February 7, 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATIO/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed February 12 – 18, 2006, as “Kansas-Paraguay Partners Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 17, 2006 and January 24, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of December 21, 2005; the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of December 19, 2005; the Building Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of December 15, 2005; the Fire Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of December 14, 2005; and the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 12, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 485 vendors in the amount of $4,617,495.61 and payroll from January 22, 2006 to February 4, 2006 in the amount of $1,520,126.75. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Gaslight Tavern & Coffeehouse, 317 North 2nd; La Tropicana Restaurant, 434 Locust; Shenago Lounge, 2907 West 6th, Bldg G; Stu’s Midtown Tavern, 925 Iowa, Ste: L; Old Chicago, 2329 Iowa; and the Retail Liquor License for Hird Retail Liquor, 601 Kasold, Ste: B-101. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint to the Citizen Advisory Board Reggie Robinson, Larry McElwain, and Dinah Lovitch to 3 year terms; Lydia Leon and Milton Scott to 2 year terms; and Theresa Marcel Bush to a 1 year term; and reappoint Gladys Sanders and Donna Bell to the Public Health Board to terms which will expire March 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of one E250 cab and chassis from Shawnee Mission Ford for the Police Department/Animal Control off the MACPP cooperative bid for $17,504. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering services agreement with Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for $35,913 for services related to waterline relocation on Kasold Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase from Key Equipment Company for one street sweeper for the Public Works/Street Division for $172,010.73 less trade -$25,000 total sweeper price is $140,010.73. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize payment to Construction Services Bryant, Inc. for $18,568 for the construction of the shared access drive between the new Long John Silvers and Mongolian Barbeque. This shared access point was a condition of the Long John Silvers site plan, and an arrangement had been made for the city to pay for this new shared access point, since it complied with the 23rd Street Access Management project. KDOT is funding the access management project at 75%, and will reimburse the city $13,926.00 for completing this shared access point, even though it was completed ahead of the project schedule. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of February 21, 2006 for the 2006 Crack Seal Program. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for two backhoes for Public Works/Street Division. The bids were:
BIDDER LEASE EACH TOTAL LEASE
Murphy Tractor Co. $37,707.41 $75,414.82
Martin Tractor Co. $46,215.85 $92,431.70
The Victor L. Phillips Co. $49,641.98 $99,283.96
Kan Equip Inc. $56,200.00 $112,400.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the lease for a period of three years from Murphy Tractor Co., for $75,414.82. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for beds, hydraulics, spreaders, and plows for one ton trucks for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER TOTAL BID
Kranz of Kansas City $31,750.00
Knapheide Truck Equipment $32,484.00
American Equipment Co. $32,674.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the bid to Knapheide Truck Equipment for $32,484.00, because Kranz of Kansas City did not submit a bid for a Western brand snow plow as required. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7972, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Hobbs Park, located at 702 East 11th Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7973, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Fire Station #2, located at 1839 Massachusetts Street. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7974, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Grover Barn, located at 2819 Stone Barn Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7962, amending the disorderly house nuisance ordinance, pursuant to Commission direction on January 17, 2006, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6629, Kasold Drive (over the KTA) Bridge Improvements pledging City matching funds in the amount of $1,321,000 and authorize payment to the Kansas Department of Transportation. The city will be reimbursed for this matching amount by Douglas County and the Kansas Turnpike Authority per a previous agreement executed with them for this project. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-45-05) for Pioneer Ridge Golf Estates, a replat of Lot 11, less the north 20 feet, all of Lot 12, and Lot 13, less the west 30 feet, Block 15, Pioneer Ridge, a proposed three-lot single-family residential subdivision containing approximately 1.233 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 408 Homestead Drive; and accepts the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
b. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
2. Public Improvement Plans for extension of sanitary sewer main to Lot 1 submitted to City Engineer for approval or Utility Improvement Plans submitted to Utilities Department if extension of main is not required.
3. Addition of these items to the final plat:
a Signature blank with ‘Director, Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department’ beneath it
b Note concerning the restrictive covenants which apply to this project, with the book and page reference.
Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-46-05) for Langston Heights, a proposed residential subdivision containing approximately 27.57 acres and proposes the creation of 67 single-family and 18 duplex residential lots. The property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between K-10 and Diamondhead Subdivision (Langston Heights); and accepts the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include a table for MEBO’s for all lots adjacent to a drainage easement.
2. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-7081a.3.
3. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Submittal of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
5. Submittal of public improvement plans.
Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-01-06-06) for co-location on City Hall, a site plan for co-location of communication equipment on the roof of City Hall, located at 6 East 6th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of necessary agreements with the City.
2. Review and approval of the request by the Historic Resources Commission
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-01-04-06) for Stratford Water Tower – co-location of communication equipment on the City Water Tank and placement of an accessory building for ground mounted equipment, located at 1815 Stratford Road, subject to the following condition:
1. Execution of necessary agreements with the City.
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-01-02-06) for West 6th Street Water Tower – co-location of communication equipment on the City Water Tank and placement of accessory building for ground mounted equipment located at 3708 West 6th Street, subject to the following condition:
1. Execution of necessary agreements with the City.
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-12-97-05) for Mad Greek for an expansion of a non-conforming use (N-12-06-05) for a sidewalk dining area located at 907 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 railing not be attached to the building;
b. The height of the railing, shall not be higher than thirty-six inches (36");
c. The sidewalk dining area on Massachusetts Street shall be unenclosed and shall be open to the sky
d. Advertising shall not be permitted in the sidewalk dining area except for the name of the establishment on chairs or tables as approved by the City;
e. This recommendation is given with the understanding that the City Commission must approve the associated site plan and sidewalk dining license. Approval of this request by staff or the HRC does not guarantee the City Commission will approve the associated site plan or sidewalk dining license.
