December 20, 2005 City Commission meeting minutes

December 20 , 2005

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present. Student Commissioner Frei was present.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of December 6, 2005.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Library Board meeting minutes of November 21, 2005; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of November 28, 2005; the Hughes-Carnegie Center meeting minutes of November 21, 2005; and the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of November 8, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 332 vendors in the amount of $966,764.63.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Montana Mike’s, 1015 Iowa; and Bourgeois Pig, 6 East 9^th.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Debra Warrant to the Special Alcohol Tax Advisory Board, to a term which will expire April 30, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for one heavy duty dump body for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

American Equipment Co. $19,998

Kranz of Kansas City $22,990

Burnup Equipment No Bid

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to American Equipment Co., in the amount of $19,998. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for one tandem axle truck for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Westfall GMC $56,659.00

KCR International Trucks $57,537.00

KCR International Trucks $59,258.00

Midway Truck Center $58,928.00

Topeka Freightliner Sales $59,457.48

Topeka Freightliner Sales, Alternate $64,998.85

KC Freightliner, Inc. $64,987.00

MHC Kenworth $72,421.32

Westfall O’Dell Truck Sales $76,675.61

Ed Bozarth No Bid

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Topeka Freightliner Sales, in the amount of $59,457.48 because the other low bids did not meet specification. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for janitorial services for the Investigations & Training Center for the Police Department. The bids were:

BIDDER 1^st Year 2^nd Year 3^rd Year

Smart Building Services $18,750 $19.313 $19,892

Jan-I-King $17,820 $18,060 $18,420

Satellite Janitorial Co. $11,940 $12,178 $12,422

Jayhawk Janitorial $15,240 $16,764 $18,432

Bob’s Janitorial $20,328 $20,728 $21,128

Lawrence Janitorial Service $9,600 $10,200 $10,800

Clean As A Whistle $16,920 $16,920 $16,920

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Smart Building Services, in the amount of $18,750 because two of the bids were from janitorial services that were proved to be unsatisfactory in the past and four of the janitorial services unacceptable due to background checks. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the purchase of property at 524 North 7^th Street for $138,000 as a stormwater mitigation project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                   (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the purchase of four (4) mowers for the Parks and Recreation Department from the John Deere State Purchasing Contract for a total of $84,704.  Motion carried unanimously.             (5)

Ordinance No. 7946, rezoning (Z-05-34-05) 1.35 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District), property is generally located on the south side of the 200 block of Perry Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

Ordinance No. 7950, amending the 2005 Stormwater utility budget, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

Ordinance No. 7936, establishing the Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board regarding racial profiling, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-09-03-04) for Village Meadows Retirement Community, 17.8 acres on the west side of Congressional Drive from West 6^th Street to Overland Drive. The request is for a one-year extension to a Use Permit Upon Review, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;

2. Filing at the Register of Deeds of a replat prior to release of the plan to

Neighborhood Resources for building permits;

3. Provision of a photometric plan;

4. Provide a general timetable for phasing of project;

5. Provision of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the

geometric and signalization improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Congressional Drive;

6. Provision of the following notes on the Site Plan:

a. “No building permit shall be issued until the City is presented with a written guarantee or other financial assurance (e.g. bond, letter or credit, escrow account, etc.), in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing payment for the assessed special assessments on the property for the improvement of Overland Drive and Congressional Drive. This condition shall be waived by the City Manager if the special assessments district is not subject to litigation;” and

b. “Off-site detention basin to be constructed as part of this project.”

7. Provision of the following items for the Stormwater Engineer:

a. Show the detention basin improvements associated with this site. The detention system must be completed prior to occupancy. Provide DE’s for the system and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;

b. Storm sewer information is incomplete. Show all existing storm sewer locations and elevations. Show all proposed storm sewer locations, elevations and sizes;

c. Provide additional curb inlets to capture runoff in the southeast entrance drive. Report the project bench mark on the site plan;

d. Storm sewers located in the single-family and duplex area must be public systems. Provide DE’s for these systems and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector; and

e. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.

8. Approval of rezoning of the property to a residential zoning district which would accommodate the proposed use; and

9. Provision of a revised site plan to show 6’ sidewalks on both sides of all local streets.

Motion carried unanimously. (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Workers Compensation Excess Insurance Coverage for 2006 with Midwest Employers Casualty Company (MECC) with an annual premium of $36,796.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                       (10)

The site plan (SP-11-83-05) for a patio addition at Crosstown Tavern was pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

Lisa Pool, Planner, said the site plan was for a patio to the rear of the Crosstown Tavern which was part of a shopping center at 19^th and Haskell Avenue. A letter of opposition had been submitted to the City Commission from the property owners abutting that site directly to the east. She said staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.

2. Revision of the site plan to include the following:

a) A note, stating the applicant agrees to remove the fencing, arbor, and outdoor patio area if there are legitimate complaints from neighbors pertaining to trash, litter or noise. The City Commission shall review complaints.

b) The addition of a solid, six-foot wooden fence installed to the east of the access aisle, running north-south, where there is no view-reducing fencing now.

c) The addition of any new lighting, along with associated wattage and glare prevention.

d) Change of parking group and required number of spaces for the Crosstown Tavern. The Parking should be 11 and the number of required parking spaces should be 33 (26 for tavern + 7 for patio).

e) Notation of Historic Resources Commission approval date for amendment to original approval.

Commissioner Schauner said he noticed in the letter from the abutting property owner that they wanted the Historic Resources Commission to review the site plan.

Pool said there was a previous approval, but since the patio was not constructed, a revision to the approval needed to be submitted and approved by the City’s Historic Resources Commission.

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, architect for the applicant, said the fence was a minor alteration to the site plan. He said eventually a fence would be constructed, but not yet. When enough work was completed on the strip center the owner was going to need to comply, even with more stringent regulations, but this improvement did not throw it over that threshold and that was the major complaint concerning the fence. He said constructing a fence was a fairly large improvement in comparison to just wanting to build a patio.

He said the other issue concerned how far the patio would be from the property line. He said he was not sure what that eight foot fence around the patio would do. He said the owner already committed to not allowing bands on the patio and therefore, it seemed that a fence was not warranted based on the minor alteration. Another concern was the wording of the condition to remove the patio if there were complaints. He said they had constructed the decks for Quinton’s, Louise’s, Cadillac Ranch, and Yacht Club and none of those businesses acknowledge that they would remove the improvement. He suggested that if disputes could not be resolved with an adjacent neighbor that the site plan would be reviewed by the City Commission again.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be a pad poured patio.

Werner said yes they would pour a larger concrete patio and part of the patio would be covered.

Commissioner Amyx said Werner made the comment that eventually the fence along the east side of the property would be constructed. He asked how much more work needed to be completed in order for that fence to be constructed.

Werner said approximately $40,000 worth of work needed to be completed. He said that entire property was listed at the Appraiser’s office in the neighborhood of $600,000 to $700,000 range. He said when the work to that area was 10% of the value of that property, a new site plan, with more extensive requirements, would need to be done. He said those requirements would happen at some point, but not with the current proposed improvement.

Mayor Highberger asked staff to comment on the 10% requirement as it applied to this issue.

Sheila Stogsdill, Interim Planning Director, said Werner’s description of the 10% requirement was accurate. She said there were multiple things that could trigger a significant alteration either adding on to the building by more than 10% of the square footage, the section of construction value that equaled 10% of the appraised value, and changing use that increased parking requirements. She said adding the patio actually added additional square footage which increased the parking requirement for that use. However, it was fairly minor in the scope of the overall center so staff did not indicate that the entire site needed to be brought up to code because of seven additional parking spaces. In staff’s opinion, the distinction was that that side would be adding an activity area to a portion of that site that had not had a constant human activity level and the fact that was bordering the residential side of the property, staff felt that the fence was a reasonable condition to try and address the neighbors’ concerns and hopefully ensure that that activity could co-exist with the adjacent residence.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the note on the site plan that indicated that the applicant would agree to remove the fencing on the outdoor patio area; he asked if it was staff intention that the concrete area itself would be removed if there were legitimate complaints found.

Stogsdill said it was more the use of the activity for outside seating and the language was crafted in the 90’s in response to the numbers of bars in the downtown area and concerns of all that outdoor activity downtown that might need to have a little bit more oversight than typically seen in an interior space.

Commissioner Schauner asked how close the shopping center was in meeting that 10% rule including the proposed project.

