January 24, 2006
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.
Mayor Highberger noted, for the record, that he had communication from a citizen concerning the nuisance house ordinance asking about the possibility of greater coordination with Kansas University regarding this ordinance.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 10, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of November 28, 2005; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 8, 2005; the Community Commission on Homelessness meeting minutes of November 17, 2005 and December 13, 2005; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of November 9, 2005 and December 14, 2005; and the Practitioner’s Panel meeting minutes of October 6, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 442 vendors in the amount of $2,535,359.15, and payroll from January 8, 2006 to January 21, 2006 in the amount of $1,567,020.82. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Abe & Jake’s Landing, 8 East 6th; and the Cereal Malt Beverage Licenses for The Bull, 1344 Tennessee (Contingent Upon Departmental Approval). Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Jay Zimmerschied and Tracy Green to the Fire Code Board of Appeals to second terms which will expire January 31, 2009; reappoint Evie Rapport and appoint Dave Loewenstein to the Lawrence Arts Commission to terms which will expire January 31, 2009; reappoint Donna Swall and Lewis Roberts to the Lawrence-Douglas County Advocacy Council on Aging to additional terms which will expire December 31, 2008; appoint WyLma Mortell to the Public Transit Advisory Committee to a term which will expire December 31, 2007; and appoint Daniel Poull to the Recycling & Resources Conservation Advisory Board to the position vacated by Steven Hughes. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. for design, bid and construction phase services for the Clinton Parkway & Kasold (Utilities Department Project Number CS05-01); the 22nd & Quail Creek (Utilities Department Project Number CS25-03) and the Alvamar Area (Utilities Department Project Number CS05-02) Sanitary Sewer Improvement Projects in the amount of $118,391. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering contract with Burns and McDonnell for the Preliminary Report of the Kaw Water Supply and Transmission Improvements in the amount of $151,209. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Slavin Management Consultants for executive search services (City-County Planning Director) in an amount not to exceed $13,640 plus expenses. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7962, amending the disorderly house nuisance ordinance, pursuant to Commission direction on January 17, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7939, a request to rezone (Z-08-50-05) a tract of land approximately 4.50 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development) District (the property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7940, a request to rezone (Z-08-51-05) a tract of land approximately 3.880 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. (the property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive) was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (N-12-05-05/SP-12-95-05) for Replay Lounge, a site plan fro an expansion of a non-conforming use for a rear patio expansion, located at 946 Massachusetts Street, subject to the following conditions:
(A) the City Commission grant the authority to enlarge the building devoted to a non-conforming use as the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of said building and the conditions set forth in section 20-1303 (Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses) are met; and
(B) approval of the site plan for the expansion of the non-conforming use subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Historic Resources Commission conditions of approval: (a)the proposed canopy height be lower than the top of the existing parapet wall of the main structure; (b) the applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit; and (c) any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to show the revised location of the BBQ/Smoker a minimum of 10’ from any building wall per Uniform Fire Code 1102.5.2.2, per the approval of City Fire Marshal.
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-12-96-05) for site improvements, located at 1246 Haskell Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
2. Submittal of an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Sanitary Sewer Benefit District for construction of a public sewer line to service this site and connection of the on-site service line to this public sewer;
3 Submittal of an Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for sidewalk improvements for Haskell Avenue and 13th Street;
4. Revision of the site plan to include the following:
a. Notation of replacement of the garage door with a solid wall and window;
b. Notation of all existing site lighting and a note stating that all lighting will be shielded to prevent off-site glare;
c Revision of the site’s pavement, impervious, and pervious calculations to reflect the site’s actual existing conditions.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6626 providing for the retirement of Housing Development Revenue Bonds used to finance the Vermont Towers facility, 1101 Vermont Street. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Raina Vissman, 736 Missouri Street and Maxine Younes, 1320 East 18th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Maxine Younes, 1320 East 18th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s report, Mike Wildgen said Commissioner Rundle had asked for information regarding 31st and Iowa which he had emailed to the City Commission. He said after the Commission had time to review that information, staff could place this issue on the agenda if desired.
Also, staff received two Requests for Proposals for the Carnegie Library which were posted on the City’s website. Those RFP’s would be on the agenda at a later date and David Dunfield, the architect on the project, would like to brief the City Commission on work in progress on the concepts for the building at that time.
Finally, Wildgen said that Jim Kane, Eagle Bend Golf Course Pro-Manager, was inducted into the Oral Roberts University Athletics Hall of Fame. (12)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct public hearing on requested tax abatement and industrial revenue bonds for Berry Plastics. Receive recommendation from Public Incentives Review Committee.
Mayor Highberger called a public hearing on the request for a tax abatement and industrial revenue bonds for Berry Plastics.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, reviewed the request for a tax abatement and industrial revenue bond for Berry Plastics. He said the Commission had in their agenda packets, the letter for request, the application, cost benefit analysis that had been prepared pursuant to Ordinance No, 7706, and a staff memorandum from the Finance Director. Also there was a draft resolution that had been prepared by the City’s bond counsel.
The Public Incentive Review Committee (PIRC) conducted their review of this application. This tax abatement request was outlined in the memo from Ed Mullins, Finance Director, where it was an application for an abatement on $24.5 million worth of construction and $93.5 million in machinery and equipment. Under Kansas Law, there were two ways of obtaining a property tax abatement. One way was to have the City issue industrial revenue bonds. The City’s Bond Counsel was Gilmore & Bell and they had been working with the applicant regarding the industrial revenue bond issuance.
Pursuant to state law when industrial revenue bonds were issued, the property that was purchased with the proceeds of the IRB’s was statutorily exempt. He said a payment in lieu of taxes agreement was then entered into which was called a PILOT agreement whereby the property owner agreed to pay a certain amount of taxes based upon the tax abatement that was provided. For example, if providing a 90% tax abatement, the property owner would enter into a PILOT for 10% of the applicable property taxes as those taxes would be determined on an annual basis.
The other method for achieving a tax abatement was by virtue of a Kansas Constitution. Since the late 1980’s Kansas cities and counties have had authority under that constitutional amendment to exempt property that was used for manufacturing, research and development, or warehousing items in interstate commerce. The applicant’s proposal qualified under the constitutional abatement procedures as well. He said pursuant to the applicant’s request and the IRB statutes, the IRB statutes required the City to provide seven days notice and a notice to the School District and County. He said since they had scheduled this public hearing, the applicant had been in consultation with the City’s bond counsel and indicated that they wanted to proceed with the real property that would be part of this project under the constitutional abatement and not under the IRBs. He said this hearing did not include the constitutional abatement. If the Commission desired to proceed, staff would schedule a separate hearing on the constitutional abatement portion that would allow the City Commission to receive additional public comment. This hearing had been noticed up for the entire dollar amount and it was appropriate to proceed under the industrial revenue bond issuance and to consider the entire project.
The applicable tax abatement policy was codified in Ordinance No. 7706 and was placed in Article 1 of the City Code. He said Mullins’ memo outlined the five general target categories for property that could be considered eligible for property tax exemptions and it further outlined, in the ordinance, a number of items that the applicant must comply with which were:
1. Business is environmentally sound;
2. Business is small to medium size – to avoid a situation where the City becomes dependent upon one (1) industry, and to maintain the character of the community;
3. Average wages paid per employment category meet or exceed the average in the community as determined annually by the Kansas Department of Human Resources Wage Survey;
4. Wages paid are at or above, an amount which is equal to 130% of the federal poverty threshold for a family of three (3), as established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (currently $10.06 per hour);
5. Business provides one of the following: 1) the availability of covered employees to obtain an employer-sponsored health insurance policy, pursuant to employer guidelines, in which case the employer provides a minimum of 70% of the cost of such policy; or 2) as an alternative to offering an employer-sponsored health insurance policy, the employer shall pay the covered employee a wage which is at least $1.50 per hour above the amount required in item 4; and
6. A combined positive cost: benefit ratio of 1:1.25 or greater over a 15 year period as determined by the City adopted econometric model
He said Mullins memo outlined staff’s opinion as to the fact that the business qualified pursuant to the ordinance and staff had advised PIRC.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director, said the PIRC met last Thursday and all seven members of the committee were in attendance. The meeting began with the Finance Director reviewing his staff memo and reviewed those specific criteria in Ordinance No. 7706. In Mullins’ opinion, the applicant met those criteria. One of the committee members, Mike Maddox, specifically asked Mullins if the applicant met all criteria and in Mullins’ opinion it did. However, there was a question regarding the Engineer position and whether it met the mean survey wage. In Mullins’ review, that position was $.06 below the mean wage and at that point Robert Weilminster, Packerware, indicated during the meeting that they would meet the applicable mean wage criteria.
The next portion of the meeting Genna Hurd, Research Associate with the Policy and Research Institute at the University of Kansas, reviewed the cost benefit analysis.
Robert Weilminster and Joel Plaas, representing Packerware, presented an overview of Berry Plastics in general and then in specific, the operations at the Lawrence plant,
The committee then discussed the specifics of the abatement and the draft minutes of that discussion were on the City’s website and he reminded the City Commission that the committee did not have a formal opportunity to review and approve those minutes. He said on page 20 of those minutes specific actions were presented. Commissioner Maddox moved to approve the 90% tax abatement as requested by the applicant. A portion of that motion was that the City, Douglas County, and School District would work jointly on an interlocal or payment in lieu of tax agreement that would provide the school district with a net cost to benefit ratio similar to at least 1:1.25 ratio over a ten year period. The motion also contained a condition that the granting of the abatement would be subject to the applicant being in compliance with all existing abatement conditions on abatements currently in effect which was seconded and was passed by a 4-3 vote. The next portion was the financing portion of this application and the IRB portion was approved unanimously by a 7-0 vote.
Genna Hurd, Research Associate University of Kansas Policy Research Institute, reviewed the cost/benefit analysis. She said the tax abatement model was meant to facilitate political decision making and should be viewed as a range of what was possible. The project was done in phases with the third phase having a significant impact on operating expenses and franchise fees, but the model did not allow for those to vary over time so an annualized average was needed for the operating expenses as well as the utility costs. She said it was important to look at the ratio at the end of 15 years rather than 10 years because the project was done in phases with the third phase happening in the fourth and fifth year. The 15 years out would cover the full range of this project.
Commissioner Rundle asked whether the abatement for each phase did not start until each specific phase was completed.
Corliss said correct.
Hurd said the model did account for that issue of phasing,
Commissioner Rundle said it seemed the abatement was figured over ten years because each phase had a 10 year period.
Hurd said by the end of 14 years all the phases would have been gone through for that project and all the abatement periods. She said the model did account for adding in phases of employment, investments, and equipment, but it did not allow them to vary over time, the annual operating expenses or the utility costs.
