about the language in Section 804(f)(5)(ii), the build out plan language.  He said he understood that 600 – 800 foot spacing was suggested for future blocks.

Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Highberger said he would like that 600 foot number to be smaller.  He said if they were looking at potential, traditional neighborhood development, he thought they would get suggestions of block sizes smaller than that.  He said he would like that number to be 300 if possible.  He said he would leave it to staff’s judgment, but if they could do that at this time that would be great otherwise they could get it into cleanup. 

Stogsdill said if staff could add that to the cleanup, then they would not have a document different from the County Commission’s.

Commissioner Highberger said as long as it stayed on the radar.

Stogsdill said definitely.

Commissioner Rundle said in Stogsdill’s email, one recommendation was to send those regulations back to the Planning Commission to address those substantive changes.  He asked if there was any difference in terms of time frame between sending it back or just expecting the Planning Commission was going to have monthly amendments to clean up.

Stogsdill said the reason to send those regulations back would be if there were not four votes to approve those subdivision regulations.  She said she would love it if they approved it tonight and the County reconfirmed tomorrow night and then staff could begin to really get to work on studying it.  She said some of the things she identified last month as conflicts had already been taken care of from the work the subcommittee did.  She said at this point, she did not think there was a huge laundry list of text amendments.  She said she did expect that as they tried to apply a section to a piece of property, they would ask how it worked or what it really meant.  She said she was not sure if she answered the question other than staff would love it if they approved those subdivision regulations at this time.

Commissioner Rundle said the part in Stogsdill’s e-mail about recommending sending the subdivision regulations back to the Planning Commission was only if there was not a super majority vote.

Stogsdill said yes.

            Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked where the Kansas Land Trust fit because it stated in the document that it was not perpetual unless they wanted to make a donation to Kansas Land Trust, it could not change from that original document. 

Corliss said they were talking about two separate conservation issues.  He said Kansas Land Trust was a not-for-profit organization whose primary mission and success was they were able to obtain conservation easements from property owners and keep that property in its natural state in perpetuity.  He said it was a separate arrangement where the conservation easement was to the City and County and not to Kansas Land Trust or any other separate organization. 

Commissioner Rundle said this was a leap forward from where they were.  He said they did not leap, but rather stumbled and did some blocking along the way.  The only trouble was the implementation and questions about what something meant.  The five acre exemption was meant to address the need for families to be able to split off property and have more than one rural family living on a farm site, as he understood, but led to a lot more developed area than was desirable and they were paying for the costs of that every year.  He said as long they were going to immediately flag those questions about what something meant and resolve those questions, rather than allow future 5 acre exemption problems to come up, he would be okay with moving forward.  He said they were not a huge stumbling block to go ahead and send it back to the Planning Commission and let the document come back to the City Commission in a clean form.  He said that would be his preference, but thought they would see some forward movement at last.

Commissioner Highberger said this document did not do everything he wanted it to, but agreed that was a big step forward.  He said he thought this document would make development in the urban growth areas especially more difficult than now and what would happen would be set up so it did not cause as many problems for future Commissioners as this City Commission had to deal with over the last few years.