Stogsdill said she did not recall exactly, but she said there was quite a bit of room for improvements. There were $20,000 worth of improvements and they could go up $60,000 in order to hit that threshold. The threshold was accumulated within an 18 month period. If there were improvements that happened two years ago, those improvements would not count.

Commissioner Rundle asked about the timing of those future improvements.

Werner said he did not know of anything specifically, but the shopping center was being improved little by little.

Commissioner Schauner said if the requirement on the note would extend the wooden fence from its current end point all the way to the south point of the centered property.

Pool said correct.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the improvements made in the 18 month period requirement, he asked if the county appraiser values were used.

Stogsdill said yes.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the County appraisals were going up faster than the improvements that were being made.

Stogsdill said that could be a fair assumption.

Vice Mayor Amyx said staff’s recommendation that a note stating the applicant agree to remove the fencing, arbor, and outdoor patio area if there are legitimate complaints should remain but suggested that a one year review be implemented for the use of the property. He said the wooden fence was a legitimate request and the fence should be constructed.

Commissioner Hack asked if the one year review would be automatic because the City Commission did not review other establishments that were in other neighborhoods.

Vice Mayor Amyx said it would be an automatic one year review. Although, the automatic review would not be necessary if fencing was constructed because the fencing was all that could be done to protect the adjoining property owner.

Commissioner Hack said complaints concerning that establishment should not be addressed by the City Commission, but by discussion with the owner of the establishment and staff. She understood the concern of the adjacent property owners, but comparing the amount of improvement to the length of the entire fence was an undo hardship.

Commissioner Rundle said he would anticipate that if the applicant had to re-site plan that that requirement be placed on the overall property and it would be a hardship. He said that area was underutilized and it would be great to see it redeveloped. He said rather than spreading out the impact, he would like to see that fence constructed now. He said if going past 18 months then it became the responsibility to whoever redeveloped the center

Stogsdill said if there was a significant alteration then that would certainly be a requirement. If there were minor improvements over time, it might never come into affect.

Mayor Highberger asked if it could be triggered over a minor improvement that just happened to cross the threshold at a certain time.

Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said it seemed clear that this property would not ever cross the 10% threshold. He said with the combination of rising appraised values and property timing of improvements it was easy to believe that property would never pass the 10% threshold question. He concurred with Commissioner Amyx that he would prefer that the note speak more to being out of compliance with the City’s ordinances relating to noise, trash, and litter so there was standard against which to measure the concerns. He said with respect to the fence, he did not disagree that a wooden fence 300 or 400 feet long was a substantial investment, but on balance the property owner was in a better position to do that to maintain a good neighbor status, than the property owner immediately to the east. Though he agreed with Commissioner Hack that it was substantial investment the center would make, it would improve the center’s appeal and made it a better neighbor with its neighbor to the east.

He said he would like to see item 2 – (a) through (e) stay and amend 2 (a) to reflect that those complaints should be judged against complaints with the City’s noise and litter ordinances rather than trying to create a new benchmark for the City Commission to review complaints.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said that language was more specific and suggested saying “any appropriate City Code violations” because there might be trespassing or taking alcoholic beverages off the property and other issues.

Mayor Highberger said he essentially agreed with Commissioner Schauner’s and Amyx’s comments. He said he understood it was a burden on the property owner, but this was a new use and had a potential to negatively impact the adjacent residential property owners. He said he certainly would like to accommodate people who had been impacted by the smoking ban, but the City had to protect the City at the same time. He said he concurred with the provision (d) and he would like to see provision (a) reworded.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-11-83-05) for a patio addition at Crosstown Tavern, subject to the following conditions:

Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
Revision of the site plan to include the following:

a) The addition of the following note “Upon determination by the City Commission that neighboring property owners have submitted valid complaints regarding the outdoor patio at Crosstown Tavern, the applicant agrees to remove the outdoor patio, including the patio’s fencing and arbor. The complaints should pertain to City Code violations.

b) The addition of a solid, six-foot wooden fence installed to the east of the access aisle, running north-south, where there is no view-reducing fencing now.

c) The addition of any new lighting, along with associated wattage and glare prevention.

d) Change of parking group and required number of spaces for the Crosstown Tavern. The Parking should be 11 and the number of required parking spaces should be 33 (26 for tavern + 7 for patio).

e) Notation of Historic Resources Commission approval date for amendment to original approval

Aye: Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack Motion carried. (11)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said The North Lawrence Drainage Study has been posted to the web site. The direct link is:

www.lawrencepublicworks.org/N_Law_Drainage_Study_2005/N_Law_Drainage_Study_2005.htm

He said there were two meetings in early January with the North Lawrence Improvement Association and one mid-month meeting of the Planning Commission. He said subsequent to those meetings, staff would plan a City/County Drainage District Study Session at some point before this issue was back on the agenda for City Commission approval.

Wildgen said concerning e-Gov items, now that all the weekly submittals were on the web, staff was posting those submittals which was a new service that the City provided.

Commissioner Hack thanked and acknowledged the work of Ed Mullins, Finance Director, and Laura Warner, Accountant, for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award; Mitch Young, Park District Supervisor for the 2005 Tom Wilkerson Teamwork Award for upgrading Memorial Park Cemetery in time for Memorial Day Visits; George Woodyard for raising $50,000 as part of the drive for the Rotary Arboretum; and Bert Nash Mental Health Services for partnering with Parks & Rec on the Nash Dash 5K Run and Walk.

Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director presented the Pavement Management System Update to the City Commission. The report included goals, background and analysis, budget projects, and next steps.

Commissioner Amyx said he appreciated staff’s work on this issue. He said since the overall average PCI for Lawrence streets was 69 based on a “0-100” rating scale, he asked what level staff would like to be at understanding that 100 was probably not attainable.

Soules said staff would like to see arterials above a 74, collectors above 67, and residential streets above 60. He said on an arterial with a PCI between, 65-74 was when staff needed to perform preventative maintenance.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the cost figure that staff gave in the report would get the City to that 74 rating threshold.

Soules said that figure was based on 75% of the streets, but staff had reviewed those streets again and it was a little bit higher. Soules said staff would bring back a report to the City Commission in January.

Commissioner Schauner said the truth of the matter was that that aggregate number of 69% was misleading because the graph talked about brick, composite, flexible, and rigid and the City was never going to get their brick streets to 70% and that would not be a goal for a brick street. He said the goal for a rigid street probably ought to be significantly higher than 58.7% and perhaps for flexible streets, the 75.4 was a good number. In order to get much direction from those numbers, those numbers needed to be broken down in a different way.

Soules said staff looked at both the classification and the pavement type to come up with the list.

Commissioner Schauner said for the general public, 69% was not a very meaningful number.

Soules said there were streets both with high and low ratings. He said staff needed to perform some statistical analysis to discuss the means for each of those and what type of variances.

Commissioner Rundle said he would be interested in the analysis. He said when staff produced the report, he asked if the report would show where money could be spent to save money to the greatest extent possible.

Soules said that was staff’s intention.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was possible that staff include a summary of various preventative measures that staff could be taking and where those measures might fit in.

Soules said staff would include that idea. (12)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive request for Bonnie Lowe concerning possible joint funding of public recreation facilities.

Bonne Lowe, Partners for Lawrence Athletics & Youth (PLAY), said they were asking for financial support to conduct a Needs Assessment/Feasibility Study for a new sports complex in this community. She said she had discussions with the County Commissioners and would be visiting with the School District the first part of January and also the Chamber of Commerce. She said she was looking at four different avenues to pay for the Needs Assessment/Feasibility Study. In talking with the County, she learned that the concept, what the RFP would entail, and even the cost was a fairly vague concept and they were looking for more specific information. Although the County did express support to pay, in part, for this Needs Assessments, they asked that she come back at a later date after visiting with the City and School Board to see what financial help they could play in the Needs Assessment.

She said basically the Play group promoted the future of athletic facilities in this growing community. She said their initial objectives were to critically evaluate the present state of athletic facilities and programs in this community, investigate the need, and support for a first class sport recreation complex in Lawrence. What the complex would entail would be determined by the Needs Assessment.

She said they would also like to assist in building mutually beneficial partners among key stakeholders. She said this was a true public/private partnership. Part of the organization began with the announcement that Sport 2 Sport would be closing. Sport 2 Sport was a wonderful facility which provided an indoor venue for the youth in this community. She said the concept of a sports complex had been discussed for years in this community. She said they needed to think big regarding the issue of sport complexes in this community and look to the City, County, School District, and Chamber of Commerce to help pay for those facilities. She said she thought the private sector would come to the table in terms of funding an endowment. That endowment would serve to help pay for the upkeep, salaries, and maintenance of the sport complex.