2. Provide an agreement not to protest benefit district for street light improvements.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Show utilities and easements, sanitary sewers, water mains and storm sewers on face of site plan;
b. Identify property lines and alleyways;
c. Change second floor square footage numbers under site summary to reflect correct square footage;
d. Change first notation to correctly identify that Lot 71 is located in the C3 zoning district;
e. Change second notation to correctly identify the HRC design review number (DR-11-99-05);
f. Change the railing height to properly comply with the requirement that it be no higher than 36”;
g. Correct notations under site summary to show accurate first floor, second floor, and gross square footages;
h. Add notation on site plan to show that the second floor of the structure is used for apartments.
C. The applicant shall obtain a sidewalk dining license from the City prior to occupying the public right-of-way per Chapter 6-1202.
D. Execution of an agreement with the City of Lawrence for use of the right-of-way per Chapter 6-12.
Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to receive a letter from Rural Water District No. 5; and refer to staff for a report. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to refer to the Planning Commission for recommendation for a possible annexation of approximately 97 acres of Corp of Engineers property leased by the City (Sesquicentennial Point and area). Motion carried unanimously. (20)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a release of mortgage for Loman and Estalene Lathrom, 524 North 7th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a release of mortgage for Christopher Griggs, 1808 Atherton Court. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request from Pilot Club International to put directional signs (signs of community interest) on the U.S. Bank property at 23rd and Harper Streets from March 3 -5, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
Commissioner Rundle pulled from the consent agenda the contract negotiations with Matrix Consulting Group for a project involving the development process for discussion. He said he wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of the number of choices they had and none of those choices would be made without the Commission’s awareness.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff would bring the contract back to the City Commission for review.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to begin contract negotiations with Matrix Consulting Group for a project involving a review of the City of Lawrence development process, as well as some portion of the Douglas County development process. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Commissioner Amyx pulled from the consent agenda for discussion the contract for Bert Nash Mental Health Services for Case Management Services. He said the residential coordinator for Bert Nash was his sister-in-law who also had prepared the application.
Hubbard Collingsworth said Bert Nash had been a long time representative in this community for mental health, but he felt Bert Nash was under a black cloud due to an occurrence that took place last year, specifically regarding one of the professors daughter’s that committed suicide and Bert Nash’s inability to provide a crisis intervention team. The crisis prevention was lacking, especially among the homeless.
He asked if the New Community Commission on Homeless would be in control of the hiring and firing of the Case Manager’s.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City would have a contract with Bert Nash and they would be responsible for the hiring, firing, and discipline matters. He said personnel matters would not be the responsibility of an advisory board.
Commissioner Rundle said that incident was a tragic loss, but he thought it was the hospital mental health unit that was not available which might have made a difference. He said obviously Bert Nash was involved for assessment and some case management, but this was a community need and no one entity could be held responsible for not having those mental health services. He said that community need, needed to stay in the forefront of our consciousness so that this critical service was not lacking in this community.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed that as far as the City Commission was concerned that that whole staffing of the mental health professionals and hospitalization had not been addressed much recently and he suggested that an update would be appropriate on where that issue was at this time. He said there was some discussion of trying to reinstitute that program that had been abandoned due to the lack of ability to find staff.
Commissioner Hack said she had sent Gene Meyer, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, an email concerning updating the City Commission on the Capital Campaign which included an expansion of emergency rooms for that very purpose.
She said she felt comfortable that Bert Nash was the right organization to contract for Case Management Services and they were well suited to handle this type of activity. She supported the contract with Bert Nash.
Mayor Highberger said for the record, he was on the Bert Nash Foundation Board, but unless the City Commission said otherwise, he did not think being on the board was a conflict of interest.
He said he agreed that that incident last year was a tragic loss, but the hiring of case managers was an attempt to address part of that problem.
Commissioner Rundle said because of the annual review of this contract with Bert Nash there would be accountability, but also those case workers were serving all the helping agencies that dealt with the homeless. He said the City Commission would hear about any problems if those resources were not being used well. He said he was confident that there was the will and ground work that had been laid for this issue to work well.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Bert Nash Mental Health Services in the amount of $160,000 for Case Management Services in the community at large for persons experiencing homelessness. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Amyx. Motion carried.
(25)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s report, Mike Wildgen said the City received the 2006 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association; and the Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award for National Biosolids Partnership Environmental Management System Certification and EPA National Clean Water Act Recognitions awards.
Also, Fire/Medical Station No. 5, located at 19th and Iowa, building envelope was 8% better that the International Energy Conservation Code.
Finally, he informed the City Commission that a pictorial history of Mayors was added to the City’s website.