Commissioner Schauner said Hurd stated that the model did not permit looking at each phase and performing a cost benefit analysis.
Hurd said it could be done and they could treat each phase separately, but they were asked to view this as one whole project.
Commissioner Schauner asked in Hurd’s professional opinion would it be more reliable information, to decision makers, if each phase was viewed on its own since there was no way to guarantee that Phases 2 and 3, would actually take place.
Hurd said she thought they were bringing in the proposal as one project and the project would need to be looked at in good faith as one project, but they could look at the project in phases if desired.
Robert Weilminster, Vice President Corporate Development, Berry Plastics, provided an overview of Berry Plastics and reviewed the Lawrence plant operations. He said Berry Plastics was the 6th largest injection molder in North America with 25 manufacturing locations across North America, Europe, and Mexico and 6,900 employees worldwide. The company has grown very rapidly over the past 10 years and much of that growth was driven by acquisitions, including organic growth. He said the company spent $106.1 million in 2005 regarding driving capital spending in this company.
He said Phase 1 of the proposed project was $30 million commitment, Phase2 was an additional $30 million, and Phase 3, based on the support of their customers and market place, would actually challenge them with adding brick and mortar to the Packerware site and that estimate in that expansion was approximately $60 million in order to make that happen.
He said the Lawrence plant which was under consideration for this expansion project was 500,000 square feet and sales were approximately $93 million out of that facility today. There were 386 full-time employees, 79 temporary employees, which averaged 450 employees at the plant throughout the year. He said they were looking to put additional capacity in place to support the demand for their thermoforming drink cup.
In Phase 1 of the project, they would take existing warehouse space at the Lawrence site and convert that into manufacturing space. That space could be converted to house four thermoforming lines. Phase 1, they would commit to placing 2 thermoforming lines in 2006 and also be in production at that time; Phase 2 would be for the other two lines into that warehouse space; and Phase 3 with their customers and market place supporting their projections into the future would lead them to add bricks and mortar and basically expand with additional thermoforming capacity at that site.
From an employment standpoint, Phase 1 would add 43 jobs; Phase 2 an additional 35 jobs to get to 78 by the end of 2007. In year 2008 would be the start of construction and Phase 3 would be in year 2009 and they would add enough jobs to get the entire project up to 155 -160 jobs.
From a wage standpoint, they compensate employees at Berry Plastics, not in their paycheck every week, but with a package. That package included many benefits particularly in the areas of medical, dental, and vision from a health care standpoint. They provided their employees life insurance, short and long-term disability, 401(k) with matching, vacation, 10 paid holidays along with a birthday holiday, personal days, profit sharing bonus that the company had historically paid twice a year since Packerware was acquired by Berry Plastics, and an Employee Assistance Program that was made available to all of their employees. He said they wanted to make sure when they talked about Berry Plastic being a good corporate citizen, Berry Plastic was a good employer. He said they were very proud of the company and how they took care of their employees.
He said when discussing the type of real property especially in Phase 1 and Phase 2, they had to take that warehouse and convert it to manufacturing space and make upgrades. He said they were not talking about infrastructure that was going to cost the City or County money, but infrastructure that would cost Berry Plastics money to take its existing facility and convert it to manufacturing. He said there would be 2 to 8 thermoforming lines and each one of those lines would have at least 3, if not 4 printers at the end of those lines. The investment cost on the entire project was estimated at $93.5 million.
He said they were basically building another business at the site of Packerware. They were not stepping into existing manufacturing space and adding 2 presses which in any of their plants across the Country would be an incredible expansion project for that plant. He said they were talking about taking that existing facility and putting a business in place that by the end of Phase 2, with 4 thermoforming lines would double that $93 million in sales that the plant did today. That $93 million in sales that the plant did today would probably put the Lawrence facility within the top 5 plants within Berry Plastics from a sales standpoint.
Commissioner Rundle asked how many current employees were temporary.
Plaas said there were 410 full time employees and 77 temporary employees.
Mayor Highberger asked Weilminster to explain the Temp to Hire Program.
Weilminster said their company worked with a firm called Aerotech which was a national firm. He said Aerotech was used to screen their company employees during their probationary period. Aerotech worked in their plant and was serving as an extension of their Human Resources Department. Those employees were classified under Aerotech’s watch during that probationary period until they were moved from Aerotech to Packerware. He said they had found that once an employee went through that probationary period, there was a much better retention rate.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the hourly wage that Aerotech Temp to Hire employees made was the same as they forecasted for the full-time regular employees.
Weilminster said the full-time regular employees for this project would have already gone through Aerotech and those employees would be at the higher wage rate.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood that Aerotech hires people that had been assigned to Weilminster’s plant and those people were technically Aerotech employees.
Weilminster said correct, for a period of time. Aerotech was on site in their facility.
Commissioner Schauner said while an employee of Aerotech did those operators and others make the wage rates that were quoted in their tax abatement application for full-time regular employees.
Weilminster said no, there was a probationary period.
Plaas said the probationary period was approximately 75 days and there were many different skill levels of positions in their plant and some of those positions start off very simple and those were the simple tasks that they could fill with a Temp to Hire. He said those temporary employees start at that task and if they were very proficient at that task perhaps they could graduate to other levels. He said they had seen employees that had gone from being a temporary employee one week to an office staff position the next week. He said they had found out that employee had other skills and that employee was moved up to a different position very quickly. He said they remained a temporary employee through 75 days per their contract, but by at the end of that 75 day period that employee could be moved to a different position that they were more suited for.
He said the thermoform positions were going to be much higher technical level positions. He said those thermoforms would run approximately 100 million pounds a year. He said today, they were only processing 50 million pounds. He said that thermoforming equipment was higher tech and it was going to require higher level people that had graduated through the Tem to Hire Program. The first people working with thermoforming would be from the higher ranks of their existing staff and that meant that some of those existing staff jobs would need to be backfilled with temporaries.
Commission Schauner said if they had a job that paid $10.50 an hour and that job classification paid $10.50 as a full-time regular employee of Packerware, while that person was in a 75 day Temp to Hire Program, he asked what their hourly wage would be.
Plaas said those Temp to Hire employees would not be in the thermoforming department because that was a much higher technical skill that was required and those jobs would need to come from the ranks they had today. It would be highly unlikely that they would have any temporaries that were capable of performing those jobs in thermoforming.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the 35 and 43 jobs that were forecasted for thermoforming would all be jobs that would not be filled through the Aerotech Temp to Hire Program.
Plaas said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if acquisition was $160 million.
Weilminster said that was capital spending that was $106 million last year.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if it was safe to assume that the $30,000 million forecasted for 2006 was going to represent about 30%.
Weilminster said Berry Plastic was looking at investing 25% to 35% of its total capital.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the Lawrence plant would be raised to number 5 in the Country because of the use of this thermoforming technology.
Weilminster said from a sales standpoint, once those four lines were up and running, the Lawrence plant would generate from a sales standpoint, the second highest sales generating plant for Berry Plastics.
Weilminster presented the Commission with an updated proposal. It included a cooperative agreement to include providing additional revenue to the school district.
Mayor Highberger asked Weilminster to review the updated proposal.
Weilminster said the proposal was for a request regarding the IRB issuance and that issuance was with 100% abatement. Also, Berry Plastics agreeing to a (PILOT) Payment in Lieu of Taxes for 10% of the taxes related to the manufacturing equipment; the second request was a 90% constitutional abatement with respect to the real property; and the third request was a cooperative agreement where Berry Plastics would agree to specifically direct the Lawrence School District (USD 497) payments over the abatement period of 10 years of $120,000 total. In regards to the estimates that came out of the KU cost/benefit analysis and to follow on to what the County and City agreed to for the motion at the PIRC meeting to somehow figure out to filter an appropriate amount of funds to the school system in order to balance out the benefits of this project.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Hubbard Collingsworth, Co-Chair Community Commission for Homelessness Concerns, asked what the basic wage rate of Aerotech was and if the warehousing would be located in Lawrence.
Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said she was at the PIRC meeting and had appeared at many such meetings and felt like she had a good handle on the policy and tax abatements in general. She said the last PIRC meeting was the best she had seen. She complimented the applicant on a very good presentation that was easy to understand.
She said she was encouraged that the School District was brought into the discussion for the first time. Also they might want to have a discussion on how the model worked with relation to school district funding. The money the School District received was based on per pupil funding and then there was the local option budget and how would all of that be calculated into the model and where would that money go to regarding the money Berry Plastics was proposing.
She said she sensed that the majority of PIRC wanted to support this abatement and some of the committee members were struggling with how the numbers were looking. She said based on the current policy it appeared the applicant met all the current criteria. There was some discussion about the number of jobs at lower wages, yet meeting the living wage requirement, would be possibly taken by people who were not members of the Lawrence community. She said a discussion might need to take place with the supporters of the living wage requirement to discuss how that fit into the City’s policy.
She said PIRC did not have the data that they needed to figure out what might work best for the City, County, and School District. She said she appreciated the additional information and new proposal that the applicant had made, but she was not comfortable with the fact that only the five Commissioners were seeing that proposal and the general public did not have a copy of that proposal. She said the City Commission’s decision could be based on that new proposal without an additional cost benefit analysis ran on that new proposal.
She asked the Commission to take all of this information under consideration and suggested that additional analysis needed to be ran on the new proposal. She suggested a good discussion from the Commission and refer the new proposal back to PIRC. She said it would have been great to have had a trained, experienced Economic Development Planner on staff to review the application and provide the analysis ahead of time. She said as a taxpayer, she felt like the Commission did not have enough information to make a 5-0 vote which was what she wanted to see.
Kim Coughlin, Lawrence, said she was wondering about the extra waste that would be produced with that thermoforming project. Also she asked about what this project meant for the less skilled laborers and to make sure because she thought the City Commission felt it was important that the community was dealing with a truly ethical business. She also asked if the applicant could discuss, in more detail, the benefits package. Also, she asked that the applicant discuss their workers overseas that had less stringent labor laws such as how much they were being paid and how many people had been fired when their company was growing by acquisition.
Tim Cowden, Kansas City Area Development Council, said this was an extraordinary project because in terms of manufacturing deals, there were fewer and fewer manufacturing projects available in the United States. The fact that Berry Plastics was located in Lawrence and was willing to consider investing over $90 million into equipment said a lot about the company’s commitment and certainly to this community.
This company had looked at a number of different opportunities across the Country. He said just in the past five years with his experience working with companies across the Kansas City region that this $90 million plus dollar investment would be the largest of any of the deals that the Area Development Council had worked with in that timeframe. He said his coverage area was 18 counties in both Kansas and Missouri and this particular project was an extraordinary project.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing on the IRB portion of the abatement request. Motion carried unanimously.