He said he wished they would have spent all of their energy talking about the rural portion of the subdivision regulations instead of spending time talking about the urban portion because there were some things there.  He said it made great progress in terms of street design, street grid, and street naming policies.  He said just like the zoning code, he felt comfortable moving forward and addressing them especially after they have the PlaceMakers because street design was the skeleton of the City and they had to do it right.  He said there were some things he wanted to see addressed, but was still comfortable moving forward.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed it was a step forward.  He said part of his concern was this was done on a number of projects in the last three years such as the Hobbs Taylor project where they tried to look at things, substantive matters, on the fly without what he considered the in depth professional advice that taxpayers deserved.  He said he thought the City Commission did a disservice to themselves and to the people who paid the bills.  He said there was a lot of work put into this document by the county staff, but as a practical matter, the City Commission had not been a major player in this process nor the Planning Commission.  He said the Planning Commission met with the City Commission a couple weeks ago and suggested they had a number of concerns with the document.  He said as he read through the document, it struck him there was a lot of language that he did not understand.  He said the language seemed open to two or three different interpretations.  He said he suspected administering those regulations was going to be difficult, especially trying to be consistent in the administration and interpretation of some of that language.  He said he suspected the text amendment road would be cluttered with a lot of conflict over the next several months or perhaps years.  He said he wished they had a concurrent transferable development rights policy in this because it would make it a better process.  He said if this document was adopted, he would like to see transferable development rights become a top priority of the planning process.  He said maybe there was not a lot of use for it in Kansas, but thought it was a terrific modern tool that should be explored.  He said if they were the first to use it in Kansas, so be it, because it would be beneficial to the long term urban health and development process.  He said he really struggled because he wanted to move forward with it, but they were not improving much on the lot size from 5 to potentially 6.67 in certain locations under this proposal. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she did not believe the City Commission was making a decision on the fly.  She said she believed the City Commission had a lot of information and if they did not, they always knew where to get information.  She said she also had a great deal of confidence in their staff.  She said they were not looking at a document written in Greek for the first time and trying to anticipate what the results were.  She said Commissioner Schauner has had a rather large hand in the development of this document.  She said Stogsdill’s most persuasive comments were that staff would like to get on with using the document.  She said they had been at this issue for a long time, but the document had been on the cusp since this summer and knew there had been some procedural questions, concerns about substantive changes, and all those kinds of things.  She said they had the same questions with the City’s own subdivision regulations and what was found was that there were differences in interpretations.  She said absent any application, a person would not sit around and interpret subdivision regulations for the fun of it, but having something in front of them to interpret.  She said she thought it was time to approve the document and hoped it could be approved by a supermajority because it delayed the inevitable opportunity for staff to work with the document and hoped that was what they could do.  She said a lot of work had gone into the document and was not perfect, but thought it was time to move forward.

Commissioner Schauner said looking at Stogsdill’s, message he quoted “There are so many revisions, some substantive, some not, to the PC recommendation that staff would recommend that it would be returned to the PC unless there was a supermajority vote to approve it tonight.”

Vice Mayor Hack said she thought Stogsdill clarified that with her comments.

Commissioner Schauner said he was sure if he was administering this, he would like to stop fooling with it and the business of interpreting it.  He said this was a document the City was going to live with or a majority of it for a long time.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the County would take its action they had lined up in the event the City did not approve the document at this time and asked if Stogsdill would be working with that code anyway.

Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought Stogsdill knew staff would be starting on it, but sent a signal the City Commission wanted it finalized.  He said he did not see any problem with the moratorium expiring given the fact the interim regulations would be in place.

Stogsdill said she wanted to clarify her answer.  She said staff would then have a county zoning regulation, city zoning development code, county subdivision regulation, the existing City subdivision regulations all to be administering along with writing revisions to at the same time, and hosting PlaceMakers in January.

Mayor Amyx said the County Commission, City staff, and City Commission felt over the last several years, regulations outside the city boundaries were needed.  He said the Planning Commission had done a tremendous amount of work and refined a document that they were in unanimous support of.  He said the City Commission had the opportunity to discuss the County’s recommended subdivision regulations with the Planning Commission and County Commission.  He said on January 1st there would be the new subdivision regulations outside the unincorporated city limits.  He asked if the development outside the City boundaries, through the subdivision regulations as annexation occurred, would come into this city the way they wanted that property to come into the City.  He said he believed the answer was “yes.”

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the Mayor raised his major point which was the ability to provide city services in the least expensive and most efficient way was the best thing about this.  He said the build through concept was most appealing.  In trying to balance competing issues, he thought that particular issue tipped his scale.  He said he was going to vote to support it, but his point in trying to balance those competing issues, the build through piece was the part that tipped the scale in terms of supporting the proposal, putting aside the process issues and some of the other things he was not particularly happy about. 