Commissioner Rundle said the GFOA award was for the presentation of the budget document, but there were also award programs for the budget process and innovations. He suggested that staff explore and look for ways to improve the City’s budget process. He said in the transmittal letter it was always pointed out that the City used GFOA principles for the City’s budget preparation. He said there was room to keep growing and suggested that staff participate in achieving an award for the City’s budget process. (26)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct a public hearing on the request for a tax abatement pursuant to the Kansas Constitution for certain real property and improvements by Berry Plastics. On January 24, 2006 the Commission conducted a public hearing, and authorized the issuance of industrial revenue bonds and a tax abatement, on original request of Berry Plastics. Subsequent to the submission of the original request, Berry Plastics indicated that the real property in the project should be abated pursuant to the Kansas Constitution, rather than through industrial bond revenue bond proceedings. The appropriate notice for this hearing has been published.
Mayor Highberger called a public hearing on the request for a tax abatement pursuant to the Kansas Constitution for certain real property and improvements by Berry Plastics.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said at the January 24th City Commission meeting a public hearing was conducted on a request from Berry Plastics to issue industrial revenue bonds and provide a tax abatement.
Berry Plastics initially requested a tax abatement only under the industrial revenue bond statutes and when they proceeded to bring the matter to the Public Incentive Review Committee (PIRC), Berry Plastics indicated they wanted the real estate under the Kansas Constitution as far as the tax abatement was concerned. The notice that staff had prepared and provided for the January 24th meeting only indicated industrial revenue bonds. He said subsequent to the meeting staff had published the required notice and sent the appropriate notice to the School District and the County for this evenings hearing on Berry Plastic’s request for an abatement pursuant to the Kansas Constitution. All of the documentation was the same as it was for the January 24th City Commission meeting.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request for a tax abatement pursuant to the Kansas Constitution. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (27)
Receive report from David Dunfield, architect, concerning status of architectural plans for the Carnegie library building, 7th and Vermont. Receive responses concerning possible future uses of the Carnegie building.
David Dunfield, GLPM Architects, presented the report. He said they had completed the schematic design phase of the project which was where they made the general decisions about the form of the plan and the three dimensional decisions about what the building would look like.
He said they had also reviewed their package of drawings with both Lynne Braddock-Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, and Katrina Klingaman, Historic Preservation Specialist, Kansas State Historical Society and they both responded positively to what their firm had accomplished.
One of the first issues to discuss was that they were adding to the north side of the building which was preferred by the Kansas State Historical Society rather than trying to build new stairs, elevator, and restrooms inside the building because the impact that it would have on the historic interior. The addition would take the first of three lanes of parking out of that parking lot. The parking lot would be reconfigured and redesigned to meet current City standard with curb, gutters and appropriate landscaping.
He said the new entrance to the building would be on Vermont Street. This was a significant change to the way the building was organized. In the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it was necessary that that Vermont Street entrance became the main everyday entrance to the building. He said they were certainly not going to deny the ceremonial importance of the old front door on 9th Street, but just from a practical day to day use perspective the Vermont Street entrance would be the main building entrance. He said a person would be able to enter directly off the sidewalk from Vermont Street, a slight grade down and then back up to that entrance and directly into the lower level of the building.
The addition was taken up by circulation space, a stair, elevator, stair lobby, and restrooms. He said they had taken a fairly extensive look at what historical materials remained in that lower level, but there were two pairs of antique doors that were in need of refurbishing and those doors would be left in place.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation to the City Commission regarding the design of that building. He said the building was built in the pragmatic style of the 1930’s, but they were also building in the style of the present time, pulling those two together.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked about whether there was a thought about putting windows on the east elevation where the wall was located.
Dunfield said they looked at that idea, but the preservation community looked at two different preferred possibilities. One possibility was to make the wall as transparent as possible and the other possibility was to make it solid, but set back and simple so it became a neutral space and that was direction they elected to go.
Commissioner Rundle asked whether the basement door on the east side was something that was added.
Dunfield said yes. He said the other door had become a problem with water infiltration. The way this door was located, they would have plenty of room to make the transitions and not have that problem with water infiltration.
Commissioner Hack asked whether the two small restrooms on the second floor would remain.
Dunfield said yes. The building had gone through a lot of changes and those two small restrooms were among the few things that had never been touched beyond the water closets being replaced.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the new edition and how those openings mimicked the openings in the 1937 edition. He asked if there were eight or nine window openings in the new edition on that east façade.
Dunfield said he believed there were nine openings.
Commissioner Schauner said with that many openings the building had a very modern look. He asked if it would change Dunfield’s view of not mimicking the old edition, to have an odd number, such as 3 fenestrations, in that wall to minimize the modernist look.
Dunfield said yes. He said he understood Commissioner Schauner’s question, but this was about the 6th version of this elevation in the course of the design. He said they looked at a couple of versions that had “punched openings” which was a solid wall with windows as opposed to a window wall which was what they were doing. The problem they found was they seemed to be repeating a pattern that people did not like. By trying to relate to the 1937 buildings that people did not find very attractive, they kept doing things that looked like they were repeating that pattern. He said the 1937 building did not have anything to do with the 1904 building in terms of its fenestration. He said they wanted to create a bright enticing and glowing entrance that would attract people to the building and make it a fun experience rather than worrying so much about that relationship.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the rear entrance for the large hall would serve as an access for people with disabilities.
Dunfield said that would likely be a management decision than anything else depending on who was occupying the building and how they decided to run their programs. He said on a day to day basis when there were relatively small volumes of traffic that the Vermont Street entrance would be the main entrance. He said when there was going to be a large gathering in that assembly space, he thought those front doors might want to be left open and available for people so that people could make use of that ceremonial front door.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked where they were in the contractual part of this process.