Highberger asked Weilminster to address the questions from members of the public.
Weilminster said keeping the warehousing in Lawrence would benefit the community because the owner or landlord of that building would end up paying taxes on their rental payments.
Plaas said concerning Aerotech, they would be backfilling with Aerotech, but they were working to minimize the amount of temporaries that they had in their facility. The only reason the temporaries were there was because it was the most effective way for their company to go through a Temp to Hire Program. The temporary wage rate was between $8.00 and $8.50, but the company paid about 42% more than that to the temporary agency. He said they ended up paying more for temporaries then they did for full-time employees. He said it was actually cheaper for their company to get to full-time employees. The problem was that in their industry there was always an inherent amount of turnover. He said it was tough to fill factory jobs and it was not a hot place to work, but a physical place to work and therefore there was turnover. He said their turnover was about 2% a month and the easiest way they found to backfill those positions was through temporary employment because the temporary agency had a much wider web to fill from. He said it seemed like they always had a permanent number of temporaries in the facility, but it was because of turnover occurring in their facility.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the benefits that were illustrated were only for the full-time employees.
Plass said the benefits did not apply to the temporaries, but again the temporary was a 75 day issue and they wanted people to get through that program and become full-time.
Mayor Highberger asked about the benefits that would be provided for full-time employees.
Weilminster said there was a very detailed layout of their entire benefit package in their application which was public record. He said there was a requirement in the ordinance that health care would need to be split 70/30. The employer was responsible for 70% at a minimum and the employee 30%. In their case, they were carrying 75% of the cost of health care and there were different plans, with respect to what employees could choose, as far as the types of benefit they wanted.
As far as the other benefits they pay life insurance, payouts regarding death benefits, 401(k) retirement and company match, vacation was based on years of service, 10 paid holidays, personal days, profit sharing, and an EAP Program. The benefit package was comprehensive and incredibly fair with respect to his experience in the market place.
He said it was unfortunate and disappointing with respect to some of the feedback that he had seen in the media in how their company had been characterized regarding the type of jobs that they were looking at with this project and type of wages that they were paying. He said from a cultural standpoint Berry Plastics was only as good as its people. The reality was that different positions carry different wages and starting positions and they had people who were packing parts into a box. If those people did not pack parts into a box right, they would lose a customer that might happen to be a 50 million in sales. Every job within the Berry Plastics family was incredibly important. He said that packing job position might not be a job where that person could be the primary wage earner for their family and they might not generate an annual wage that that person could afford to buy a house, but in a lot of cases those wages were of a secondary wage earner for those families and when putting those two wages together they could to possibly buy a house.
He said regarding the question about extra waste, actually this process was great from an extra waste standpoint. One of the reasons that this process was so expensive was that they actually had to dig a 24 foot deep and 20 foot wide pit in the warehouse. He said with respect to thermoforming that sheet would feed underneath the equipment where there were grinders which would grind that extra material from that sheet and it would feed it back into the extruder and kept feeding it back through. He said from a production waste standpoint there was no production waste regarding manufacturing those cups.
He said from a water standpoint, they actually take a lot of water into the plant, but the amount of water that was put back into the sewer system was very small because it evaporated off. The water would go back into the plant where it was chilled and ran back through their equipment and cycled through so there was very little water that they fed back into the sewer system. He said the manufacturing process was completely encapsulated so there were no pollutants and that process was very clean.
He said they treated their employees exactly the same across the world. All of their employees participated in the same bonus programs and benefit packages that were appropriate to those countries.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the revised proposal and how this proposal would affect the school district cost benefit analysis and over what period of time.
Weilminster said based on his understanding of the cost benefit analysis and the conversation that took place at the PIRC meeting, there was a conclusion which drove the number that the City and County identified to move from what would come from their coffers per se, to the school system was $90,000. After taking that whole situation into consideration and taking a look at what would be appropriate they decided that $90,000 was a number that would get the benefit ratio a little bit above 1:1.25. He said they picked $120,000 because they wanted the number to be more that 1:125 ratio. He said the school system got there with the money the City and County earmarked and when leaving $120,000 on top of that, they felt that would actually make this project a significant benefit to the school system.
Commissioner Hack asked if this was a fixed PILOT.
Weilminster said correct. He said this was a fixed PILOT over ten years and if the Governor’s initiative went through, they would continue to make that fixed PILOT payment for 10 years and those payments would not go away with respect to the potential of the Governor’s initiative, eliminating property taxes on equipment.
Commission Schauner asked if under the original PILOT proposal, there would have been a 10% PILOT which would have generated, over a 10 year period, $90,000.
Weilminster said no. The conversation that took place at the PIRC meeting was when looking at the cost benefit analysis from K.U., and even though the project in total which was what the ordinance said needed to happen regarding the K.U. analysis far exceeded the 1:1.25 ratio minimum, when breaking that down into City, County, and School District, the school system on its own, under a 10 year analysis, came up a little short regarding the 1:1.25 ratio. He said at the PIRC meeting there was a motion made by Maddox, member of PIRC, that $90,000 was an appropriate number to allocate from the City and County regarding the overall benefit of that project which would basically move the school benefit number to 1:1.25 ratio or above. He said what they were proposing, with that motion from PIRC to the City Commission was that on top of the school district being at 1:125 as a result of that $90,000 being moved from the City and the County, they would like to add another $120,000 which they believed would move that number north of a cost/benefit ration of 1:2.0 and put that cost benefit ratio where everyone in the community, including their company and employees, could feel good about the benefit of this project to the school system.
Laverne Squier, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said the question on the table at the time of the PIRC meeting was a 90% abatement issue with a 10% payment in lieu of taxes being considered and not the additional school element at that point.
Hurd said to get a better picture, she asked the City Commission to review page 8 of the appendix attachment which did the present value of cost and benefit in the K.U. report. She said she did not know how those different numbers would be if they fed in a different number for each year. She said they did run the analysis and came up with the ratio that people wanted which was an 86% to 87% abatement. She said they were only measuring the fiscal impacts. The School District only received benefits from property taxes where as the City and County also received sales tax benefits as well as franchise fees and that was why the cost benefit ratio was much higher and was the highest for the City because this project, particularly with the 3rd Phase had a huge increase in either electricity or gas costs. The school district did not see any of the benefits the City and County saw, the School District only saw the benefit of property tax and then payment back from the state per pupil. That was why the School District cost benefit ratio always came out so much lower than the City or County.
Squier said on the 3rd page of the Executive Summary, USD 497, in year 10, the dollar amount cited was $9,739 which was the 1:1.03 ratio. In the year 15 column, the dollar amount sited was $372,033 and that was the 1:1.83 ratio which was calculated to 90% requested. He said to make the 10 year number to come out to 1:1.25 instead of 1:1.03, the percentages went from 90% to 86% or 87% and as the report numbers came across, the differential was deemed at the PIRC meeting to be the $90,000 that Weilminster had mentioned. There was conversation at that PIRC meeting about taking from the City and County elements and making the School District, rise up, relative to their net benefit in the overall picture. He said what Berry Plastics had done was to step away from that and rather than have that shuffling going on, Berry Plastics would pay an additional amount of money $120,000 over 10 years into the equation and saving the City and County from swapping in dollars and moving their dollars to the school. He said the model could be run again, but in his estimation, it would inflate the net benefit to the school.
Hurd agreed. She said she did not know about the $120,000, but she had a feeling that amount might be over generous without running the numbers. She said there was only a $9,700 net benefit at the end of 10 years and a significant difference would be seen in those last 5 years of the project, because some of the property taxes would no longer be abated.
Squier said the company was not talking about raising their net benefit to $120,000, but taking $120,000 in cash and putting it to the schools.
Mayor Highberger said the exact cost benefit ratio could not be calculated or exact total percentage at this time, but they did know that the year 10 benefit to the School District would be $129,739 rather than $9,739 even though in year 15, the net benefit would be $492,000 rather than $372,000.
Hurd said correct.
Mayor Highberger said the cost benefit ratios were expected to be raised accordingly.
Hurd said an exact benefit could not be calculated. She said with the model they plug in the current mill levy and sales tax and that amount could change over the life and course of that project.
Commissioner Rundle said the 10% PILOT for the equipment was separate from the $12,000 a year payment to the school district.
Corliss said the PILOT had to be separate. He said in discussions with the City’s bond counsel, it could not be part of the PILOT because the state statute prescribed the division of money for PILOT’s. He said it was a separate cooperating agreement between Berry Plastic and the taxing entities which was separate from the PILOT.
Commissioner Rundle said since the IRB was separated, he asked would they be dealing with the IRB’s plus the PILOT, but not the tax abatement on the real estate.
Corliss said on Thursday staff found out that Berry Plastics wanted to proceed with the constitutional amendment for the real property. State law required the City to notice up the hearing that the Commission was presently having, seven days in advance. He said staff did not notice up for the constitutional amendment, but staff would proceed if that was the Commission’s direction. He said staff could notice up that hearing for the City Commission’s first meeting in February. He said the Commission had notice up for this evening the entire dollar amount for the project and abatement, but the Commission was not approving the constitutional abatement at this time. The action item this evening would be to approve the inducement resolution. That inducement resolution then gave the bond counsel and the applicant the marching orders to proceed with the Industrial Revenue Bond issuance. He said given Weilminster’s proposal it would then give staff the direction to prepare that cooperating agreement whereby they would pledge to pay $12,000 per year for ten years to the school district.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the things he would like to do least was to make those types of decisions extemporaneously. He asked what Corliss would recommend be done by staff that would constitute their due diligence to make sure that they had an enforceable agreement with Packerware on not only their original proposal, but as it was amended by the letter of the 24th.
Corliss said he was familiar with the letter because he essentially wrote that letter in cooperation with Weilminster and his proposal. He said he wanted to make sure he understood the proposal because he anticipated questions about what it would include.
He said he had a great deal of comfort that with the industrial revenue bond issuance that it would be solid under the law because that was how the City’s bond counsel guided it this far and the City was in good shape to proceed with that IRB. He said one of the items that it would include was a performance agreement. That performance agreement would follow the City’s standard performance agreements that staff had worked with recent applicants under the City’s existing ordinance.
Concerning the constitutional abatement, the City Commission would conduct the hearing at the first meeting in February, unless staff was given direction otherwise. At that meeting staff would take the City Commission’s action and prepare a performance agreement similar to what staff had done for other constitutional abatements. That was an agreement that would indicate that they would follow through on their promises and the City would have the ability to revoke or amend their tax abatement if they did not follow through on their proposed application.