He said he would like to move seamlessly through the area and be able to do it with the least expense.  He said he wanted it to be predictable for land owners in the extent it could.  He said clearly there would be a number of text amendments.  He said he also concurred with Commissioner Hack’s comments the City Commission did not want staff to interpret use through two or three different sets of subdivisions, which would be a nightmare for staff and applicants as well.  He thought it would do a disservice to the public.  He said while he had reservations about the document, he thought on balance it was a document that was better than what they had and a document he supported.

Commissioner Rundle said he was going to vote for this document to make it unanimous and hoped it would buy good will.  He said he also wanted to secure from the community that when things were really not clear and started seeing interpretations that led to unintended consequences, when they saw the goals of the regulations were not being accomplished and proposed that there be some amendments, there would not be howls about changing the rules in the middle of the stream.  He said in short, there had to be the political role in the City Commission, Planning Commission, and County Commission to make those work and achieve the goals they were trying to achieve. 

Commissioner Highberger said at the subcommittee meeting, there was a general agreement that they needed to monitor this document to see how it progressed and if there were unintended consequences that developed, that they get together, monitor and address the situation that was unintended as a result.

            Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt on first reading, the joint City Ordinance No. 8064 and County Resolution No. 06-41, for the adoption of “Subdivision Regulations for Lawrence and the unincorporated areas of Douglas County.”  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (22)

            PUBLIC COMMENT:

 

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked when the Salvation Army was going to be back to the City Commission.

Mayor Amyx said he would imagine it would be sometime after the holiday.

            FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 

12/26/06

City Commission meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will consist of consent agenda items and bill paying.

 

1/2/07

Receive City/KU Transit Cooperation Study and consider directing staff to proceed with discussions with KU officials on possible next steps.

 

1/9/07

Public Hearing on Neighborhood Revitalization Act for 800 Pennsylvania project

 

1/16/07

5 p.m. study session with Douglas County Commission and Lawrence Chamber of Commerce on Economic Development

 

TBD

Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning;

Staff Report concerning assembly licensing ordinance 

Retail Marketing Analysis Code provisions

Implementation Report for Matrix Report Recommendations on Development Process

Staff Recommendation on the Reuse of Old Fire Station No. 2 (Mass. Street) and Old Fire Station No. 4 (Grover Barn / Lawrence Avenue).   Staff is recommending that both facilities be kept in public use.

 

            COMMISSION ITEMS:

Vice Mayor Hack said concerning the reconfiguration of City Commission meetings, she knew that had been concerns this was an attempt to diminish public comment and that people could not come during the daytime.  She said she wanted to clarify her reasons for doing that idea which went back to the introduction, not only her letter, but in her conversation about it at the Commission meeting.  She said she thought they had a lot of different kinds of meetings and some meetings were more housekeeping in nature, some of them deal with receiving reports, as they had some of those things this evening, and then some meetings were land use issues where there was a lot of public comment.  She said she would never take anything that had the necessity for a vast amount of public comment and put it on a time when the majority of the public could not attend.  She said they also needed to realize that there was a public that did not have the traditional 9 – 5 job and did hear from people that it would be nice to be able to address the Commission on a variety of items, not to take action on, but to have comment in the morning because that suits their schedule better. 

She said the reconfiguration would be on a trial basis and perhaps after three or four months the City Commission could determine if it worked.  She said it was time to look outside the box and think about all the things the City Commission asked staff to do in terms of long range planning and providing information.  She said one of their biggest concerns was sometimes they felt they did not have as much information as they needed to make a decision or they want to do more long range planning, but were asking staff to have that turnaround time be fairly quick.  She said there were a number of things out there such as the auditor, performance measures, matrix report, and impact fee discussion which all took time.  She said if an issue came up on Thursday, she suggested posting it on the agenda, and discuss it on the following Tuesday.  She said all she was asking was that they give it a try and did not think it would hurt anyone.  She said it was an opportunity to try something different and see if it worked to their advantage and made the Commissioners and staff more productive.

Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission took 25% of their monthly meetings, and made those meetings where they would not want to take action on important items or items that required public comment, they were going to make some of their remaining meetings longer than they were now because the housekeeping stuff did not take too long.  He said it was paying bills or the Consent Agenda which typically took 5 – 10 minutes.  He said he appreciated thinking outside the box, but could not wrap his arms around how a morning meeting once a month, one of their four meetings a month, how it would help facilitate either staff reports or the City Commission’s important agenda with public comment.  He said he would think about that idea, but right now he was not there.

Mayor Amyx said he planned on placing that idea on the January 2nd City Commission's agenda.

Vice Mayor Hack said if it caused anyone terrible problems, she was more than willing to not worry about it.  She said she thought it was something that would help them do their jobs better because she thought it would help staff.

Mayor Amyx said when he was on the County Commission they reduced the meetings from three days to two days and went from three morning meetings to one morning meeting and an evening meeting, which worked out well.  He said he thought there were opportunities to get a lot of business done. 

Commissioner Schauner said if it was a 9:00 a.m. meeting, he asked if the meeting would be televised.

Vice Mayor Hack said yes.

            Corliss said staff would work with Sunflower Broadband.  He said staff was in discussions about trying to improve the broadcasting quality. 

Commissioner Rundle said he knew that at least one city to the east that had meeting every other week and one year when he looked up their minutes, that city had two meetings that lasted longer than an hour.  He said he would be curious to find out why they had meetings that need massive public comment.  He said if it was a matter of dealing with planning problems created in the past or whatever, they should look at the root causes in addition to a more humane meeting structure.

            Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.  

APPROVED                                                               

_____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

 


CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2006

 

1.                Bid- Vibratory Roller for Public Works to Sellers Equipment for $42,594.

 

2.                Bid- Mini packer refuse truck for Parks and Rec., to Roy Conley for $54,922.

 

3.                Bid-1 ton extended van with options, Parks and Rec., to Laird Noller Ford for $22,548.38.

 

4.                Bid- recommended bids for water treatment chemicals for 2007.

 

5.                Bid- Cardiovascular equipment Central States Fitness System for $24,495.

 

6.                Purchase 2 slide-in water tank & pump units - Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Inc. for $43,982.

 

7.                Engineering Services Agreement with Black & Veatch for $216,835 for Stoneridge Elevated Water Storage Tank and site improvements.

 

8.                Ordinance No. 8061- 1st Read, TA-10-12-06, amending sections 20-402 and 20-1724 of the Development Code and adding sections 20-539.

 

9.                Ordinance No. 8058- 2nd Read, amending the franchise fee for Worldnet, L.L.C.

 

10.            Ordinance No. 8059- 2nd Read, amending the franchise fee for World Company.

 

11.            Ordinance No. 8041- 2nd Read, joint City Ord/Cnty Res. to update to Ch. 9 Horizon 2020.

 

12.            Ordinance No. 8053- 2nd Read, rezone Z-12-80-05 est. 8th and Penn Overlay District.

 

13.            Ordinance No. 8054- 2nd Read, rezone 4.54 acres from M-2 and M-3 to CS District.

 

14.            Request from Landplan Engineering, PA, for benefit district for Oregon Trail Park.

 

15.            Release of Mortgage- Shirley Roberts, 1538 Delaware Street; Subordination Agreement – Nicole Demby, 1072 Home Circle.

 

16.            City Manager’s Report.

 

17.            Report from Shirley Martin Smith, chair of Community Commission on Homelessness.

 

18.            Request from Marcia & Steve Riley for use of City streets on 4/15/07 for marathon/run.

 

19.            Public hearing- Vacation of 7.5’ utility easement Bobwhite Addition, Lot 1 Blk 1.

 

20.            Recommendation from Board of Directors of Lawrence Public Library for new facility.

 

21.            Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

 

22.            Joint City Ordinance No. 8064 and County Resolution No. _____, adopting subdivision regulations for the City and the unincorporated area of Douglas County.

 

23.            Public Comment.

 

24.            Future Agenda Items.

 

25.            Commission Items.