Dunfield said schematic design was a contractual phase. He said there were two phases called Design Development and Construction Documents and at that point, the project would be ready to bid.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the reason he asked about the contractual part of the process was because there were two proposals before the City Commission. He said the group that the City Commission selected would probably have different needs and as they went through the next schematic drawings, he asked if they needed to know what those needs would be.
Dunfield said he had read both proposals and within the existing Carnegie Building, especially on the lower level, there would be some differences in how those spaces might be used. He said in the grand scheme of the renovations project that those needs would not be a big obstacle. He said those needs would not be a huge part of the total work.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission should be taking into consideration the new addition that was to the north along with the outside area and how that was going to relate as a total unit versus the interior.
Dunfield said their preference was to do the entire project as one because they would need to replace all of the mechanical and electrical system in the building and to separate that in to the new building versus the addition would make things difficult in terms of knowing what was needed and planning all of what was needed. He said they would like, once the construction was underway, for the contractor to do the total job and not have two separate contracts for the addition and renovation. He said by doing this project as one, the prices would be better and the work would be done quicker.
He said not knowing the user was a complication and what they had tried to do was talk about a generic renovation of the building that would still allow for some modifications of a more minor sort after that user had been selected.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the timeframe the project would be completed and at what point the decision would need to be made on occupancy.
Dunfield said he needed time to answer that question.
Commissioner Rundle asked about the lower rooms on the west entrance.
Dunfield said the mechanical room would actually stay where it was and expanded. He said there was much higher air change requirements as a result of air quality issues and it was required that they push more air through the building. The room underneath, was not a very useful space.
He said he thought their firm could accomplish that generic renovation and get quite far along with the project without an end user selected, if that was necessary.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the City Commission needed to decide before they went into their budget process how they would select the user.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the City Commission’s decision was to approve those proposals and authorize the bid process.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said it was premature to authorize the bids. He said the City Commission might want to see the final stages of the contract before the bidding process.
Dunfield said they would like direction to proceed with the next step of the process so they could further develop the design and go back to the historical review process to make sure they were following that process and continue the whole process.
Commissioner Schauner said what he would assume was that over the usable life of the renovation, they might see more than one group occupying that building. He said whoever they selected might not stay at that location forever. He asked if it was possible in the next stage of those design documents to design an interior that had some built in flexibility that would provide, at minimal cost, an ability to reorganize that space for future, as yet, unknown users.
Dunfield said Commissioner Schauner had a good point and that idea was possible. He said part of their reason for wanting to identify the historically significant part of that interior so they knew what was sacred in the whole process because they would want to build flexibility into the design.
On the second floor they had tried to leave that assembly space completely unencumbered which was most recently a gallery space for the Arts Center. He said they were also clearing out some of the partitions that were in the office area on that floor so again, there could be a more flexible office space or class room space.
Wildgen said a past City Commission indicated that the Bleeding Kansas Heritage Area Commission Office would be housed in this building.
Commissioner Rundle said it was better to have the addition to preserve the other space. In terms of cost, it was still going to be expensive to construct an elevator and restrooms.
Dunfield said certainly there would be some savings involved in not building an addition. There would be some pretty substantial structural modifications inside the existing building in order to put that new elevator in and a new stairway in place. He said it was a trade off in that there would be more renovation costs without the addition.
Commissioner Rundle said more value could be had with the usefulness of the space.
Dunfield said that was the argument that the Kansas Historical Society made in addition to not messing up the existing spaces inside. He said this was not a huge building and to start chopping up what was already a relatively small space into even smaller spaces really did not seem like the best way to proceed.
Mayor Highberger said he failed to mention that there were two parts to this issue. He said the City had received two responses to their RFP for the use of the Carnegie Building. One proposal was for a Carnegie Community Center for the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and the other proposal was from the Americana Music Academy. He said he wanted everyone to keep in mind that the City Commission was not making a decision on those two proposals, but they were deciding the next step to make that decision.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks and Recreations, said their proposal was for a multi-purpose facility that they would call the Carnegie Community Center. This facility would help address more indoor space for City sponsored classes and activities, but he noted that this space would not take care of the expansion of sports facilities which was another issue in this community.
The rooms would accommodate more classes, activities, and programs for children and adults. Equally, it was important that they would be able to provide spaces for other organizations and community activities that need space because there was a big need for affordable meeting and activity spaces, particularly in the downtown area. The old performance art area and gallery would be good areas for receptions and other different events. For example, the depot space currently provided a little over 1,000 square feet. The Carnegie gallery and assembly area would provide 3,100 square feet which would be substantially bigger than the depot space that they currently provided.
He said as part of the Parks and Recreation proposal, they were asking the City Commission to keep that City owned facility in the public domain and arena for public use. He said they felt they could operate that building fairly efficiently for any groups that might want to use it. There were a lot of policies and services like a reservation system that were in place already.
Some of the programs they would envision would be a wide variety of fitness and aerobic type classes, healthy life style, continuing education, dancing, special events, concerts, and many other types of events. He said they would use the facility for both City sponsored events as well as working with groups that needed space in the community.
He said the City Commission had two excellent proposals before them to address. He said he had a son that was teaching for the Americana Music Academy at this time as one of their instructors, but basically the Parks and Recreation Department would like to add the Carnegie Community Center to their services that they provided in the community.
Tom Alexander, Director of the Americana Music Academy, said their Academy would be creating something unique to the state and region and an opportunity to be a destination point for not only the City, but the entire state.