He said the third agreement would be a cooperation agreement among the City. He said he did not want to speak for the County, but County Commissioner Johnson who was representing the County indicated that he was in favor of the proposal whereby the County would take some of their PILOT money and pay the school district. In this case, Berry Plastics was taking its own money and paying that money to the school district. He said he did not want to speak for the school district either, but he thought the School District would be in favor of receiving the money and with that in place it was a contract and Berry Plastics was pledging to make those payments.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see this new proposal all as one package before they vote. He said his comfort level would go up substantially if they could see all the documents in a nice and neat package.
Weilminster said their company had done a ton of work to get to where they were at this time. He said the call that he received from Corliss today with respect to that process issue on constitutional versus IRB was not something that he was excited to hear about. He said he would actually very much encourage and hoped to walk away with an indication from the City Commission with respect to this project and where they were. He said he understood there was a lot of information behind this project, but again there had been a lot of work to make sure regarding the process that the City had put together, PIRC in evaluating and recommending to the City Commission in a very detailed forum last week and tonight’s presentation to arm the City Commission with enough information to feel good about this project. He said he would be disappointed if the Commission was not in a position to make a very clear indication of whether this project was going to be supported in this community or not this evening.
Commissioner Hack said nothing had changed and it was a matter of the constitutional tax abatement, the IRB, and the separate arrangement.
Weilminster said the only reason they were looking at the IRB financing was because of some stipulations within the Kansas law that were required in order for their company to bring some of their financial partners into play from a standpoint of who would help them buy the equipment. Other than that, at the end of the day the dollars and programs were the same. Basically, they were just talking form over substance. The substance of what they were talking about had not changed. He said he stood before the City Commission with the same application that was filed on December 22, 2005 and addition to what they requested regarding the project that presented, they had come back with a counterproposal regarding making sure that when the Commissioners take a vote this evening that they could feel very good about the one piece of this project that was somewhat called into question which was the benefit to the school system.
It was important to point out that this project would generate students to the school system and part of the analysis that was referenced by K.U. was the fact that a lot of what drove budget into the school system was an increase in students. He said that piece of the pie was not included in the analysis, but this project would generate budget dollars to the school system based on the fact that hopefully the employees that they brought in had children and supported that growth in the school system.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission had to trust that staff would draw up a contract that was fair, equitable, and enforceable to both sides along with the performance agreement.
Corliss said he wanted to make sure that Commissioner Schauner understood the usual trajectory of those documents and that was traditionally when the City Commission had approved a tax abatement they had then come back and sometimes depending on the negotiations with the parties with the performance agreements so those would not be normally before the City Commission when they approved tax abatements. They had performance agreements with the existing companies such as Serologicals. He said that was the general form that they would follow for this type of an agreement. The other documents that would not be seen would be the industrial revenue bond documents. Generally, those documents were not prepared up until the time that the applicant was ready to go to market or in this case internally financing until they were nearing to close on the application. He said staff would be working on those documents and the performance agreement would follow the City’s standard practice. The documents that the City Commission would see at their meeting in February, with the exception of the letter that Weilminster provided on the additional $12,000 per year, he saw as a fairly straight forward contract where they were going to pay the school district and the other parties would acknowledge it.
Mayor Highberger said at the PIRC meeting they had two separate votes. One vote on the approval of the IRB application and the other vote were on the abatement. He asked if Corliss would suggest doing the same thing at this time.
Corliss said that idea was appropriate.
Mayor Highberger said he would like to see the City Commission make a decision by consensus on this issue, but he was not sure they were there yet. He agreed that there were flaws in this process. He said trying to negotiate a business deal as a public body was difficult and he suspected they could do it better. He said he wanted this project to happen, but he wanted to do it in a way that the City of Lawrence could support the project 100%. He said he felt the need to balance the fiscal responsibility to all the taxpayers in Lawrence at the same time. He said he appreciated the new proposal by the applicant. The new proposal by the applicant addressed his primary concerns after reading the cost/benefit analysis. He said his concern was the City and County numbers were good and the overall numbers were also good, but he had some concerns about the impact on the school district. The proposal by the applicant to address $120,000 to the school district over the life of the application met those concerns and placed the school district numbers into a really solid position and those dollars were not going away even if they lose the ability to tax personal property. He said they might be able to do it in a way that did not impact the revenues that were coming to the City and the County.
He said he understood that the employees hired for the new plant were not planning on being temporaries. He had concerns about the temporary wages for the Aerotech employees, but he assumed in the performance agreement, they would require compliance with the temporary wage provisions and tax abatement policy. If those requirements were not met there would be a procedure for adjustment. He said the city was going to comply with their end of this agreement and he expected a performance agreement that required both parties to comply.
He supported the request as presented with the payment to the school district.
Commissioner Hack said there were three issues to address. The first issue was the abatement ordinance and the process. There had been concerns such as the PRI analysis over 15 years and the model, but this was not the time to address those concerns. The policy before the City Commission and the application met and exceeded in many cases, that policy.
The second issue was Packer Plastics was a home grown company since the late 1960’s. The emails that the City Commission received from those employees were special.
The salary and benefits were excellent, particularly the benefits. She said the Ford Motor Company was downsizing for reasons such as lack of innovation, not modernizing their plants, and not meeting their customer’s needs. Absent those types of issue, the plants were closing and thousands of people were out of work. Berry Plastics was in the same situation because they needed modernization and to add those lines. Those 3 phases would allow Berry Plastics to meet its clients’ needs, progress, and be a major player in the industry.
She said perhaps Berry Plastics was over generous in their offer to the school district, but as a former school district employee, she appreciated that offer because it was very helpful to the school district. She enthusiastically supported the project.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to weigh in with this interpretation of the 15 year abatement period and the phased nature of this proposal. The model did not calculate the cost benefit over Phase 3, but it did not need to. It was done as though the project was done at one time and if it was phased, the benefit was still the same as if it were 3 smaller projects. The abatement did not start until the investment and the jobs were created. The real benefit was the 10 year period that the City Commission should look at.
He said he was not as enthusiastic as Commissioner Hack about this project. The 154 jobs promised barely met the living wage threshold and they did not have a shortage of that type of job in the community. He said his own public position was consistent with his campaigning on making tax breaks for companies rare and fair. He informed Lynn Parman when Parman was the Economic Development Director at the Chamber, that he was not interested in seeing abatements that just met the living wage because a person at that wage level could not participate in the economy to the extent that they could buy a house. Those types of jobs did not address the need that had been identified in this community to address under employment and get some of those people who were commuting to better paying jobs in this community. He said he thought the criteria in the abatement policy were not restricted to just looking at those things. The policy allowed them to use their judgment in other areas. The labor rates in Lawrence were very low and the utility rates were competitive. He said in the discussion at the PIRC meeting there was a firm in Maryland that paid no personal property tax, but their labor costs dwarf the cost of the City’s personal property tax.
The firm had a substantial investment in Lawrence that he did not think they would walk away from. That was the type of analysis staff completed and should be the basis of that negotiating with the applicant and informing members of the PIRC. He said as the Mayor pointed out, he wished they would not put applicants through this type of process that was so public in the negotiation phase and was so politically charged.
The benefit of the jobs would not come to this community if the employees did not reside in Douglas County and would not help USD 497 with declining enrollments if those children lived in other school districts.
Everyone wanted the City Commission to address low income housing and that was one of the priorities of the business community. He said he did not want to support tax abatements at that level.
Commissioner Amyx said the process was much better today than 20 years ago. He said the work done to figure out cost/benefit analysis was something that they did not have before. He said the work done by staff was very helpful and to have the public body address this project was very important. He said the amount of work his colleagues had done should be applauded because they made sure that not only the taxpayers of Lawrence were protected in the expansion of this business, but the concerns from the school district were addressed.
He said the City Commission did not make decisions on public incentives for business very lightly. The process was very good for everyone to go through so they understood all the concerns. Packerware had done an exceptional job in making sure that people were employed and those jobs were needed in this community.
He said he had a lot of customers in his business that probably did not make $10.50 an hour, but great strides were being made to make sure that there were people willing to help people with entry level jobs and secondary jobs for households. He said it was important for Massachusetts Street and the other commercial districts and made good sense for Lawrence, Kansas.
The money, the commitment to the school district was not something that put him over the top, but he wanted to thank the company for their commitment to the school district and the education of the community’s young people was something important to that company. He said he was ready to proceed at this point and the information they had received was very helpful and a way to help increase the communities employment base.
Commissioner Schauner said he struggled with this request because the request was for an amount that was higher than ever asked for. He said whoever dreamed up this tax abatement idea had created a snowball effect across the country and it seemed that a person would need to be in the abatement game in order to be a player. He said when he took a tour of the plant he was genuinely impressed. He said they needed jobs that paid anywhere from $10 to $40 in this community and this company fell into that pay scale.
He said this process was better than it was, but this process could be better for this reason. He said he thought the tenseness in the room was translated by some as this community and/or this Commission was trying to push business away, but he did not think that was what they were about. He said all of the Commissioners had the obligation to the people that elected them to do the best they could to try to balance competing interests and as Packerware was aware, they were in the business of doing deals, making money, and getting the best deal they could get. He said his goal was to do the best they could for the people in this community whether they were going to work at Packerware or just pay taxes and work some place else.
He said his message to Weilminster and Plaas was they were glad to have their company in this community and glad to see their company invest $118 million. He said the message he would like the company to take back to their bosses was that the Commission was not now or had never been business unfriendly. He said the Commission’s goal was to treat businesses with respect as businesses should treat the Commission with respect.
He supported the project and he wished the support would be unanimous.
Commissioner Rundle said at the PIRC meeting they separated the IRB’s from the tax abatement. He asked if that separation had to be done at this time.
Corliss said the City Commission’s motion would be to approve the IRB issuance, separate motion to approve the 90% PILOT, separate motion to approve the cooperating agreement and schedule for the first meeting in February the constitutional abatement.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to approve Resolution 6627, determining the intent of the City of Lawrence, to issue its Industrial Revenue Bonds in the aggregate amount not to exceed $118,000 to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping one or more facilities for the benefit of Packerware Corporation and its successors in interest; and directed staff to prepare the appropriate cooperative agreement which includes the payment to the school district as referenced in the applicant’s proposal dated January 24, 2006. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (13)
Consider second and final reading of Ordinance No. 7960, prohibiting camping in the C-3 zoning district. Ordinance No. 7960 was adopted on first reading on January 3, 2006.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. At the January 3rd City Commission meeting, the Commission considered Ordinance No. 7960 on first reading and indicated that they wanted to place the ordinance on 2nd reading on January 24th. He said in the City Commission packets there was a memorandum from the Community Commission on Homelessness.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Mark Cline, Lawrence, said he wanted the Commission to think about the value that was being provided to the taxpayer for dollars expended. He said they would be spending money on police officers and the County jail, by criminalizing mental illness and homelessness. He said the alternative was to spend money on a smart social worker and resources to back that social worker up.