Another important aspect of having a sport complex in this community was economic development. For instance, when the Sunflower Games chose to leave Lawrence a few years ago, economic development dollars were lost and instead were going to Topeka. There were numerous examples of a variety of sport venues that Lawrence did not have the opportunity to bid on because of the lack of athletic facilities.

She was said they were asking for funds to pay for the feasibility study. She said the cost would be about $55,000. She asked the City to pay for approximately 40% up to $25,000. She said the School District would also be a major player and she would ask the school district to pay for 40% as well. She said the remaining 20% would come from the County and the Chamber of Commerce.

She said when talking about the vision of Lawrence, they needed to be real careful not to lose sight of the youth. She said having a sports complex or recreational facility for the children should be part of the visioning statement as looking forward in building the livability of Lawrence.

Commissioner Rundle said, regarding the objectives for PLAY, one of the points indicated was to “Critically evaluate the present state of athletic facilities/programs in Lawrence.” He asked if that idea was included in that Needs Assessment.

Lowe said yes. She said with the estimated cost of $55,000 for that Needs Assessment, some of those costs would be plus or minus based on the information the City could provide. She said she thought the City had a good handle on the facilities in Lawrence and the pros and cons. She said as far as assessing what this community had today, might not be that difficult.

Phil Struble, LandPlan Engineering, said when he put the proposal together he did not know what the Parks and Recreational Department and School District actually had statistically for their information. He said the term “critically evaluate” meant the City’s competition level fields. He said the City had a number of facilities, but he did not know at what level.

Mayor Highberger said $55,000 seemed like a lot of money for a needs assessment or feasibility study.

Struble said the way his staff calculated those costs were at the upper end because they did not specifically know those costs. The second piece of the puzzle was the end game of what the community was shooting for. He said they would look at the entire community to determine a scenario, whether the facilities were in one location or six locations and the level of quality facilities that equal that of Lawrence’s peer institutions. He said they had participated in a similar study with Topeka, and their costs were larger. He said that type of an assessment was a lot of work.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Lowe would be soliciting other proposals for this needs assessment.

Lowe said that would be up to the City Commission, but she would expect that the Commission might want to receive bids to nail down an RFP from two or three different firms. She said she asked Struble to put some numbers together after visiting with the County to see what was needed. She said the needs assessment would be the first step in building a first class facility in this community, not only for the children, but economic development efforts and also the assessment could be used as part of the visioning process. After a needs assessment, a committee could be formed made up of representatives from various stakeholder groups to work toward a master plan and then look at the costs and what type of endowment was needed. She said in her opinion, this needed to be a true public/private partnership because it was a big need for the community and was not something the public needed to pay for with tax dollars.

Leonard Ortiz, School Board member, said he was very excited and thought he would get a jump start on this idea because Lowe would be presenting it to the school board on January 9^th. The idea was something that really needed to be looked into because the Hummer Sports Complex in Topeka was attracting tournaments and teams around the State and generating revenue for the City of Topeka.

Commissioner Schauner said in 2003 or 2004 the City Commission was presented a Clinton Lake Master Plan from the Parks and Recreation Department which was a plan to develop 1,500 acres at Clinton Lake. He said that plan would have built more soccer fields than were in Johnson County, a golf course and other types of facilities. He asked where that plan was at this time.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said there was a City wide master plan that was completed in 2000. The Clinton area was a subset of that master plan because a number of those facilities were included in that original master plan. Also, traffic studies were conducted and one of the biggest issues for that area was access. He said KDOT was not excited about more activity on the west side without better access.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if that master plan should have never been done.

Ernie Shaw, Superintendent Recreation and Operations, Parks and Recreation Department, said the plan was great, but one of the problems with that plan was access. He said there was 1,500 acres of land and now there was also Sesquicentennial Point and additional soccer fields at Clinton Lake Park for adult play. He said the access concern was a huge problem on Saturdays and Sundays during football or soccer games. He said the plan proposed the possibility of moving most of the soccer fields to the south of the golf course and leaving the other fields as practice fields and adult fields where there was not much congestion or activity.

He said within that plan was a fieldhouse in that area with multiple gymnasiums and open space. He said there were multiple things that came out in that plan when staff did its studies.

Wildgen said if the City was going to be the lead agency, the City had a process to send out Request for Proposals. He said whatever the City Commission ended up doing the scope of work needed to be further refined.

Commissioner Schauner said he had some uncertainty about where the school district facilities end and where Parks & Recreation facilities begin. He said he knew the City’s Parks and Recreation had a great ability to plan, but he was trying to figure out if the PLAY position paper proposal straddled all of those ideas. He said it was hard to argue against better public recreation facilities, but he was trying to figure out how to get there in an orderly fashion that made the best use of the City’s existing resources without spending additional tax money for consulting services. He said there were a tremendous number of competing projects on the horizon such as ECO² ground acquisition, Public Library, and the Farmland project and he did not have a sense of what the balance was among those projects. He said he would like a better sense of where the School District was coming from, but personally he saw the school board as a significant funding provider for this idea. He said the Hummer Park project in Topeka was a 16 or 17 million dollar project paid out over 20 years. He said they bought the ground for $600,000 from the State with using Pepsi Cola contract money that they had paid cash for and everything else was paid over a 10 year period. He said clearly a facility like the Hummer Park project would be a tremendous asset, but he would like to have more thought and discussion about who would be the lead agency, and how do they straddle the Parks and Recreation’s efforts. He said he was not certain where one stopped and where the other begins, the School District versus Parks and Recreation.

Commissioner Rundle said the City Commission would have some time in the next six weeks to figure out some of the questions if the school district would be looking at the issue on January 9^th. He said he assumed this issue would not be launched until all of the entities that would be funding this project were on board and on the same page. He said he was glad the Master Parks Plan was mentioned because it seemed that this community had a vision and master plan for recreational facilities. He said this process could benefit that plan by bringing new eyes to the plan to help stimulate some changes. He said the plan could also lead to some strategic planning in implementing the master plan and whatever proposals might be generated by that process.

He suggested that the Parks and Recreation Board somehow be involved in this process.

Commissioner Hack asked if it would be appropriate to give some general indication of the concept of a needs assessment so that message could be delivered back to the School Board. She said if the City Commission sat in a neutral position, they had not given the School Board much indication that the Commission was interested in partnering. She thanked Lowe for bringing this issue to the City Commission. She said it took people like Lowe in pushing the City forward in this vision. She said there were a couple of ways to look at this process and one way was from the youth perspective. She said there were equity issues in terms of what was available at this time. She said even if scholarships were provided for certain private facilities, if the kids could not get to those facilities then those children’s needs were not solved.

Regarding the economic development issues, this community lost out to other communities such as Topeka and Kansas City. She said this would be an opportunity to generate some economic development dollars.

There were examples of public/private partnerships such as the Free State High School pool and that had been a tremendous asset. She said the City and School District were not enemies in this recreational facility arena. The Art Center was also an outstanding public/private partnership where people raised a huge amount of money for a very important aspect of this community because Lawrence was a City of the Arts. She said they obviously needed an RFP process, but the City Commission would be making a huge mistake if they did not proceed with this idea or at the very minimum, give an indication to the School Board that the City Commission would like to explore further partnerships for an athletic facility for our youth.

Mayor Highberger thanked Lowe and others who worked on this project. He said he was concerned about the costs, but that the needs assessment would be valuable. He said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern about the number of potential projects that were in the pipeline. In addition to those projects mentioned was the private fund raising for the hospital expansion, Salvation Army Homeless Shelter, and the Homeless Shelter proposed by the Homeless Task Force. He said he wanted to move forward and explore the possibilities, but he wanted more information. He suggested placing this issue on the agenda for the next joint quarterly meeting before committing to go forward with the RFP, but with the understanding that he was generally sympathetic. He said he also would like more feedback from the Parks and Recreation Department to see how this fit with their long-term plans and see if they could find ways to bring the cost down.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he met with Lowe this afternoon and explained some of his concerns. He said he was involved with infrastructure improvements that dealt with sewer. He said he would place this on his list of priorities and try to find a way to implement this plan. He said he would spend money on maintenance issues first before getting into new areas, but he thought this plan might be a maintenance issue. He said he was not ready to state what should be spent on a needs assessment, but with visits with staff and school administration, he would like to determine who would be the lead agency in this plan, but he did not think the City should be the lead agency. He said the City’s participation would be necessary, but as far as the city being the lead agency, he was not sure that they were the body to do that. The needs assessment was critical to make the next assessment, but he would like staff to visit with the School Board.