He said they were growing fast and the Carnegie Library fit in so many levels for their purposes. The architect’s plans were perfect for what they were proposing and if there were any changes, those changes would be minimal. He said they would be creating something that would become very good for this community and go beyond the City of Lawrence by allowing them to be recognized regionally as a center for culture and arts which was the Carnegie Library’s mission. He said everything that Parks and Recreation proposed, was everything their Academy planned to do and probably more so.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Stan Herd, Lawrence, spoke in support of the Americana Music Academy. He said the arts scene had been going on for a number of years, but had escalated in the last few years. He said what Alexander had done, by the seat of his pants, was to create a valid scene that connected to the City’s music scene. He said artists were moving back to the State of Kansas and people were starting to recognize that there was something afoot in Lawrence with the arts scene.
He said Alexander moved back to the State of Kansas and brought an incredible group of people together who had an energy that was unsurpassed and who were dedicated to live in Kansas. He said if the Music Academy was not given the building, they would stay anyway. He said he thought this proposal would be a wonderful use of that space and there were even possibilities of some interaction with Parks and Recreation and other people in that building.
He said Alexander had been through a lot the last couple of years and commended Alexander for his efforts and he asked the City Commission to consider that in their decisionmaking down the road.
Richard Farris, an instructor at the Academy, said he been with Alexander since the beginning and had their first meeting at the Free State Brewery. He said their endeavors had gone further than just in the Lawrence community. He said he had someone from Kansas City that drove 1½ hours every Monday night to take an hour lesson. He said he totally agreed that their Academy was going to continue to grow and they needed another place to go.
Joe O’Brien, Lawrence, spoke in support of the Music Academy. He said he came to Lawrence 14 years ago as a professional educator and at the time, a prospective parent who was interested in elementary schools. One of the things that struck him was the school district’s commitment to music education. He hoped that the City Commission, as representatives of the community, might demonstrate a similar commitment to music education and the enrichment that music could bring to the culture of this region and see fit to consider the Music Academy a fitting occupant for the Carnegie Library.
Matthew Herbert, Lawrence, said he was first introduced to Alexander approximately 7 or 8 years ago and at that time, Alexander was teaching out of a room that was roughly the size of a broom closet, but what amazed him about Alexander, having been a student of several other teachers, was that regardless of the size of the room he was teaching in, it was always the size of his heart that went into what he was doing. He asked the City Commission to offer Alexander and his staff, a building that could match the size of his heart.
Diane Gillenwater, President of the Board of Directors and an instructor for the Americana Music Academy, spoke in support of the Music Academy. She said the Music Academy made sense for downtown Lawrence in a business way because it would bring many people to Lawrence for different reasons. It would not only bring the people that came for private lessons, but brought people that would come to concerts and different events that were unified with the arts. She said with a facility like the Carnegie Library it was important to use the facility in way that not only benefited the community in a music and arts way, but in a business way. She said if the Academy brought people downtown, people would spend money, take up hotel rooms, eat, and shop. She said she had been with the Academy for three years and had seen an incredible amount of growth and someday they would look back on the building that they were in and laugh because sometimes their furnace did not work, there was no hot water, and other issue that they had gone against those odds, but still continued to grow their student base. She said many adult students were taking lessons these days so it was not just about the children, but also the adult population was interested in learning music. She said there were many ways this type of facility could benefit the community.
There was also an outreach program that was in need such as Music Care that went to hospices and hospitals that could be utilized by the academy if they simply had more space. She hoped that the City Commission would take those things into consideration when they made their decision.
Lorissa Powell, Music Therapist for the Music Academy, said she taught in the garage and there was no heat until she arrived and her kids had to wear their coats for the first 15 minutes. She said she had children that came in from Tonganoxie, Kansas City, Oskaloosa, as well as the children in the Lawrence School District. She said it would be a wonderful thing for Americana to expand so she could have her own room for more students and those students could benefit from music therapy which was a growing profession. She said there were a lot of ways to education and reach for goals through music that other activities did not do. She asked for the Commission to give Alexander this opportunity.
Lisa Nelick, Lawrence, spoke in support of the Music Academy. She said her son had taken lessons from the Academy for several years and they were offering something for her son and his friends that no one else was offering which required space. She said Alexander was the one person she had met in this profession who was not a snob and Alexander included everyone in music. She said Alexander would offer something to everyone in the community even if they were not prodigies. She said she thought Alexander would work with the City to make good use of those facilities if there was an additional need.
Rick Yamasharo, Lawrence, said he came to Lawrence from California because on the west coast a lot of culture was being marginalized by other concerns. He said on the west coast he had seen budget cutbacks in music education, music became an afterthought, and a slow deterioration of culture in our society which he believed was the cause of a lot of society’s problems. He said if there were people who could focus on things like cultural music, music therapy, music education, and training there would be a lot less problems in this country.
He said he was drawn to Lawrence because he saw Lawrence as a bastion of culture. He said he felt that the Academy was the culture’s last stand against disposable culture. He said this was an opportunity that would offer this community a reprieve from a lot of the mediocrity that he had encountered on the west coast.
Mayor Highberger said after public comment, the City Commission would be discussing how they would make their decision and would have a process such as an open study session. He said before the City Commission made a final decision, the issue would come back to the City Commission and everyone was welcome to give input at that point.