He said his second point, for example, if they passed laws targeting dog owners or motorcycle riders there was some push back from those targeted groups that would give incentive to repeal bad legislation. However, on outlawing homelessness there was a one-way ratchet and no pressure the other way. Every time the City was made meaner to the homeless they did not have much of a way to ratchet back and repeal those laws.
T.J. Campsey, Lawrence, said the City of Lawrence was lucky to have a vibrant and successful downtown. He said there were a lot of people downtown and every time there were a lot of people in a City this size, a homeless population would be drawn to that area. He said to pass an ordinance criminalizing camping in a certain area was counter productive and better ways to address the issue should be found. He said there were shelters, but for some reason, some people did not go to the shelters and would rather sleep on the street in January than go to the shelter. He said if criminalizing people sleeping downtown, then what would follow was criminalizing people sleeping in the park or residential areas. He said they needed to come up with better ways to address the issue.
Peter Zacharias, Lawrence, downtown property owner and a downtown business owner, said he personally experienced numerous problems with people camping on his property. He said those trespassing campers posed risks for themselves and placed his property at risk by potential fire and other types of damages. He said not only was he present at the City Commission meeting as a downtown business owner, but also as a representative of Downtown Lawrence Inc. Downtown Lawrence Inc. believed strongly that homelessness was a community wide issue. However, camping on the sidewalks, alley ways or roof tops could result in damage to property and Lawrence’s image and reputation. It also jeopardized the safety of those who camp in those inappropriate areas.
This ordinance provided a mechanism by which they not only could protect their property and community, but encourage the illicit camper to use the aid, assistance, and the shelter that Lawrence supported and made available to those in need. He said the members of Downtown Lawrence urged the City Commission to pass this ordinance as just another step in the overall plan to protect the community and assist those in need.
A member of the public said Lawrence was recently called the second meanest City in the nation to the homeless. Part of the reason that Lawrence had been given that award was that the City was continuing to pass ordinances that outlaw homelessness rather than trying to solve any issues of homelessness. At the same time, they were allowing corporations such as the Salvation Army to cut back services to the homelessness. She said her problem with this ordinance was that the ordinance was too broad and too narrow. She said it was too narrow in that it targeted, quite obviously in its language, on what camping was which was sleeping out on the street and making the street a domicile.
She said it was too broad in the section that discussed intent where the “intent” of the camper was not considered or was not important to punishment, so the intent could be decided by authorities. This would obviously affect people who would choose to protest in the downtown area along with people who camp out for concert tickets, any sort of thing that the authorities, the police, and the City Commission might deem, at the time, to be unacceptable could be covered by brushing off this anti-camping ordinance.
Another problem with the ordinance was that it explicitly stated that its purpose was to benefit businesses and that people who camp were a problem because they impede sidewalk traffic which impeded people being able to get in to businesses.
She said what the City Commission seemed like they were trying to do was subvert personal autonomy to business interest. What the City of Lawrence was essentially saying was the City knew best how a person was to live their life and where they could sleep. She said a person could not make that decision and in fact, that person would be punished.
Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, said the homeless community was an on-going social problem for Lawrence that needed to be addressed. With this particular ordinance zeroing in on just the downtown Lawrence area, he asked what repercussions would there be in the other C-3 business areas in Lawrence. He asked if the illegal campers could camp out in those other C-3 zoning areas.
Mayor Highberger asked staff to address some of the concerns raised by Zacharias.
Corliss said trespassing was against the law and they issued a number of citations every year on public urination and defecation. Littering and other issues were also against the law. He said this was an ordinance that was geared toward the use of public property and public right-of-way and prohibiting camping as it was defined in the ordinance. The definition of camping was taken out of the United State Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court upheld a National Parks Service rule that established certain prohibitions for camping in the Washington D.C. area. The court made it very clear that those types of activities could be prohibited by government using the language that was in the ordinance. He said some of Zacharias’ concerns were on private property and some concerns were on public property.
Mayor Highberger said one difference was that the trespasser had to be noticed and then an on-going violation.
Corliss said correct.
Mayor Highberger asked about how the proposed ordinance supplemented the City’s ordinance on appropriation of the right-of-way.
Corliss said the proposed ordinance talked about the specified activities where someone was attempting to camp and made that prohibited. The appropriation of public right-of-way dealt with different uses such as obstruction in the use of the sidewalk.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said the appropriation of the right-of-way ordinance was only a violation of the ordinance if one of two things happened such as if a person intentionally obstructs the sidewalk or other parts of the right-of-way or if they obstruct sidewalk or right-of-way accidentally, but when it was brought to their attention by a police officer and they fail to end their obstruction. Obstruction was defined in the ordinance as a situation where a person actually had to deviate their path in order to get past someone. This ordinance was broader in its scope, but it was limited to specific zoning district, the downtown zoning district which prohibited those specified activities anywhere in the zoning district on public property. The obstruction of the right-of-way ordinance would apply to the rest of the City and this proposed ordinance would only apply to the specified C-3 zoning area.
Corliss said it was possible to camp and not obstruct the right-of-way.
Miller said correct. He said this ordinance was an amendment of an existing ordinance that addressed some of Zacharias’ concerns because it was already illegal based upon a persons prior action to camp on private property without the permission of the owner. For example, the roof of Zacharias’ building would be private property.
Commissioner Rundle said he understood the frustration from people who had been waiting patiently for the City Commission to have an effective approach to resolving homeless issues. He said he thought that was the more important goal. Those problems would go away if they had housing available for people. He said he was expecting this ordinance to pass, but he was going to register his vote against it just in the same spirit that the Homeless Coalition made their recommendation.
Commissioner Schauner said this ordinance attempted to balance competing interests. The competing interest were the business interest downtown which they valued and the interest of the individual in making use of public property in an appropriate way and at the same time, he thought this City Commission had gone a long way in funding what could well be one of the better homelessness assistance programs in this part of the state. He said they were on the path for doing a good job of providing assistance to the City’s homeless population. Balancing those interests, it seemed reasonable to adopt the ordinance. He said their goal was to make this an ordinance which they would never need to enforce because people would have other and better alternatives. He said this ordinance deserved the City Commission’s support.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he believed that they had started a program in helping individuals of need with temporary overnight housing. The proposal concerning the case managers that the City funded for this year and the endless items that the City was helping to fund made a whole lot of sense. He asked if there were concerns from the homeless staying in the shelters and if there were concerns, he suggested that the Commission on Homelessness Concerns needed to address those concerns. He said the City Commission felt the shelters were good, but if there were concerns from individuals, he would like to be made aware of those concerns. He said they were trying to make sure that they balanced the people’s needs and business needs. He supported the ordinance.
Mayor Highberger said for the record, he voted for this ordinance when it was on first reading, but he was very concerned about this ordinance based on the memo from the Community Commission on Homelessness Concerns. The Homeless Commission unanimously opposed the ordinance and the membership included a downtown business owner and people who took a lot of effort on this issue for the last several years. He said he was reluctant to go against the unanimous request from that group.
The more he looked at the City’s existing ordinance, he thought they had the tools with most, if not all the problem that were trying to address by this proposed ordinance. He said he did not think camping on downtown streets was appropriate and it was not good for the camper and certainly not good for the people downtown, but he thought they had most of the tools to deal with those problems. He said he would change his vote on this ordinance and vote against the ordinance on second reading.
Commissioner Hack said she supported the ordinance the first time around and intended to support the ordinance this time as well. She said she appreciated the Mayor’s concerns when it was handed to the City’s coalition, but in listening to their comments the other night, she thought their concerns were whether or not this solved a particular problem and they certainly knew that it did not change the life of the person who was camping. However, they hoped they would at some point. She supported the ordinance on second reading.
Moved by Hack seconded by Schauner, to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 7960, prohibiting camping in the C-3 zoning. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Schauner. Nay: Highberger and Rundle. Motion carried (14)
Receive Public Advisory Committee (PAC) request that site location decisions for a central activated sludge facility be put on hold until options of other technologies be evaluated thoroughly.
Mike Orth, Project Director, Black & Veatch, said the City Commission received a packet of information from the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) on the sitting efforts on the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility that suggested that they consider decentralized treatment and a different or alternative treatment process called the Eco Machine. He said the 2003 Master Plan looked at the siting study for centralized treatment plant and they were heading down that path and the committee was looking for some direction whether that path needed to vary a little bit or not. He reminded the City Commission of the criticality of 2011 and the potential need to accelerate that facility. The schedule was very important in that they maintain their pace at where they were going regarding the siting process. The first phase of this project was to find the most flexible and centralized site that it could allow the ultimate build out area. If they deviate from that timeline, there might be some impacts on being able to meet that 2011 schedule.
The EPA had issued a fact sheet in 2001 regarding this technology that could be available to the committee or to the PAC to help assist everyone. The EPA raised some concerns even though this process in 2001 was documented to be very effective at BOD removal and suspended solids and was very aesthetically pleasing and had a lot of potential positive merits associated with it. However, the EPA raised some substantial concerns related to the total phosphorous removal. There was only about a 50% reduction that was seen in the treatment process. The EPA also had some concerns about the biosolids coming out of that meeting 503 regulations. The City was doing a lot of things right with their current treatment process so they needed to keep that in mind as they consider the action that would move forward.
Orth said the EPA also had a comment regarding constructability of the cost of those facilities. He said when constructing a greenhouse to house the technology roughly the break point, according to their cost calculations, were capacities less than 600,000 gallons per day and they were more economical than conventional treatment. Above 600,000 per day, they were typically not cost affordable with that technology in that application. He said there were various capacities installed today which were roughly 30 installations ranging form several hundreds gallons per day to 600,000 gallons per day. So they were still talking a significant order of magnitude difference in the technology. Scalability when talking about process technology was a significant concern that they all needed to have.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the alternative proposal created more or less of a footprint size than the current proposal.
Orth said they were considering it within their footprint evaluations which were roughly 500 acres. Based on the existing footprint of the plant on 8th Street, that same treatment capacity was on the order of 300 acres including the buffer area. There was a significant difference of spatial requirements for the same capacity. There might be some treatment issues that might be able to be brought forward that would make them reduce that footprint, but based upon the information that had been provided, at this point in time, for the same capacity it was larger than the traditional medium footprint technology. If understanding the EPA information above 600,000 per day, one would imply that it would be more expensive also.