Commissioner Hack said it was important to indicate to the School Board that the City Commission was not slamming the door on this issue and that the City Commission would like to receive more information and was interested in partnering. She said it would be a huge mistake to do nothing and assume that the School Board was going to handle this plan all on its own.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he did not think the School Board could handle this plan on its own, but as far as being the lead group, he thought the City Commission had loaded City staff up with enough things to handle.

Commissioner Schauner said it would be reasonable for the School Board to understand that the City Commission has an interest on some level of partnership on this plan. He said Parks and Recreation had some ideas for how to spend this next generation of sales tax finance improvements, how those programs and ideas could be made a part of some joint venture. He said he would like the Parks and Recreation staff to visit with Lowe, School District, and the Chamber of Commerce to see what was possible. He said he would like to find a way to begin the process without a firm commitment in spending money at this time, but the City Commission was not slamming the door and the Commission had an interest in having more thorough discussions with the other possible partners in this project.

Commissioner Rundle said he intended for his comments to reflect a positive outlook on the needs assessment, but the City Commission needed to reserve judgment on any specific proposals, but this would be a good tool for making any decisions. In terms of the costs, the RFP process should bring a cost effective proposal.

He said regarding sales tax, there might be other things competing for those funds and were not a given that those funds go to parks. He said the money invested in this plan might have a return in economic development in the income from tournaments being held in Lawrence and people looking at this community and its amenities in making their decisions to do business in Lawrence.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive a request from Bonnie Lowe concerning possible joint funding of public recreation facilities and directed staff to relay the Commission’s interest in further considering the request to the school district and County staff and to add this item to the next City/County/School district quarterly meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Receive Report on City employee survey final results.

Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, said back in 2002 the City Commission, at that time, directed staff to begin to periodically survey City employees because the City Commission was interested in employee opinions about the employee work environment. The primary purpose of that 2002 survey was to establish a benchmark. He said a study session was conducted February 2003 regarding information about City staff’s work environment. At that time, they committed to resurveying employees about every two or three years.

Earlier, in 2005, staff reassembled an employee survey committee and staff looked at the survey instrument that was administered in 2002 and with ETC Institute’s help, the survey instrument was improved. In late October and November of 2005, that survey was administered to the City’s workforce. In the staff memo it indicated very good results from the City’s employees in terms of feedback and the participation level.

Chris Tatham, Vice President ETC Institute, said this survey indicated how things had changed since the last survey was completed. He said they included approximately 79 questions that were asked in the last survey and added approximately 40 new questions which were to help elaborate on some of the issues in the last survey also to provide some benchmarks. He said their firm did employee research and community research for cities and counties across the country and in the last year they conducted employee surveys for the City of Kansas City, Missouri, Olathe, Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs and he would provide benchmarks on how Lawrence stacked up to some of those other communities.

He said they also conducted a national survey every two years of City and County employees so the Commission could also get a sense in comparing those areas. He said what impressed him with this whole process was how involved the City’s employees were with this process. He said he was working with other communities right now and he seldom saw the type of commitment by the folks on the Steering Committee in this effort.

The response rate of over 80% was a phenomenal response rate. Last survey there had been a 75% response rate and often times when performing a survey a second time, if people did not think that the data was used well, the response rate could go down considerably. He said because of that response rate, the demographics of the sample were very close with the actual demographics for the City. In addition, the precision was very accurate within plus or minus 2% or 1.6% at the 95% level of confidence. In laymen’s terms, that meant if they did this survey 100 times about 95 times out of 100, the same results would apply, plus or minus 2%.

He said one of the things they had asked was, compared to the last time the survey was completed, was how the work environment for the City of Lawrence had changed. He said there were a significantly higher percentage of folks that had thought it had gotten better than worse. He said 37% of the people thought the environment was better, 16% thought the environment was worse which was a little over a 2-1 ratio. Frankly, a lot of people thought the environment had stayed the same. He said when looking at the data many of the differences were in different departments or based on some of the different issues that were addressed and perhaps how much people cared about those issues and initiatives that took place.

In addition, they had asked people overall how satisfied they were with the work environment and only 4% of the employees surveyed were dissatisfied. The combined positives were 80%. He said the overall satisfaction in Lawrence at 80% was significantly better than both the national average and for the average of those other cities that he had mentioned earlier in the Kansas in Missouri region.

In a number of other issues Lawrence seemed to rank about average. The one issue that stood out was having the equipment that people needed to do that job. That ranked significantly above average. In addition a number of items that were on the survey that had to do with perceptions of senior management and the chain of command also ranked very high compared to what he had seen elsewhere. However, they had worded the question slightly differently to preserve the trends and for that he could not give the City Commission benchmarks. He said the City’s leadership had done a lot to help make this survey a positive outcome.

He said concerning trends, overall there were 71 items that were assessed both in the 2002 and the 2005 survey. He said 56 of those 79 areas showed at least some improvement. Of those, 25 were statistically significant given the precision of this survey and the last survey changes of about 0.2 on the scale were statistically significant changes, 25 fell into that category.

With regard to the declines, there were 21 of 79 areas declined. However, only 5 of those were statistically significant.

He said overall quality of communication with senior management ranked high. Contributions to health care, many of those were issues that the City Commission helped in taking place over the last couple of years. Availability of equipment to do their jobs improved significantly and that was an area that was now ranked significantly better than most other communities with regard to employee satisfaction.

Things such as training for employees to do their job safely, perceptions that City Management was doing everything to prevent on the job accidents. Things like perceptions that co-workers treat others and were properly disciplined if they treat other co-workers wrong. The LEAP program, timely information to employees, the employee assistance program, wellness program and many other issues that had improved, but those were at the top of the list.

Among the areas that had significant declines had to do with the City Commission, but there was a significant difference about this process than there was in 2002 which might explain part of that decline. He said last time the survey was performed, a member of the Commission was actively involved in the participation and was on the committee. Those drops were not great, but statistically significant which were about .2 or .3 drops. It could also be due to a lot of pressures, things going on and sometimes letting employees know and reinforcing what they were doing and their contributions was an important step.

The two bottom issues were the adequacy of professional development opportunities that was becoming more important to employees and also the overall perception that employees have that they were doing a good job in the eyes of Lawrence residents. He said it was not unusual for government employees to only hear when there were problems and sometimes people might not feel that they were actually getting the praise for all those people that were benefiting from some of the services that they provided.

Regarding some of the priorities for improvement, he wanted to share a couple of techniques. One technique was called an “Importance/Agreement analysis” which was an analysis where they plot the overall importance on the horizontal axis and plot the agreement of satisfaction with different major categories of issues that affect employees on the vertical axis. He said the compensation and benefits was the most important item to employees with regard to the major categories that were assessed. He said policies and procedures, safety, customer service were somewhat less important when employees were asked to pick the most important areas to focus on over the next couple of years. He said when looking at the vertical axis you could see the relative satisfaction or level of agreement with how well the City was doing. He said safety, working environment and even compensation and benefits rated above average. Communication, employee recognition, and professional development rated significantly below the average which was the horizontal line.

Another technique that they used to take a look at the data was that they pulled out the differences between employees who rated themselves as being satisfied with their employment at the city and then they looked at people who indicated that they were dissatisfied with their employment at the City. He said they showed in the report with all the 120 variables that were assessed, what the difference was. He said they also looked at whether or not people thought their working environment was getting better or worse and did the same type of analysis. He said they were looking for the gap. For example, people’s overall perceptions of policies and their awareness of polices did not make much difference as to whether or not they were satisfied with the work environment, but you could see some of the issues listed about whether you were fairly considered for a promotions and things such as that did make a big difference in people’s minds.

From that analysis they narrowed those 120 lists down to 12 such as handling promotions internally, making sure that was fair was clearly a priority, providing adequate opportunities for professional development to enhance and maintaining a good working environment for employees, creating an environment that encouraged employees to talk to their immediate supervisor because some people did not feel comfortable doing that, ensuring immediate supervisors evaluate employees with the same standards for everyone, and ensuring that all qualified individuals were considered for promotions.