Charles Johns, spoke in support of the Music Academy. He said he met Alexander 4 or 5 years ago when Alexander was located at 9th and New Hampshire. The practice area was small enough that students could easily be distracted by someone walking through. He said Alexander had always had a dream of making cultural activities available to the Lawrence community, especially to the children. He said Alexander had worked on this dream and was able to relocate to a larger facility on Massachusetts, but they were still running out of room.
He said he was a senior citizen that went to the Academy to learn how to play several instruments and fortunately the teachers had a lot of patience. He said this was a great opportunity for anyone who wanted to be involved in the musical scene. He said this Academy would provide a lot of culture that was not available to the citizens of this community most of the time, although, there were great outlets for all types of creativity. He asked the City Commission to give serious consideration to Alexander’s proposal.
Vice Mayor Amyx suggested that a study session be conducted and afford both groups the opportunity to make presentations to the City Commission.
Commissioner Hack said they had a matrix the first time they evaluated the use of the building which was helpful. She said any analysis that staff could provide would be helpful to include. She said she agreed that a study session would be appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought the criteria that was used for evaluation was useful. He said he thought the Commission asked the Arts Commons and the Hughes Center to provide some additional information in terms of financial planning. He asked if those things could be communicated to the applicants that that was the type of information that the City Commission might want to see in this process. He said he was happy to see Americana setting their sights big and commended the efforts and vision of Americana Music Academy.
Mayor Highberger said the criteria that were set the first time would still be valid with some weighting. He said he was not sure he wanted to rank each category with a number and he thought they could just use that information as informational material and do the weighting themselves.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to receive the report from David Dunfield and to receive the RFP responses and to direct staff to proceed with the next steps. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
Consider possible City debt funding of the City share of improvements to Stoneridge, south of West 6th Street.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said the owner of tract 2 had requested that the City Commission begin the proceedings for establishing a special assessment benefit district for that extension of Stoneridge Drive. Staff had contact with the property owner of Tract 1 and that owner had indicated that she was not in opposition to the benefit district, but would expect the City to do the same thing that the City did for the property owners for George Williams Way which would be to defer the property owners special assessments until that property was developed.
He said this item was brought to the City Commission before staff started the proceedings for the special assessment benefit district because the proposal would include a widening of Stoneridge at 6th Street beyond the collector street status and would involve city-at- large financial participation.
In the Capital Improvement Budget that was established last summer for 2006 and years after that, the Commission had not included any special assessment or any city-at-large participation for Stoneridge. He said when they had that discussion last summer the Commission might recall that staff indicated that they would bring those types of items to the City Commission for consideration as the requests came before the Commission.
He said the City Commission would receive a similar request next week from the developers of the Oregon Trail Addition which was a residential development north of 6th Street and it would be essentially framed by Stoneridge extended north and George Williams Way extended north. The request from the developers of Oregon Trail Addition was for the City to begin the benefit district process for Stoneridge north of 6th Street. In that case not only would there be financial participation of the City at the intersection of 6th and Stoneridge, they would also have the future water tower site. He said that was City owned property and the city-at-large would pay for that share of the road costs because it was an adjoining property, not because of the size of the road. He said this item was brought before the Commission for direction and if the Commission so directed staff to include that, staff would begin the process of establishing a benefit district.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked how many of those types of requests there might be and the approximate costs.
Corliss said the answer to that question depended upon developer timing, but staff did anticipate a benefit district request, at some point, for Queens Road which was a collector street stated in the transportation plan. The development policy would indicate there would be no city-at-large participation although staff thought there would be some city-at-large participation as the width of the road got wider at 6th Street. He said the City’s transportation plans indicated that George Williams Way north of 6th Street, would be a minor arterial, north of 6th Street and the City would participate in the extra width required because the road would be an arterial as opposed to a collector street.
Vice Mayor Amyx said so what the Commission was being asked to do was to take that request and move it ahead of other request that might be in the Capital Improvement Budget at this time.
Corliss said what the Commission was being asked to do was to add this to the Capital Improvement Budget at this time. He said the City could temporarily finance that project and eventually bond the project later on so that it would be added to the City’s bond and interest costs into future budgets.
Commissioner Schauner asked if historically the Planning Commission had a role to play in developing and making recommendations for the Capital Improvement Budget.
Corliss said no.
Commissioner Schauner said this City Commission had taken requests and created a wish list that they were having a lot of discussion about trying to prioritize in the last year. He said this project would be in apposite to that approach.
Corliss said they had a Capital Improvement Plan that was a collection of all of the City’s Capital Improvements which were not maintenance projects that staff believed would be necessary as the community grew and as the community rehabilitated certain infrastructural responses to regulatory requirements. He said in that list, staff wanted to check for a number of things such as, did they want to do that project and was the project in compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The Capital Improvement Plan then served as a basis for helping staff decide what could be debt financed every year in the Capital Improvement Budget. In the past when a developer or a property owner wanted the City to participate with the benefit district, as long as they met the development policy, staff had added the project. He said he did not want to call it an entitlement, but essentially there was no discussion by the City Commission as to whether or not they really wanted to do the project.