Mayor Highberger said that was the size for the total facility. He said as he understood the proposal they were envisioning a number of facilities. He said it was a cost benefit switch at 600,000 acres and could they get the system as a whole or just individual facility size.
Orth said if they assumed 600,000 acres, if they had to get to 50 million gallons per se and they had to acquire that many sites, but at 500,000 gallons per day that would be 100 of those facilities. If trying to acquire space for 100 facilities at this point, it was very difficult. Traditionally when buying smaller tracts of land, those tracts were more costly per square foot than when buying a larger tract of land. There were potential concerns that when development occurred, they would be competing with the development community to buy those tracts because they were not in a position where the City would go out and site those 100 facilities around the community and drive where that growth was going to occur. Now they would be competing with the development dollar to acquire that tract which might also have costs associated that were different than buying those tracts now when a lot of that land was vacant farm land.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if the sub-group came in along the lines of what was being done right now with the PAC group, that could happen and evaluation could be done at the same time.
Orth said that could happen. Right now their schedule was to have a siting recommendation in roughly in June to the City Commission to act upon for acquisition of property. That evaluation would need to be closed up and married up with that schedule because they were trying to accelerate the project as it was right now. He said he did not want to necessarily lose time on the front end because they were very aware that 2011 would need to pull forward in time anyway. He said they were not evaluating treatment technology in this stage of the project. He said they were simply trying to acquire the largest most flexible site at this point in time to evaluate which process best fit on that site in the centralized concept. If they did anything this evening regarding providing suggestions, he would suggest that they evaluate centralized treatment versus decentralized treatment to make sure that was the direction that the City Commission agreed with. Phase 2 of this project was the process evaluation and if the sub-group was evaluating and suggesting Eco machines as the solution or as an alternative that moved forward that was fine. He said they could evaluate that technology in a centralized concept with all the other concepts and at that time it was much more appropriate because now treatment technology was being compared.
Commissioner Schauner asked at what point, during the site decision, would the location of the site, control the decision on process.
Orth said right now they were presently evaluating a small footprint technology so they had a process that met that definition. He said it was a high end technology that would traditionally cost more per gallon to produce because you were getting the benefit of the smaller footprint. A medium footprint technology which was essentially the treatment plant process out at the existing treatment plant and then the large footprint technology was the traditional treatment method that was at 8th Street plus the wetlands.
He said the large footprint was 1,000 acres which was not viable at this point because of the topography and the amount of landowners that would be impacted to acquire that much property. The medium footprint technology was around 300 acres and the small footprint technology was around 235 acres. All of those estimates included a 1,000 foot buffer between plant construction to their fence line which was to get them away from their neighbors on all four sides.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was less cost up front with high technology.
Orth said there would be more cost up front with high technology because you would be paying for that premium of getting that small footprint. He said it was somewhat confusing when comparing 235 acres versus 300 acres, but you need to remember the main driver in that difference. There was still a 1,000 foot buffer around all that area. The small footprint technology still had a build out facility at 50 million gallons per day was roughly 75 acres. Getting from 75 acres to the 235 acres was all buffer area and that was a very conservative buffer. Again, they were trying to look at flexibility. They had the potential to reduce that buffer area, but if that buffer area was reduced too much, they would be facing some motor control and other nuisance issues that they were all trying to avoid to be a best neighbor to the community.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if they were going to consider the processing portion of this and make a comparison between a centralized and decentralized program, once the recommendation was made from PAC to the City Commission on site selection, what date would they consider the processing portion so they could give fair consideration to either one.
Orth said hypothetically, if they had an alternative that was prevailing at this point in time, there might be some discussion going on that they try to start the process evaluation roughly in March and probably would run for a six month period. March through September would be the process evaluation. Parallel to that to compress and buy some time back into the schedule that they had lost, there was going to be an effort of site acquisition that would be happening. He said they could do that process evaluation without actually having to know what the land looked like. There was a due diligence stage that would occur during that process to make sure there were no floodplain issues and environmental concerns. He said they would need to perform cultural and historic evaluations of that site and look at all those other species that might or might not be at that site and make sure they had a clean site that they could acquire. They allocated roughly a year within that schedule to acquire that property. If they could shorten that property acquisition phase, that would buy more time. He said they were trying to condense that schedule and start that process evaluation, roughly March through September.
Commissioner Rundle asked if they could look at the alternatives under the Eco Machine technology that would be available in terms of siting requirements. He said based on our needs for treatment, they might be able to accomplish that need with 1, 2 or 3 sites.
Orth said the only reason why he picked 500,000 gallons per day was because of the EPA literature that suggested that that was where the break point was.
In 2001, an airport study was done and looked at a contained wetland treatment system versus a force main and pump station and comparing those two alternatives, it still pushed that capacity down. He said there was a plant similar in Kansas City, Missouri that they toured and the plant was very aesthetically pleasing and it did a lot of great things regarding the treatment process, but there were issues that they would also need to be concerned about.
Mike Caron, Lawrence, said he became aware of a person named John Todd and had watched Todd go from someone who was considered to be eccentric and loony environmentalist to someone who had won international awards, had done great projects all over the world, and had become a main stream innovator. He said Todd truly thinks outside of the box when it came to wastewater treatment and using biological systems to deal with growth and the impacts of industry on society.
He said no one was trying to delay this process and they understood how important it was to get sewage and wastewater treatment up to line so that the system would not become clogged, but there had been clear indication that they were on the verge of that. He said they understood the need for prioritizing, but there was a real sense that, right now, they were being sheep herded to a spot that pretty much had been determined with a system that was a 20th century dinosaur that had nice dressing. He said they were shutting themselves off from what was really going to be the main stream of the 21st century. He said it was a system that could potentially come on line so much faster and they need to at least investigate that system. He said he was not trying to say that this was the answer, but he was saying that they needed to keep the options open. Having a dispersed system and a system that relied primarily on gravity instead of all kinds of pumping stations, there were many kinds of cost savings that come in. He said as a member of PAC, he needed to speak up and not just be driven into the corral that they were already headed to.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked what was needed and how long it would take said to be able to get the information that the sub-committee would need to make a presentation as a decentralized processing.
Caron said someone needed to come in to talk about the details of the criticisms of that EPA paper of 2001 and address those types of things. He said he was not competent to do that.
Commissioner Rundle said this was an open wetland, but what they were talking about at this time was contained wetland.
Caron said correct. He said the Eco Machine was a closed system. The machine was basically a very large greenhouse and they could be placed in multiple locations where they were maximizing the use of gravity instead of having a lot of pump stations. He said there were a lot of costs with moving stuff over long distances when gravity could not be used. Again, he was not trying to pretend that he was any type of expert for those types of things, but he honestly believed that there were options that could be every bit as much of a positive impact on the image of Lawrence as was the fact that they had foresight to save downtown. He said it would have a great impact on how Lawrence was viewed.
Commissioner Schauner said he was intrigued by the proposal. He asked how they could integrate an honest objective look at this issue into the City’s current process.
Caron said there were people perfectly willing to present their presentation and address specific issues and questions.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Caron was familiar with any places where they had done both processes because of perhaps land restrictions or capacity issues where they would do some of the Eco Machine and some of the more traditional processes.
Caron said he was sure they could put multiple systems together and there were places that existed that had multiple systems.
Orth said if they decided that the Eco Machine concept was a concept that should be moved forward as an evaluation, it was unfortunate they believed they were headed down a path because they did not know where the property was going to be and they had not selected a treatment process. If it was decided that was a technology that needed to be evaluated in a centralized concept, that was great. If they could continue the process where March through September evaluating the processes, that was just one of the other technologies that would be considered because there would be variations within those technologies. He said he saw the real difference was were they talking about centralized versus decentralized. If they started the property procurement stage, then if they pulled the plug on a central location, then they had lost some time. If someone became a subcontractor to Black & Veatch, during the process evaluation, that was great.
Commissioner Rundle said it seemed out of sequence if the contained wetland technology required or functioned well with multiple sites. He said it seemed they should know that before they settle on a central site. He said it was separate from the technology or the process, but it seemed there was no interval. He said they needed to have some knowledge of what might be functional in terms of siting options.
Orth said they did have issues with discharges to the Kansas River upstream of the City’s drinking water supply. They were required two miles of separation. He said taking the flows out of that northwest area that they were having issues with and treating it with an Eco Machine or a contained wetland there was really not a discharge location then it would need to be a zero liquid discharge location and other higher end technologies would need to be done to get to that point. He said elimination of all those pump stations was a great concept and they were implementing that concept the best they could, but they also had to consider where those streams were going. He said if there were any flows that were taken across 6th Street, it would need to be pumped or conveyed over to the existing plant.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if we were currently operating under the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan.
A PAC member said correct, that was the direction they were heading.
Vice Mayor Amyx said that plan and the direction that the City Commission gave from that plan was that they were considering a centralized plan.
A PAC member said along the Wakarusa was essentially the scope that had been moving forward.
Vice Mayor Amyx said to deviate from that centralized plan, what needed to be done to have other process considered.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that was part of the process. The Master Plan did call for a centralized plan. If the City Commission wanted a decentralized plan that could be done as part of that process.
Vice Mayor Amyx said because he and Commissioner Rundle co-chaired that committee, did they need to take it back to PAC and ask how that would happen or would they want to look at running a parallel process along that site selection.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Michael Almon, member of PAC, said they were not at all interested in delaying the process. Quite the contrary, they wanted to find ways that could make the process work better with the research and discovery and implementation process, as well as the wastewater treatment process. He said he highly respected what Orth and Black & Veatch had been able to provide so far, but they seemed to be locked into a dilemma that their small advocacy group was locked into. The way Caron put it was that it seemed like the cart was before the horse and that they were looking at one centralized site and by definition that closed out the option of a decentralized wastewater system using other kinds of technologies. If they chose that one centralized site, the Eco Machines would work as a system of clustered Eco Machines all on one site. He said those machines would work that way to provide the 7 million gallon capacity. However, there design lent themselves much more to a decentralized type of setup.
He said one of the most important documents the City Commission received was the document from the Rocky Mountain Institute, Integrated Wastewater Management Planning and it referred to a particular report which was “Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies.”
Aside from the Eco Machines, that type of a biological/technological blend of wastewater treatment, centralizing the wastewater system had all type of advantages.