He said he wanted to re-emphasize that the City really had made substantial progress. Many organizations did employee surveys and after 2 or 3 times they stop because nothing changes. In this organization there had been substantial change and it was clearly seen by 71% of the items improving and 5 items with significant decreases. In addition only 4% of the employees were not real happy working for the City which was approximately 35 employees, but that was a relatively low number compared to other communities and by focusing on some of the issues seen in the analysis, both at the city wide level and also with individual departments, that should provide some good direction for the City Manager and the senior staff to move forward.

Reeb said as mentioned in the staff memo, staff was at an important phase of this project. He said staff could certainly step back and roll out the results and celebrate some of the accomplishments over the last 3 years, but there was also quite a bit of work still to be done. Over the next 45 days ETC Institute would be looking at the information differently and preparing some department analyses and reports on department specific information. Much of the same information that the Commission saw on a city wide basis would be looked at on a department basis. Just as it was important to look at information city wide, it was of equal importance to look at it on a department basis as well. He said the working environment that went on in one department might be a bit different compared to another department. He said they would take that department specific information, along with the city wide information and roll it out to the workforce. The information presented this evening was available on the City’s intranet and internet. He said there were also some work groups identified that would begin to look at that information as well. The City’s Management Team and Operations Team would be meeting in January to look at those results, to get a preview of the department specific results and to get some sense of where they were headed over the next few months. The Employee Relations Council would also have this item and hopefully staff would continue to measure progress again in two years. He said hopefully every odd numbered year they would have an employee survey and move forward as best as they could.

He said he wanted to publicly recognize the Employee Survey Committee: Kim Brice, Lawrence Police Department; Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager; Jonathan Douglass, City Manager’s Intern; Tammy Bennett, Management Analyst for the Public Works Department; Lori Carnahan, Personnel Manager; Heidi Nelson, Personnel Office; Darren Othick, Lawrence Police Department; Kathy Elkins, Lawrence Fire/Medical; and himself, Administrative Service Director. He said the committee spent a lot of time making sure employees understood the importance of presenting some feedback and staff wanted to emphasize that importance when staff rolled out the information in January, February, and beyond.

Commissioner Schauner asked Reeb to discuss the City’s exit interview strategy.

Reeb said the City did not have a formal exit interview process at the present time. One of the reasons, in his view, was that they might not have the staff to conduct that exit interview properly. He said staff did exit interviews on a case by case basis or an employee might want to volunteer the information. He said staff might also request that an employee do so. The City did not have a formal exit interview process, but that process had been discussed.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Reeb would like to have a more structured process all things being equal.

Reeb said yes. He said it would be good to not only have a formal exit interview process, but an entrance interview process as well. He said staff could receive feedback on why employee decided to work for the City of Lawrence survey them while employed and then when they left the organization.

Commissioner Schauner said the I-A Assessment matrix which was based on John Nash’s work for which he won a Nobel Prize. He asked if that would be a tool that would be helpful for the City Commission in looking at budgeting as the Commission weighed various request in terms of City department’s interest in equipment versus salary.

Reeb said that would be some information that certainly could be part of the process. He said it was important to remember that this was just a piece of the total package of information that could be received, but it certainly would not hurt. The matrix showed two areas where there were opportunities for improvement. One of those areas was communication he did not know if there would be a lot of cost associated. The other area was leadership and managerial effectiveness. He said not to get too far in front of the results, but one of the issues that had been discussed was a supervisory training program that perhaps assisted with this issue and there might not be a lot of costs associated with that idea. He said it would certainly be helpful to continue to look at and place before the City Commission when the Commission was discussing budget matters.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be Reeb’s expectation that when those results were finally tuned that staff would come back with some specific recommendations to address those two areas that Reeb just discussed.

Reeb said he thought it made a lot of sense and staff would be happy to address those two areas both City wide and by department. He said staff would like a couple of initiatives city wide and it might be in the area of communication, leadership and managerial effectiveness. He said staff would also like departments to take a look at one or two areas based on those department specific results and come back with some ideas as well.

Commissioner Rundle said Reeb had made a comment about improving the survey and adding new items. He asked about the decision process on adding those items and asked if those items were field tested. He also asked if there was some research that verified measuring those original instruments that were measured.

Reeb said the City’s Employee Survey Committee had two or three meetings where they spent time looking at the 2002 survey. They removed some questions where there was a bit of redundancy and added some questions near the end where they gave the employee an opportunity to prioritize issues that the employee thought were important to work on in the next couple of years.

Tatham said there were some standard questions that were developed for organizational assessment that were used over the last decade and those questions were periodically refined and field tested with focus groups. He said they did factor analysis for all the surveys they conducted to see if there was duplication essentially in the response so that that employee was not repeating the same thing six different ways which created a mean index and would be essentially overweighting one area at the expense of the other.

He said they looked at the questions on the last survey and went through the process that Reeb had mentioned and eliminated information that was not useful or was redundant. He said they identified gaps in some of the areas and took questions that were on some of their standardized surveys for benchmarking comparison and that was why it was somewhat limited. He said they also did some focus groups with employees who were actually given the survey instruments and provided feedback to make sure those employees understood the information to make sure it worked as it was intended.

Commissioner Hack thanked Reeb for his leadership and had done a great job as well as staff and the ETC Institute. She said she agreed that the 85% return was incredible and what that said was that there was employee confidence in staff and the results would be confidential and that the survey would be used and valid which spoke well of the whole process. She said her concern was those wonderful 70% to 80% rating of satisfactions and then the City Commission received a 30% satisfaction which was a little scary. Since the Commission had a goal setting session that was coming up, but if the concern was in making decisions that were best for the community and valuing the work of the employees in support of department goals, those were the primary areas that staff had larger concerns with the Commission. She said she and her fellow Commissioners would like staff’s help in finding ways to have the Commission’s numbers go up. She said the Commission obviously had some work to do and she did not think the Commission understood what was needed because the Commission thought they were doing everything they wanted to do to let staff know how much the Commission appreciated those employees and their contributions, but the Commission was not getting that across. She asked staff what the Commission could do to do a better job.

Reeb said staff could help the Commission. He said it might not be a coincidence that an area of communication was identified in the I-A matrix as an opportunity for improvement, but it might be a piece of it as simple as better communicating some of the feedback that the City Commission gave at City Commission meetings. Earlier this evening, the City Commission complimented staff for work that was done. He said it appeared, as he was reviewed the minutes that a meeting did not go by where the Commission did not compliment staff. He said part of that might be better communicating those compliments.

Tatham said this was the only City or County for which they had conducted a survey where they actually had the employees rate a leadership body. He said as the information was rolled out, that would be part of the message. Most leadership bodies did not give the employees an opportunity to express what they thought. In fact, it appeared that the Commission cared and were concerned. That message when this survey was rolled out would be part of the message that was communicated and that might address some of the Commission’s concerns.

Commissioner Rundle said some of the specific results that he had questions about were more directed to staff. He said when staff received the departmental breakdown, would staff give the City Commission that information as a report or would there be another study session or agenda item.

Reeb said staff could present the outcome in any format the Commission wished. He said staff could put the information together in a memo format or perhaps address the issue in the City Manager’s Report and provide an update, or a regular agenda item.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Rundle said the fact that they had good participation in the survey was a credit to the initial survey process in getting people to accept the survey and buying into the survey was a credit to the very labor intensive process that staff and GRI Research went through.

He said it was not the opinions that they were trying to change, but to identify what the possible issues were. He said the survey did not necessarily reflect that there was a problem, but if there was a problem that was why those departmental results would be good. He said the City Commission needed the manager’s to be drilling down and figuring out what the problems were and what to do to address those problems. He said one of his questions was what staff had surfaced from the last survey and what steps had been taken to address concerns.

Wildgen said he could address those issues in a report, but one of the most direct results was hiring of a training coordinator that started late summer. He said staff had not seen the results of that person’s effort in the survey yet.

Commissioner Rundle said he would be interested in having that report.

City Commission received the report. (14)

Conduct a public hearing on the unsafe structure at 429 Indiana Street and consider ordering the structure to be repaired or removed within 30 days.

Mayor Highberger called for a public hearing on the unsafe structure at 429 Indiana Street.

Julie Wyatt, Environmental Inspector, said she had requested that the Commission discuss this property at 429 Indiana due to the deterioration of the structure. The property owners of record were deceased. She had been in contact with Kris Kessinger who had made efforts to secure the structure and removed the immediate concerns.