Commissioner Schauner said he remembered when they discussed the 2006 Budget there was an interest in being more in front of those projects rather than simply reacting to requests for their inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Corliss said there was that aspect to be in front of those projects, but it was also more for the Commission to direct it and the Commission did not want to debt finance projects unless the Commission made the positive decision to include it as a debt finance project. The development policy stated that the City would participate at large for a certain project, but it did not require participation at a certain time. He said the Commission needed to keep in mind that the developments had progressed and in this case this project was in the platted stages to do their development south of 6th Street. The plans for this area had always shown Stoneridge connecting to 6th Street. He said staff had forecasted those infrastructure improvements in the City’s transportation plans and staff had not said when the City would debt finance. He said that was the question was when the City would be debt financing its share of this road.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was up to the Commission to indicate when that debt financing would take place.
Corliss said correct.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the City’s share of those costs were $50,000.
Corliss said that was the estimate of the City’s share.
Commissioner Schauner said the northbound Stoneridge costs would be at least $50,000 and probably more because of the City’s water tower property.
Corliss said it would be appropriate under the City’s traditional practices because it was the Utility Department that had the property that was benefiting. The Utility Department would pay that share of that improvement because they needed a road to get to the water tower site.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the Oregon Trail Road.
Corliss said Oregon Trail was a residential development north of 6th Street, north of St. Margaret’s Church. It had not proceeded to final plat in being able to build because there was not a collector street or an arterial street to that development. There had been discussion with some of the property owners that were adjacent to George Williams Way extended. A meeting took place last week with one of the developers for Oregon Trail indicating that they wanted to ask the City Commission for a benefit district for Stoneridge, north of 6th Street to get to the Oregon Trail Addition. Staff indicated that request could be placed on a City Commission agenda if the developer gave staff a communication indicating that request, but the City Commission would have the policy issue of whether they wanted to debt finance the City’s share of that road at this time.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in this particular case, with the Stoneridge proposal, he thought they should allow this project to go through the process and participation, at some point, would probably be necessary to proceed. He asked if they were at a point, on those other roadways, if the Commission were to receive other request to actually drive the City’s own Capital Improvement Budget to decide the type of process and when and how the City would participate in those projects. He asked if they were at a point where they would know the types of developments or the requests that were going to come in for those additional roadways and when would it be the right time regarding the least amount of impact on the City’s current budget.
Corliss said staff’s recommendation was that the City Commission would view those projects as a complete package and view the City’s Capital Improvement Budget as something that the Commission wanted to spend on an annual basis, over a 5 year period. He said in this case when the City Commission made the decision in 2006 to look at those projects individually, those projects were now coming in individually. He said there was no money placed in the Capital Improvement Budget for projects to come during the year and it could be looked at as a contingency.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the only way to do this project was to bond the project with temporary notes because there was no money in the budget.
Corliss said the City did not have any money to pay for the City’s share in the general operating fund, but that was true for every type of capital improvement like this.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there would be a traffic signal at that location at some point.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said at some point there would be a traffic signal at that intersection.
Commissioner Rundle said in this vision that kept being discussed, he would like planning for that vision when doing those benefit districts.
Commissioner Schauner asked what role the benefit district would play because if they did not build the road then a traffic signal would not be needed.
Wildgen said the developer might choose to build the road.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Commissioner Hack said it seemed there were a couple of competing issues. One of those issues was the development policy and transportation plan that clearly indicated that those areas, in the northwest part of that community, would be served by roads. The other issue was the Capital Improvement Plan which did not necessarily marry with the transportation plan or at least with the timing of those improvements. When a project had gone through the process it was difficult to stop it or at least the City should not participate because that was in the City’s policy as they were widening that intersection at 6th Street. She said they were always discussing being ahead of those projects because that meant millions of dollars to build those roads and bill back to the potential owners in that area. She said given the status of the project and the City’s policy and practices, she thought the City should participate in the benefit district.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the City Commission would receive the Tischler Study in the near future.
Corliss said he talked to Carson this week and had been sending status inquiries fairly regularly, but staff had a bit of a bottleneck in getting some information from a party outside of the City. He said Carson had indicated that he would have something by the end of the month and he encouraged Carson to get something as soon as possible so that staff could get that information in draft form to review.
Commissioner Rundle said that was one of the steps to the goal down the line to be able to finance those projects and recoup the appropriate amount from that development, but also assume a City share of a public use component.
Mayor Highberger said he did not want to unnecessarily delay a project, but he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern in that he would like the Commission to make decisions based on the Capital Improvement Budget. He would prefer to defer this decision to the City’s 2007 Capital Improvement Budget discussion.
Commissioner Schauner said he had a problem bundling the north and south sides of the street. He said he understood that the north side of the street had not gone as far in the process as the south side of the street.
Corliss said the Oregon Trail Plat had gone through the entire process and they were ready to final plat, except there was a condition that they had to have the right-of-way dedicated for George Williams Way in order to proceed. They were not able to get that so they had now gone to the eastern side of their development, Stoneridge, to try and get the right-of-way for that road. He said he did not know if one project was ahead of another, but clearly the south side had developed more fully than the north side.
Commissioner Schauner said what he was hearing was that the City Commission did not have a choice. He said because those things had gone as far as they had gone, the Commission really did not have discretion that would be consistent with the City’s past development process. He said he was not willing to support bundling the north and south. He said he also did not like City participation on the south side, but there was a better argument for the south side than the north side of the road.
There had been a lot of discussion about trying to get in front of those developments and this seemed, because they did not have those studies, that they were continuing the way they had done business for a long time in a way that the Commission had expressed a concern about not continuing that way. He said unless they stopped some place, the change could never be made. He said this was a good time to take a time out, request the information, develop a policy and make decisions from this point forward in a way that protected the City’s longer term interests.