He said Orth pointed out that there were costs associated with the more environmentally benign treatment, but he disagreed. There was no way they could determine which side of the coin came down on whether decentralized or centralized was more cost effective or whether a mechanical, chemical, or biological system was more cost effective. He said the problem they had right now was that the Master Wastewater Plan simply stated that they were simply investigating a centralized site. He said what was pointed out that was what the PAC should be doing and their committee felt that it locked them into a centralized site and left out the possibility of decentralizing. He suggested that the Commission amend the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan so that this process could potentially look at decentralized treatment. He said their committee saw all kinds of advantages, but mostly they wanted to do this because it was Biomimicry. Biomimicry was the technology of the 21st Century and beyond. Activated sludge, as good as it had been doing for Lawrence, was the 20th Century technology and had pretty much reached its capacity for what it could do. He said with Biomimicry technology, they could not see the horizon for how much it could do for communities. He said mainly what they had learned by talking with various design build companies that did this, the Eco Machine cost less in capital expenditures.
He said when Orth stated that there was a threshold based on EPA numbers, 600,000 gallons and beyond was not cost effective and he did not think they could rely on the EPA because that was a generalized number. It all depended on what community they were talking about and what influent they were looking at and all those numbers needed to be crunched.
Concerning the Airport Study, from what he understood, the Eco Machines that were part of the process for the Airport Study would have been cost effective if they had decided to build the size Eco Machine for the airport that would have served the ultimate build out of the airport, in other words, a larger machine. As it was, the small size machine for the airport that was planned wasn’t cost effective compared to the force main and that was why the Eco Machine was not chosen. He said the Eco Machines were cost effective at a larger size. Similarly, the operational and maintenance cost were more cost effective than an activated sludge system. The machines were self regulating and fewer on-site highly trained technicians required for a biological system than for a chemical/mechanical system. Also, you would not end up with costs associated with extra processes like chlorination and de-chlorination, much less the necessities for safe guarding toxic and explosive chlorine. Cost would be saved on electricity for the Eco Machine because there was up to 75% less aeration involved, therefore less electricity, less noise, and less surface area. Eco Machines also have up to 70% less sludge generated than an activated sludge process. Therefore, disposal costs were reduced, the complexities, and the transportation costs of the sludge. There was also no odor associated with the Eco Machines and there would be much more flexibility and siting those machines because wind direction would not be of a concern with the neighbors.
The Eco Machines had met all permit requirements for the facilities that they built up to 1 million gallons a day and to get larger capacities, they could gang those machines together in multiples because those machines were modular. He said if they had, for instance, a half dozen Eco Machines that would have a million gallon capacity, instead of 6 or 7 million gallons centralized facility, those machines could be placed on 50 acre sites. He understood that this size facility, if they did centralize all the Eco Machines for 7 million gallons a day, would take the same footprint as the medium size technology in activated sludge. If they put those machines in 50 acre sites, in different watersheds, then it would be less expensive. Instead of buying one huge chunk of land and being forced to negotiate for that one piece of land for that centralized facility, the rest would not be available and would not perform as well. He said they could pick and choose where those sites would be as long as they were downstream. If it was a problem of not being able to buy all those sites right now, they could start receiving options on land, but the main benefit of decentralizing was in the collection infrastructure, force mains and pump stations that would be eliminated by using gravity collection. Gravity collection on a shorter distance for a smaller scale would mean smaller trunk lines that would be less expensive and require less maintenance. He said the numbers would probably come out better on the side of the Eco Machines, but they did not know that for sure. He said Orth thought it would come out better on the side of activated sludge systems or biological membrane system, but he did not know that either.
He said the committee’s point was that rather than closing out options, they needed to bring someone to look at the situation and go over the various options, make a presentation to the PAC and the City Commission and find out from the horse’s mouth what was possible. He said this information was second hand, but that was from the research they had done on the Rocky Mountain Institute through Ecological Engineering Associates, John Todd Ecological Design, and Living Systems Design. He said all those different companies tell them a different picture than what they were hearing from Black & Veatch and the committee was asking why and how. He asked the City Commission to allow that option. He said they did not think it would delay the process. If anything, if they had this information in their tool bag, they thought they could bring those systems on-line much quicker, on a smaller scale, and a million gallons a day facility in the northwest to take care of that problem in a much shorter time than 2011 or 2012 and at a lower cost.
Sven Alstrom, local architect, said he came to support the more environmentalist solution. He said there was a burgeoning community outside the United States and some people called it the anti-sludge movement. He said there was a television program on Free Speech television and there were several of those. He said it could be a propaganda piece, but nevertheless there were functioning plants like that in Canada and Northern Europe. Those were higher latitudes and colder climates than Lawrence experienced.
The end product to both of those systems was sludge, if the more environmentalist solution composts a larger portion of that sludge and reduced the toxic sludge that had to be land filled or disposed of, then that was what they needed to be knowledgeable about. Whether that was centralized or decentralized, they needed less sludge. The decentralized Eco Machine or a hybrid of the combination of the two could result in less sludge. He said if the City Commission would “google” and look up sludge or anti-sludge he was sure they would find information. He said if they were trying to make concentrated orange juice the activated sludge mechanism would make lots of orange juice. He said they were trying to make less orange juice and he encouraged the City Commission to pursue that goal.
Michael Bowman, PAC member, said his primary concern was that there was a 2003 Master Plan that was adopted by this body and put together by a consultant that had been paid and determined that the centralized plan was in the best interest of the City of Lawrence. He said they agreed to entertain other options, but his concern was that he was not sure they would want to entertain every single option out there. He encouraged the City Commission to keep this issue on track and it concerned him that the language on the agenda was to delay PAC.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if it would help to bring in someone in to look at the various options.
Bowman said he would be willing to entertain that idea. He said they needed some sort of criteria that would work for the City.
Commissioner Rundle said the limiting factors were time, costs, and siting requirements. He said he thought that the committee could bring that information to show that any delay in timing might be made up if it really did come on-line quicker. The siting and permitting requirements might prove to be insurmountable obstacles, but he thought they should try and get a handle on those strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. He said he did not want to let an out-of-date master plan be the road block to coming up with the best possible solution. If the group came back and said that it was not going to fit into their timeframe, then they could not pursue an alternative, but if they received a little more information about the alternatives, it seemed like they could come back and change the master plan if necessary to accommodate an alternative. He said they could do enough investigation to get a little better handle on this issue before they cut if off at the knees.
Commissioner Hack said delaying where Black & Veatch was going with the centralized location was not a way that she wanted to proceed. She said it would be wise to have someone come in and give the City Commission additional information, but any direction slow down or stop the work of Black & Veatch, would mean the City would pay for that in the end. The Master Plan was approved and she thought there were some facts that were valid that they were using today. It was interesting to look at some other environmental issues, but she was not real thrilled about the option of having half a dozen, 50 acres sites around town with specific locations within watersheds. She said that might be able to be done on smaller scales such as coming up with some land for an industrial park that might be an opportunity to find it in an enclosed area, but nothing widespread.
Mayor Highberger said he did not want to slow down the site selection process, but they also needed to give reasonable consideration to any potential viable treatment option and he would like that idea investigated further. He said seeing that the EPA thought the City was doing a good job right now made him less compelled to seek alternatives, but there might be a process that could be developed for the future. He said he would like to have a consultant give the City Commission more information and if it turned out that there was a strong viability then they could look at analyzing decentralized versus centralized for a site location.
Vice Mayor Amyx suggested staff work with Orth and Almon to look for someone who could give more information to PAC and the City Commission.
Mayor Highberger suggested that that person be someone without a vested interest.
Commissioner Schauner asked Orth how many eco type systems had he ever worked on or developed.
Orth said that was a difficult question because the existing plant reused the methane within the digester facility and they warm the boilers. He said there were ecological solutions out there in every project they did. He said did it utilize alternative treatment technologies that they were looking at to this level. Certainly, they had designed a lot of wetlands to treat stormwater and those types of applications, but he said he could not answer Commissioner Schauner’s question. He said even though he was an engineer, he was not considered an environmentalist, but he perceived himself as an environmental engineer and every job that they did, met the clean water standards.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:30
Commissioner Schauner said he did not want to slow this process either and he wanted to give those options fair and objective play in the process. He said Black & Veatch was managing this project for the City, but his sense was that based on training and experience those options would not be in Orth’s major field of work experience. He said he wanted to make sure they got someone in who could provide the best analytical view and honest opinion about whether this type of a system would work for Lawrence.
Orth said they certainly could form a subcommittee and evaluate it. He said their contract had contingencies built within it and they would work that episode under that contract.
Almon said there were 4 of 5 design build firms that made those things. He said they could pick and choose from any of those companies and they would provide the City Commission with those names. He said he was glad that the City Commission wanted to look at this idea further, but if they did bring a consultant within the context of the PAC, that was within the context of the currently defined charge of that PAC which was to find a single solitary centralized site. He said it was very important that the City Commission, for instance, have a study session and have that consultant present to the City Commission so the Commission would understand the importance of amending the master plan.
Commissioner Hack said that was assuming that the City Commission would come to that conclusion. She said she would rather let the two representatives on the PAC be part of that discussion and work within the structure that they had.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to be open to that if it was a rational process. He said the two Commissioners that were on the PAC would provide a fair hearing and that was what he was looking for. He said he wanted to know if it would work, how it would work, and bring somebody in who could lead the PAC through that process.
Commissioner Hack said it also did not preclude any of the City Commissioners from attending the meeting.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked for clarification on what the Commission wanted the PAC to do.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like PAC to locate someone who could educate them about whether alternative systems would be viable for the City going forward in the City’s wastewater study, what those systems were, relative cost benefits, and would that slow or speed the process up.
Commissioner Rundle suggested that he and Vice Mayor Amyx, City staff, Black & Veatch, and someone from PAC, try to locate someone rather than waiting until the next PAC meeting. (15)
Conduct public hearings on the following properties to be considered for placement on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places:
a) L-10-01-05: Public hearing for consideration of placing the structure located at 702 E. 11th Street (Hobbs Park) on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
b) L-10-02-05: Public hearing for consideration of placing the structure located at 1839 Massachusetts Street (Fire Station #2) on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
c) L-10-03-05: Public hearing for consideration of placing the structure located at 2819 Stone Barn Terrace (Grover Barn) on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Lynn Zollner presented a staff report and reviewed the three structures. She said all three of those properties were owned by the City of Lawrence and it showed the extra special commitment that this City had to identifying and protecting those places that helped to create Lawrence. At their meeting on November 17, 2005, the Lawrence Historic Resources Commission’s found that each of the nominated properties met the established criteria of Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence.
Mayor Highberger called a public hearing for properties at 702 East 11th; 1839 Massachusetts; and 2819 Stone Barn Terrace for placement on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Dennis Brown, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, spoke on the Hobbs Park structure. He said it was an important site for several aspects of Lawrence history. It was the original home site of John Speer, in 1854 and he was an abolitionist newspaper publisher and a Lawrence leader. The site didn’t escape the death and violence Quantrill’s raid in 1863. He said the land purchased by the City in 1946 and a municipal stadium was built in 1947. The stadium was an exciting remnant of public life in East Lawrence over 50 years ago. He said they no longer had the old County Sale Barn, but they still had the stadium in that area and they appreciated the City taking care of that stadium.