Part of the complication with the property was that the estate was still in limbo. It was her understanding that they were trying to get a clear title for the property. Until the title was clear it would be difficult to get anyone to invest money into this property. Another staff concern was the safety of the structure to the surrounding properties and staff was requesting that the City Commission adopt a resolution that would declare the structure unsafe and dangerous and order the structure to be repaired or removed. Typically, a 30 day time period would be requested, but it was her understanding that those involved in the property were trying to get the title cleared and would like additional time to make that happen. Staff was not opposed to that request, but staff’s main intent was that the structure be repaired or removed.

She said this property was within the environs of Pinckney No. 1 and Pinckney No. 2, historic district and any type of major repairs or demolition would require review from the Historic Resources Commission.

Commissioner Rundle said usually staff liked to see those types of properties secured at least while going through a process. He said given the unclear title, did Wyatt have anyone to direct to secure the structure.

Wyatt said she had been in contact Kris Kessinger and she had worked with William Mumford who was the son of the deceased owners and they had secured the structure. The only thing that was open was the window on the south side of the structure which was not accessible from the ground, but needed to be boarded up.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

John Solbach, Attorney, speaking on behalf of the Mumford family, said he was asking that a copy of a Petition for Determination of Descent be passed out to each of the Commissioners as well as a Notice of Hearing which would be published tomorrow in the newspaper and then each week for the next three weeks and then a letter sent to David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director.

He said Mumford and his wife Kris Kessinger had retained him to clear title to the property and they had filed this probate proceeding to accomplish that. He said they believed they had an informal agreement with all of the heirs of the deceased property owners which included nine children who were scattered across the state. He said he already received the legal documents from one of those children and would anticipate the rest of those children cooperating prior to the hearing date which was now scheduled for January 10^th. He said once that was accomplished, they could get clear title in the name of William C. Mumford. He said Mumford was working with the bank and would be able to get a loan to either repair the property to the satisfaction of the City Commission and City staff or if necessary, remove the structure, but they needed time. He said they were asking the City Commission to give them 90 days to comply with the order in order to get the title cleared, the loan in place, and the contractors lined up.

Commissioner Rundle asked Solbach to remind him how long the legal process took to clear title to the property.

Solbach said the hearing was scheduled for the January 10^th and he expected that the hearing would be heard before Judge Murphy and expected that the order would be issued on that date that would clear the title to the property. He said there were two of those people who were married and might need a quit claim deed. After that, Mumford could take those documents to the bank to receive the loan and proceed from there. He said he did not know if the loan would take 30 days, but they were proceeding with all deliberate speed.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if it would be appropriate to have language, assuming the court gave the order that gave Mumford sole ownership of that property, and prior to loan approval, to start the application for those permits as a good faith effort in this matter.

Solbach said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Madeline Mumford was the last living owner of that property.

Solbach said correct.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Madeline Mumford died 11 years ago.

Solbach said correct.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the determination of descent was filed on December 13^th 2005.

Solbach said he had tried to change the past many times in his life, but he found it to be very stubborn and intransigent. He said the future sometimes was valuable and susceptible to change so he concentrated on his efforts there. He said Commissioner Schauner was correct in that Madeline Mumford died 11 years ago. He said the family had informally operated the property without taking legal action to put the property in one name or another. He said the family was in the position to agree, at this point, because of the deterioration of the property and if they had done this earlier it might have been something that would have been of value and divided among them all. Now they were looking at Mumford to do all the work and they were going to put the property in his name. Therefore, they would have a responsible party to go forward and he hoped that explanation would be satisfactory to the City Commission.

Kris Kessinger, Lawrence, said after Madeline Mumford passed away, her grandfather had started helping them remodel the house, but her grandfather became ill. She said Mr. Mumford has had two medical issues in the last 11 years and it had been one of those things where it was placed on hold because health reasons were more important than the house. She said now they were at the point in their lives where they were ready to move on and to either repair the foundation, repair the house, or demolish the house and rebuild for their retirement home.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing.

Commissioner Hack said it was not unreasonable to extend this issue for 90 days. Obviously, there was a concern, but Wyatt indicated the structure was secure with the exception of the one window in which the City Commission should ask that that window be boarded up which, all things considered, was a fair thing to do.

Commissioner Rundle agreed. He said if they were not regularly present at the property then he suggested that they somehow make sure they monitored that property.

Commissioner Schauner asked the question, 90 days to do what.

Commissioner Hack said to repair or remove the structure.

Commissioner Schauner said if the structure was to be repaired, he asked to what level. He said putting aside the 11 years, according to the staff report, this had been an issue since at least March of 2005. He said he had received phone calls from 3 or 4 neighbors essentially saying that if the place was not cleaned up they would move out of town because they were tired of living next to that dilapidated structure. He said if 90 days was what the Commission desired, he would at least like some idea of what level of change the Commission would expect in 90 days. Otherwise, he believed 90 days would pass and this issue would be back before the Commission requesting additional time. He said he thought it was time to move on.

He said Solbach was right, a person could not change the past, but they did have some limited control over future actions

Vice Mayor Amyx suggested that the City Commission take some action to require Solace’s clients to pull the applicable permits and upon receipt of the ownership change, that the structure should be brought to minimum standards required by City ordinances or a demolition permit would need to be applied for 10 days following the determination of descent.

Commissioner Rundle said if there was any way to keep working toward the assessment on the feasibility of renovation while waiting for the determination, he hoped that could be accomplished to determine what action they would take at the end of that period.

Kessinger said as soon as they had everything back from the family members, their plans were to go to the bank with the information from their attorney so they could receive a loan to either demolish the structure and rebuild, or remodel. She said they were taking vacation next week and that was when they had planned to visit the financial institutions.

Mayor Highberger asked if there would be any problem with Vice Mayor Amyx’s conditions.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he understood that the condition was once the court order was issued as far as determining the appropriate ownership that the court selected owner would have 10 days to apply for the necessary permits with the City. He said he thought that condition could be done.

He said this issue was under the unsafe and dangerous structures code provisions and the Commission adopted the resolution to create the hearing and the Commission would be directing staff. He said he and Wyatt would work on a resolution establishing whatever the appropriate timeframe was to bring the structure up to City Code.

In response to Commissioner’s Schauner’s inquiry about what level the structure would need to be brought up to, he said the structure would be brought up to a condition so that Wyatt and her inspections indicated that it was not violating any of the City’s laws. He said it would not be new construction, but the structure would not be violating any of the unsafe and dangerous conditions that Wyatt might find in her inspections. He said that was the ending of the City’s jurisdiction under this proceeding.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the code required the house to be habitable.

Wyatt said no. She said the code addressed the exterior of the structure. The structure needed to be weather tight and compliant with the codes in that the siding needed painting and the structure needed to be in good condition. She said the City had structures that were boarded up, but those structures were not habitable.

Corliss said it was fair to say that if the structure was to be used for habitation then the structure needed to meet different code standards.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the house had current utility services.

Wyatt said the house had electrical service recently, but not currently. Also there was no record of gas service, but it had, at one time, water service.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to order the structure to be repaired or removed within 90 days and required the property owner of record to apply for necessary permits within 10 days after determination of descent. Motion carried unanimously. (15)

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said Lynn Zollner, Historic Resources Planner, indicated that it needed to go through the Historic Resources Commission and needed to be applied for in time for publication.

Commissioner Rundle said another duty for staff to bear the burden of was to discuss with staff the HRC process involved so that staff was prepared with that hurdle.

Receive staff memorandum concerning the HOP moratorium extension issue. The current moratorium expires February 1, 2006.

Michelle Leininger, Planner said before the City Commission was a request for the rezonings in the HOP area that the City Commission initiated on October 25, 2005 and those rezonings were placed on the December Planning Commission agenda. The required public notices were published on the 20^th and after that staff noticed an error in the publication. It was specifically for 1620, 1612, 1604, 1512, 1508, 1500 West 5^th Street and 446 Florida. The publication indicated that those properties were recommended to be rezoned from RM-1 to RS-2 when it should have read that the properties were RM-2 being recommended to be rezoned to RS-2. She said this was not caught in time to correct that situation and staff must meet the statutory 20 day notice prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She said the rezoning recommendation would not be before the City Commission until February 7^th, 2006 which was after the moratorium expired. She said the neighborhood would like to see the moratorium for this area at least extended for one month.

Mayor Highberger asked if the concern was just the seven properties.