The Murphy-Bromelsick house, though it had been moved, was a fine example of an early Lawrence residence dating to 1866 and had potential as a National Heritage Area site. The LPA had helped for many years with this project and it had truly been a labor of love for members of their community who had been actively involved and they appreciated the City taking ownership of that house.
He said they believed that Hobbs Park would be a great addition to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Pat Kehde, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, spoke on Fire Station No. 2. She said this station was the oldest fire station still standing and was built in 1928. She said along with Central Junior High School, this fire station was one of two existing governmental buildings, built in the 1920’s. She asked the City Commission to support that structure.
Virgil Dean, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, spoke on the Grover Barn structure. He said he was respectfully asking the City Commission to place the old stone Grove Barn on Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The LPA Board believed that it was deserving of such recognition because if its historical connection to Joel Grover, a Free State leader during the Territorial Days and an early Douglas County Commissioner and a Kansas State Legislator. The barn structure also had a documented link to the Underground Railroad.
On several levels it was local treasure and it was without a doubt one of the most significant Douglas County sites identified for purposes of the National Heritage Area and would make a great addition to the local register.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to draft ordinances for first reading for properties at 702 East 11th; 1839 Massachusetts; and 2819 Stone Barn Terrace first reading, to be placed on a future agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to submit an application to nominate 1839 Massachusetts (Fire Station #2) for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (17)
Consider the following Fairfield Farms East items:
a) Reconsider conditions of annexation approval and authorize placement of ordinance on future agenda:
(Reconsideration of) A-12-14-03: 119.8964 acres for Farmland Northeast Addition; south of K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing
drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:
Z-06-38-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 35.835 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road.
Z-06-40-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 37.580 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the subject property was 118 acres that was located on the east side of O’Connell Road. The Planning Commission considered the Preliminary Plat in October and provided a basic reference to consider all of the various zoning applications related to this item.
The two zoning items that were forwarded to the City Commission from the December Planning Commission meeting were for an area that was for a single-family residential and another area that was for duplex development. The preliminary plats were not an item that was before the City Commission and following some of the other approvals the City Commission would be looking forward to seeing a final plat in the next several months.
A critical issue related to those two zoning applications and the 3 remaining zoning applications that the Planning Commission had to consider was the status of the annexation of this property. The City Commission considered the annexation subject to a condition that an area plan be adopted. Staff’s original recommendation for the two zonings had been deferral as a technical requirement because the development plan had not been approved for this area that included the 119 acres. The Planning Commission has taken great pity on the applicant with the length of time that the applicant had been in the review process and did find that all of the land uses that they had been looking at were consistent with the various versions of an area plan that they had looked at over the last couple of years.
The Planning Commission forwarded to the City Commission the recommendation for approval. The two zoning applications, although there was not a unanimous vote for those items and that vote reflected the fact that there were still some concerns about needing to complete the area plan process. She said one of the items for consideration before the two rezonings was the reconsideration of the annexation and whether or not this Commission would like to remove the remaining condition for the area plan that would allow the zonings to proceed.
Todd Thompson, Attorney for the applicant, said he wanted to address the issue of removing the condition that a Southeast Area Plan be approved before the annexation could take place. The applicant was very patient when it was first proposed that this annexation be tabled while a Southeast Area Plan was considered. The various iterations of that plan that had came forward, in each instance, have had, if not the exact same layout, something extremely close. He said that was why someone like County Commissioner Haase even supported the notion of moving forward because it did not make sense to hold up a piece of ground which in every instance had been treated the same in every discussion drawing and every proposed Southeast Area Plan.
After 18 months, plus, they believed it was time to allow this piece of ground and this development to move forward. He asked the Commission to remove the condition requiring adoption of an area plan that included this property. Alternatively, this property could be its own area plan. He said because of the consistency over several years of the basic layout and the uses that they were proposing, they were simply asking the City Commission to remove the condition then consider the rezonings favorably.
He said this approval was for 99 town homes and 127 single-family homes. The north side of 25th Street was before the Planning Commission last night and those proposals received unanimous recommendations for approval from the Planning Commission.
Rundle said he would like to see this area planned before the Commission made any major decisions. He said a project could not be an area plan because that seemed like a contradiction in terms.
Mayor Highberger said he shared Commissioner Rundle’s concerns, but he was ready to let this issue move forward. He shared the preference to have a fixed area plan before the City Commission approved this, but given the fact that it had been two years and every version that the Commission looked at treated this property fairly similarly, he was ready to remove that condition from the annexation.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Mayor Highberger. She said she would support removal of the condition on the annexation request and approval of the rezoning requests.
Commissioner Amyx said he agreed with the Mayor and Commissioner Hack because the recommendations for that land use had been fairly the same.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 11:00. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner said he was torn on this issue. He said he would not oppose this issue, but they needed to find a way to resolve the Southeast Area Plan without sacrificing traffic circulation and some of the other things that were important in that area.
Mayor Highberger said he also would like to move forward on the Southeast Area Plan. He said he wanted the record to reflect that he wanted to hire a consultant to find a resolution. He said his approval of this plan did not necessarily indicate his support for moving forward on any project for the rest of the plan.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to remove the area plan condition and to the approve, subject to the remaining condition, the annexation (A-12-14-03) request of approximately 119.8964, for Farmland Northeast Addition, south of K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road; and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried (18)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-38-05) a tract of land approximately 35.835 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located south of East 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried . (19)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-40-05) a tract of land approximately 37.580 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located south of East 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Receive draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the University of Kansas concerning public transit issues and the preparation of a Planning Study for possible coordination and consolidation of transit services.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the staff report. He said one of the action items that resulted from the Task Force work with K.U., last summer, was the development of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning transit issues with K.U. and the City system.
He said one of the large items was to deal with a planning consultant for transit services that would help the City get to that combined system.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the University of Kansas concerning public transit issues and the preparation of a Planning Study for possible coordination and consolidation of transit services. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Receive report from Public Works Director regarding Traffic Signalization.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said Commissioner Rundle had requested information on central coordination of traffic signals (Intelligent Transportation Systems). The State of Kansas did have an ITS program that began in 1999. In 2000 money was available to state agencies and in 2001 money was available to local agencies. Staff had applied several times for funding.
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, said in order to apply for Kansas Department of Transportation, highway, or transits money a plan needed to be developed which spelled out the protocol on how transit would be used and shared and that plan needed to be in place before programming future money and to go out and acquire that equipment. He said this year staff programmed in on the transit side some funding for a planning study. He said through the Metropolitan Planning Office they had also programmed it into their Unified Work Program to also get this task completed. He said on the transit side what they would be looking at for ITS Technology would be for GIS capabilities so that people could see where the bus was located on route. Also smartcard technology would be looked at for fair collection along with signal preemption to keep the buses on schedule.
Soules said in the Kansas City Metro area there was a project called “Green Light” in which several Kansas City communities were coordinating their traffic control systems together.
Commissioner Schauner said there had been a lot of conversation about the traffic issues on 23 Street. He said one way to improve traffic flow on that street without closing driveways and access points would be an intelligent traffic system that could change lights based on demand. He said at certain times of the day when most of the traffic was going east and west, they could have longer cycles for that east/west traffic and get people through the area more quickly without having to buy right-of-way and all the rest of it. He said he would like to see a pilot type of project that they could take on as City without having to rely on a long-term proposition and making the traffic system more intelligent could not afford to wait that long.
Soules said the state program had been focusing on tying multiple communities together in a broader view and our issues were in Lawrence and that was part of the problem for not getting funded.
Commissioner Rundle said when he talked to the State people, in the context of the 6th Street re-striping, he got the impression that they had some type of framework or plan.
Soules said the other option that was available without going through the ITS program was to put those projects on the 5 year plan. He said they typically use that money to do major street construction, but that money was available for the 5 year plan and staff could place that option on the plan.
Commissioner Schauner said staff could develop their own architecture within the City limits that would not be depended upon State or Federal money.
Soules said correct.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to move forward and talk about what it would take to develop an architecture where they could systematically build a better traffic flow mouse trap as they moved forward. He said he would like to hear back from staff on what kind of commitment would that be both in terms of staff time and money.
Soules said staff would look into that idea as far as the architecture. (22)
Moved by Schauner , seconded by Amyx , to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Mayor Highberger suggested that a study session be planned concerning sidewalks and a sidewalk plan.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Contract – Professional Engineering Consultants, Clinton Pkwy & Kasold; 22nd & Quail Creek; Alvamar area.
2. Engineering Contract – Burns & McDonnell, Kaw Water Supply & Transmission Improvements for $151,209.
3. Agreement – Slavin Mgmt Consultants, executive search, Planning Director, $13,640 plus expenses.
4. Ordinance No. 7962 – 1st Read, disorderly house nuisance.
5. Ordinance No. 7939 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-08-50-05) 4.50 acres, PRD-2 to PID-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.
6. Ordinance No. 7940 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-08-51-05) 3.880 acres, PRD-2 to M-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.
7. Site plan/Non-Conforming Use – (N-12-05-05/SP-12-95-05) Replay Lounge, 946 Mass.
8. Site Plan – (SP-12-96-05) 1246 Haskell.
9. Resolution 6626 – Retire Housing Rev Bonds, Vermont Towers, 1101 Vermont.
10. Mortgage Release – Raina Vissman, 736 Missouri
11. Mortgage Release – Maxine Younes, 1320 East 18th Terr.
12. City Manager’s Report.
13. Resolution No. 6627 – IRB to Packerware fro $118,000,000.
14. Ordinance No. 7960 – 2nd Read, prohibit camping C-3 zoning district.
15. Public Advisory Committee – Sludge facility on hold for evaluations.
16. Historic Register – Draft Ord. for 702 E 11th; 1839 Mass; 2819 Stone Barn Terr.
17. State National Register – Fire Station No. 2, 1839 Mass.
18. Annex – (A-12-14-03) 119.8964 acres, S of K-10 between O’Connell & Franklin.
19. Rezone – (Z-06-38-05) 35.835 acres, A to RM-D, S of E 23rd/K-10 between O’Connell & Franklin.
20. Rezone – (Z-06-40-05) 37.580 acres from A to RS-2, S of E 23rd/K-10 between O’Connell & Franklin.
21. Memo of Understanding – Public Transit, City & K.U.
22. Traffic Signalization.