Leininger said yes.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

There was no public comment.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the extension should be made until February 15^th.

Mayor Highberger said at the agenda review meeting, 30 days was suggested, but he thought it could apply to the seven properties in question. He said he was not thrilled with extending moratorium, but they could make this fairly limited and fairly short.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to extend the moratorium for 30 days for the seven properties identified in the staff memo. Motion carried unanimously. (16)

Receive status report on possible improvements to the 19^th and Louisiana intersection.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said last year the City hired BG Consultants for the 19^th and Louisiana Intersection Improvement Study. He said when this issue was originally brought to the City Commission it was discussed with respect to “The Louisiana Traffic Calming Study” that was completed in 2000. At that time, staff had brought an estimated cost for improvements of approximately $550,000. Through the preliminary design report and study, they found that those estimates were considerably higher for ultimate improvements to the intersection. Also the right-of-way needs were substantially more than what staff had anticipated.

Also, when this issue was brought before the City Commission the process was to address this issue with the School Board and public to develop some options, but at this point it was important for the City Commission to take a look at this issue again before staff went out to the public with two options that would cost substantially more than anticipated and require a substantial amount of right-of-way.

He presented the results of the preliminary report from BG Consultants which were:

Crash rate for the intersection is 11.51 c/tmev (crashes/ten million vehicles entering the intersection). This is the highest crash rate for intersections in Lawrence, and very near what the State considers a critical crash rate for intersections of this type (11.69 c/tmev).
The Level of Service (LOS) of the intersection at peak times is E, some approaches operate at LOS F.

The Level of Service is measured in terms of seconds a vehicle has to wait (or is delayed). The following table identifies those times:

Table 16-2: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service	Average Control Delay (s/veh)
A	0-10
B	> 10-20
C	> 20-35
D	> 35-55
E	> 55-80
F	> 80

Pedestrian crossing peak time is between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. with 85 pedestrian crossing movements.
Two preliminary options have been developed with pros and cons of each option listed. The two preliminary options are:

Geometric improvements – Primarily, this option would require significant property acquisition. The construction estimate uses Douglas County appraisals for acquisition. The base project is $2.3 million. Alternatives for bus turnout lane and left turn lane on 19^th Street, west of Louisiana, brings the estimate to $2.4 million. Realistically, with increases in construction costs and property values, this option will approach $2.5-$3 million.
Roundabout Option – Primarily, this option would require less property acquisition. The base estimate is $1.5 million. With a bus turnout lane and left turn lane on 19^th Street, west of Louisiana, the estimate is $1.7 million. Again, realistically this is a $2 million project. Of concern is the projected 2015 traffic volumes for which the V/C ratio (Volume to Capacity) for the roundabout is at capacity during peak periods.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the level of service would be a “D” on day one.

A member of BG Consultant engineering firm said it would be a little different than comparing a traffic signal to a roundabout. There was a very similar basis on level of services.

Soules said BG Consultants made other recommendations for improvements which were:

Reconstruct the southeast corner radius to facilitate turning movement. Increasing this radius will require additional right of way and signal relocation. The estimated cost is $111,308, not including right-of-way or utility relocations. This improvement would make the right turn from Louisiana to east bound 19^th Street easier for motorists, however would not significantly affect the overall performance or safety of the intersection. The cost of this improvement does not warrant the minor improvement in vehicular movements.
There are a significant number of angle accidents from left turning vehicles not yielding the right-of-way during a permitted left turn movement (nine (9) crashes due to westbound left-turn failing to yield to eastbound traffic). One solution would be to remove the permitted left turn phase for 19^th Street and provide a longer storage lane east of Louisiana. This improvement requires widening 19^th Street at the Ohio Street intersection to accommodate a 3-lane section. Restricting left turns onto Ohio during the peak hour should be considered with this improvement. The widening may be possible to the north.

Discussion: Providing a protected left turn lane can reduce accidents; however, delays during the peak hour will increase. Traffic currently experiences backups onto Tennessee. Adequate storage for this turning movement is not available today, nor would this improvement provide sufficient storage at peak times. Estimated cost of engineering/construction is approximately $160,455, not including right-of-way or utility relocation.

Addition of a bus turnout lane south of the intersection to facilitate bus loading/unloading to alleviate traffic congestion. This improvement would not improve the safety of the intersection, however public comments received view this issue as an obstacle to traffic flow on Louisiana. Total cost of engineering/construction would be approximately $35,000 - $40,000. This improvement would improve traffic flow during school, however does not have a significant effect on the safety of the intersection.
Widening of 19^th Street west of Louisiana to provide a center turn lane. This widening could be extended west to the high school’s western most entrance. The improvement would facilitate ingress/egress from Lawrence High School and provide storage for the intersection. Entering and exiting the high school was also an issue expressed at the public meeting. It would be recommended that the eastern most exit become a right-out only to preserve the storage for the intersection. Similar to the center turn lane on 6^th Street, this would provide an area for turning vehicles to get out of the lane for through traffic. There may be sufficient right-of-way on the south side of 19^th Street, however significant Westar facilities would need to be relocated. This would be at the utility’s cost and would take several months. The sidewalk would also need to be reconstructed. The estimated cost is approximately $287,483, not including right-of-way or utility relocation.

The estimates provided were for street improvements only. The city had significant water lines in this intersection which needed to be evaluated to determine if those water lines needed to be replaced.

Soules said staff was looking for City Commission direction. He said staff could discuss this issue with the neighborhoods and school concerning ultimate designs or staff could look at those other recommendation for improvements. He said staff recommended providing a left turn lane on 19^th Street westbound which could improve the safety of the intersection.

Additionally, traffic flow in the area could be improved with a bus turnout lane on Louisiana Street and a center lane on 19^th Street from Louisiana Street west to the western school property line.

Mayor Highberger said the way he read the report that the addition of the westbound left turn lane could cause traffic to backup even further toward Tennessee Street.

Soules said he did not know if traffic could back up any further because they had traffic backing up from Louisiana to Tennessee during the peak times because of the left turn. He said putting in additional storage for that left turn might not see any improvement.

Commissioner Schauner said if there was dedicated left at that intersection for west and southbound traffic that would provide an opportunity for more vehicles to make that turn than could currently make it with the amount of eastbound traffic on that street.

Soules said correct.

Commissioner Hack said the bus turnout, the center lane, and the dedicated left would improve the intersection and then perhaps apply for some safety funding for the eastbound turn off of Louisiana for property acquisition.

Soules said no. He said the safety funding would be for those larger projects.

Commissioner Schauner said no matter what was done to the intersection in 2015 that intersection was likely to fail.

Soules said failure just meant a longer delay. He said a person would eventually be able to get through, the problem was the delay.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not care to express an opinion about which of those options he thought made the most since, but instead go back to the neighborhoods for discussion. He said another concern was that 19^th Street from Iowa to the far-east was part and parcel of an arterial that was failing with the surface of that street, the lack of curbs, and the lack of good sidewalks on both sides of that street. He said whatever the Commission did that each piece of the improvement built in a way that they could simply continue to move down that corridor and make legitimate long-term value investments in improving that infrastructure. He said maybe Option 1 without the roundabout is the solution, but he did not know. He said it seemed that was going to be an expensive street over the next 10 or 15 years because of the increasing volume of traffic. He said he would like to get the neighborhood’s feedback before the Commission made any decision and he also would like to have a longitudinal plan that looked at that street as a whole rather than just that intersection.

Commissioner Rundle said when Soules was discussing the capacity with the roundabout he asked if Soules was also looking at what effect the roundabout had on the intersections to the east in terms of backing up, specifically 19^th and Tennessee. He asked if there was a chance that the roundabout would backup traffic that far back.

David Hamby, BG Consultants, said when they were assessing the roundabout they looked at the effects on the upstream intersections. He said what they discussed were the signals at Tennessee and Kentucky could be coordinated so as traffic moved through 19^th and Louisiana to the east, those signals timing would need to be adjusted so traffic could move to the east and west more efficiently. He said the wait times at Tennessee would increase to get that traffic moved through and not back up.

Vice Mayor Amyx said 20 years ago that was a four way stop at that intersection. He said it seemed that there were no problems until they started to improve that intersection. He said this was the only signalized intersection in that area. He asked if expanding out from 19^th and Louisiana and look at another controlled intersection at 21^st and Louisiana would help the situation.

Soules said staff would need to look at some type of modeling. The issue about 19^th Street was that 19^th went all the way from the east side of town to the west side and accessed K.U. and the High School. Louisiana Street went from 19^th Street all the way south to 31^st Street and people were traveling that route because they would not need to use those other roads.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the City Commission and staff had concentrated a lot of effort on moving traffic through 19^th and Louisiana.

Soules said 23^rd, 19^th and 6^th Streets went all the way through which was one of the problems in that they did not have the east/west arterial. He said 23^rd had its own problems and 6^th Street carried a lot of traffic as well.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he did not have a problem having staff discuss this issue with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Hack agreed. She said it was not staff’s intent to get a stamp of approval from the City Commission, but the intent was to give an update to this issue to take back to the neighborhood and school district. She said if there was a way to bleed traffic off on 23^rd by improvements somewhere else that could in fact, over time, reduce the amount of traffic on 19^th Street.

Commissioner Rundle said it did not seem feasible to have no left turn going into the High School, but it seemed like the rest of that street for the eastbound having no left turn during those rush hours, he asked if staff could assess the feasibility. He said when discussing 6^th Street and adding the turn lane, he had visited with KDOT and thought there were funds available for separating the pedestrians and vehicular traffic. He said an overpass opened a can of worms with regard to aesthetics. He said when looking at costs on the internet there was a price tag of $100,000 to $300,000 dollars. He said finding some lower costs alternatives was certainly a good idea.

Mayor Highberger said he thought it needed to go back to the neighborhood. He said neither of the two major options was viable because they were too expensive. Certainly, the geometric improvements would have too much of a devastating impact on the neighborhood along with the roundabout option. He said he thought Vice Mayor Amyx was correct in that the ultimate solution was going to need to be a more global solution in looking at the entire area and finding ways to disperse that traffic.

Soules said staff would take this discussion back to the School Board and neighborhood for further discussions.

Commissioner Schauner said it seemed that the bus pull out did make a lot of sense and should be a relatively low cost project that could be engineered in-house.

Soules said potentially. He said there were some preliminary discussions with the School District, but they needed to find an area for that bus pull out. (17)

Receive the draft 2006 Legislative Policy Statement.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the draft policy statement. He said a few weeks back staff introduced the legislative policy statement and he had prepared a draft 2006 Legislative Policy Statement and was in rough form until appropriate graphics and photographs were inserted to compliment the text. He directed the City Commission to the text of the document to seek City Commission direction as to whether or not that reflected the Legislative Policy Statement that the City Commission wished to convey to the State Legislators. He said staff did have a meeting scheduled with the local legislative delegation along with the County Commission, School Board and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce on January 4^th. He asked if there was any general discussion about any of those items, wording, order, areas of emphasis, he would be happy to take that direction and edit and change the document accordingly.

Mayor Highberger asked why unfunded mandates and condemnation powers were lumped together.

Corliss said the Mayor raised a good point. He said staff might want to separate the condemnation and domain issue.

Commissioner Rundle said that was the one issue that was missing in the first draft. Since the eminent domain had been flagged as an issue it might be good to make it clearer.

Corliss said staff would make that a separate item. He said what staff was trying to do was to model what the League of Municipalities was using as a statement. He said they were saying that the City also opposed efforts to unnecessarily restrict the City’s current authority to exercise eminent domain, powers for public purposes. He said he did not think the Commission wanted to go to the Legislature as a strong proponent of the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. He said he did not think the City Commission was seeking that that authority would be restricted, but what the Commission would essentially be telling the legislative delegation and staff was that if there was legislation that would hurt the City’s ability to acquire property for the traditional purposes that were used, they would want to make sure and let the legislative delegation know that that was a concern. Quite frankly, that was his primary area of concern in that the legislative delegation was going to make changes to the eminent domain statute that would increase the City’s costs and time for the traditional public purpose elements.

He said he also wanted to point out that the City did not use that authority very often and he hoped that reflected on the City Commission and staff. He said Scott Wagner, City Legal Assistant, spent a lot of time with property owners explaining what the City was doing, what the process was and that it was not in the City’s interest to pay them any less than what those property owners were legally entitled to.

Commissioner Rundle said it would be good to pitch that the City had been very responsible and judicious in the use of eminent domain.

Commissioner Schauner said on the sales tax question, he asked if the City had an interest in additional sales tax authority.

Wildgen said the sales tax was at the maximum for the City and County. He said there was a little bit of authority for the ECO² option at the County level.

Corliss said the County could hold an election for the Economic Development open space acquisition purposes. He said the Legislature had not been very responsive to any of the previous requests for additional revenue authority for Municipalities. He said but that did not mean not to include that additional revenue authority. He said the League has that as one of their statements every year to increase the revenue options for local units of government. He said Wyandotte County had pushed earnings tax, a number of communities had pushed sales tax, but the traditional vehicle for the legislature had always been when a municipality (City or County) wanted additional sales tax authorities, those municipalities would go to the legislature and ask for specific purposes such as recreational facilities or jails.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a project or projects on the near term agenda that would be a basis for such a request. He said the City could not continue to rely on 6%, 7%, and 8% property valuation increases as a way to continue to fund the increasing costs of doing business.

Corliss said his observation was that the most successful abilities to get the legislature to do that had been when the community spoke as one voice and said that it was a consensus of the community that they wanted to fund a library expansion or recreational facility growth through sales tax. He said 2006 might be a year to make that a priority and vision that as something the City Commission wanted and then lay the ground work for a future year.

Commissioner Rundle said the last time that was taken to the Legislature it was to get permission to put it to a vote. He asked if that was passed.

Corliss said that was passed. He said it was always with a vote. Sometimes it happened where they had a vote and they did not have the authority, but in most cases they ask the Legislature to grant them that additional authority and that was ECO² successfully did that at a Countywide level for those specific purposes.

Vice Mayor Amyx said it was something to discuss especially in light of the burden continuing to be placed on the owners of real property. He said the burden was becoming unbearable for a whole lot of people. He said the City Commission needed to take that into consideration so that if the City did have those types of projects they could be addressed in that manner.

Corliss said one item was to exempt equipment used in manufacturing from personal property taxes. He said that had an impact on the City’s revenue stream. He said it was essentially a tax shift. Also from the proponents it had a very important economic development purposes. He said he understood that some of the proposals had been that those with equipment and machinery used in manufacturing purposes would receive a tax credit off of their state income taxes so that essentially they were still paying the property taxes, but then the state would bear the fiscal costs of that economic development. That was an issue staff would monitor to watch how it would impact this City. (18)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (CONT’D)

Consider motion to recess into executive session to discuss personnel matters of non-elected personnel for 15 minutes. The justification for the executive session is to keep personnel matters confidential at this time. The regular session will resume in the City Commission meeting room.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to recess into executive session at 9:30 for 15 minutes. (19)

The Commission reconvened in regular session at 9:45.

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Rundle mentioned timing of signal lights. He said he would like to see staff look into some proposal of funding for centrally coordinated traffic signals.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2005

1. Bid – 1 heavy duty dump body for Public Works to American Equip fro $91,998.

2. Bid – 1 tandem axle truck for Public Works to Topeka Freightliner Sales for $59,457.48.

3. Bid – Janitorial Services for ITC Center to Smart Bldg Svcs fro $18,750.

4. Purchase Property – 524 N 7^th for $138,000 for stormwater mitigation project.

5. Purchase 4 mowers – Parks & Rec from John Deere State Purchasing Contract, $84,704.

6. Ordinance No. 7946 – 2^nd Read, Rezone – (Z-05-34-05) 1.35 acres, M-2 to RS-2, S side of 200 Blk Perry St.

7. Ordinance No. 7950 – 2^nd Read, Stormwater Utility Budget.

8. Ordinance No. 7936 – 2^nd Read, Establish Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board on racial profiling.

9. Site Plan – (SP-11-83-05) Crosstown Tavern.

10. UPR – (UPR-09-03-04) Village Meadows Retirement Community, 17.8 acres, W side of Congressional from W 6^th to Overland.

11. Insurance Coverage – Workers Compensation for 2006 with Midwest Employers Casualty Co for annual premium of $36,796.

12. City Manager’s Report.

13. Joint Funding – Public recreation facilities.

14. Employee Survey – Final results.

15. Public Hearing – Unsafe structure, 429 Indiana.

16. HOP moratorium extension.

17. Status Report – 19^th & Louisiana intersection.

18. 2006 Legislative Policy Statement.

19. Executive Session