He said he would prefer not financing this project in the 2006 Budget. It seemed that they were well into the 2006 Budget and to add additional debt, especially in light of the next agenda item, 31% of the City’s roads were in need of substantial rework.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in this particular case, the concern was bundling those together and he did not think the Commission was considering both the north and south side at this time, but just considering the south side of the street.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought he heard that Corliss would consider both sides of the street based on the water tower and other things. He said if they said yes to this project, he asked how they could say no to anyone else out there and that was his concern.
Commissioner Hack said they had been discussing adequate public facilities and the need to get ahead. She said she would hate to draw a line without receiving information so they could proceed.
Commissioner Rundle said he would be disappointed if the Commission did not receive the Tischler Study to review and get that worked into next year’s budget. He said it seemed the City did not do anything except at the request of the developers whether it was annexation or road extensions. An example was used of George Williams Way, north of 6th Street, not being budgeted, but it seemed that it was listed as a project. He said he could not tell if anything was actually budgeted and it seemed they brought projects forward one at a time and decide on those projects through the year when they should have this all laid out with the previous year’s budget process. He said when January 1st arrived, they should start bidding, planning, and going down that Capital Improvement Budget. He said they needed to look over the fence at what other communities were doing because what this City doing was not cost effective. The City was always adding improvements and it was more cost effective to get things done for those main resources when they were first put in. He suggested looking at what other cities did so the City could set a vision of where they were going and how were they going to get there.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the one issue they had to take into consideration was that they did have development policies in place and the Commission had a request being made whether or not the City would participate with that stretch of roadway on Stoneridge. He asked if the Mayor was suggesting that the Commission consider participation as part of the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget.
Mayor Highberger said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission could pick a time that they would participate in this project, if they were going to participate.
Wildgen said yes. He said one of the biggest problems was predicting who was ready and where they wanted to go. For example, sometimes the City received grants for the Airport and sometimes that was not in the Capital Improvement Budget because staff did not know about those grants. He said this was not the only situation that the City Commission would face where they were looking at additional debt based on opportunities or circumstances. He said he understood the frustration with the roads, but there were other issues out there besides roads and streets.
Commissioner Rundle said the comment was made that the City did not have money in the budget for specific projects, but the money could be reallocated within the approved budget. He said a budget amendment could also be done whenever the City received funds other than property taxes such as an airport grant.
He said the City Commission was not well informed on how this system should and could work. He was particularly interested in trying to inform the Commission about the budget adjustment process which was allowed by statute where they could accomplish some pressing needs because of more resources that they could safely use.
Vice Mayor Amyx disagreed. He said staff had no way of telling how someone would finance a road. He said the Commission approved the plan, plat, streets, and dedication of easements and rights-of-way, but staff still would not have any idea how that financing was going to come about.
Commissioner Rundle said in Lenexa, for example, they did have the resources and they constructed major streets in an area before any development plans were approved. He said if this City wanted to keep developing and pay for everything by small benefit districts, the City was never going to get anywhere. He said Vice Mayor Amyx was correct in that they did have development policies, but he thought they could look down the road for a different way to address this type of issue.
Mayor Highberger said the City Commission needed to have this discussion through their goal setting process this year, but somehow this issue did not rise to the top and that would be a reason for a goal setting review again. He said he would like to discuss that issue so they could change the City’s policies, but the question was, in the meantime, would they go ahead and proceed as they had been or put this project on hold until they had those discussions.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the simplest way to address this issue was by not approving benefit districts that way the City would not need to participate, but that was not what the current development policy stated. The City’s policy was that someone could make a request and the City would participate if it was the street was larger than a normal street. He said the City Commission needed to give direction one way or another.
Commissioner Rundle said the reason he asked about the street light was because that would be a cost in the future that might come down. He said every year when the Commission reviewed the intersection improvement lists they pick some project that was needed in an existing area of town, but there was always some project on that list that was already in the budget to take care of some developing area because the City had not planned ahead.
He said if they let this project proceed, would it lead to other development and would there be other costs that the City would bear because they allowed the area to develop without adequate infrastructure.
Commissioner Schauner said they had a request to form a benefit district and by policy to participate in the costs of building that intersection for the extra width. He said the question was, did the Commission want to permit the creation of a benefit district and if yes, when. He said if the City Commission’s position was that they would create the benefit district in 2007 and not in 2006, then the developer would be able to make a decision about whether they would want to go ahead and finance the entire project themselves or wait until the Commission was willing to participate with the developer. He said his concern was what the Commission was being asked to do as those intersecting roads were developed west of Stoneridge. He said it was time to have a serious discussion about benefit districts, whether they wanted to continue to have benefit district, how they would participate, and to what level.
He said he was willing to participate in the benefit district for this particular project because of the reasons he heard from Commissioners Hack and Amyx, but he wanted it to go on record that he was not willing to participate in any more benefit districts until such time as they looked at the City’s development process, received the Tischler Study, and figured out what would be done in future. He said they needed to stop some place and redirect their efforts and available resources so they could be more in charge of that process.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the City’s debt continued to climb and it was important that the fiscal decision that the Commission made did not allow that debt to expand.
Commissioner Hack said there had been discussion about how far projects were down in the chute and she had a concern that if a project was moving along in that chute with the assumption that the City was going to do what they had always had done, then there was a question of fairness. She said she would like some idea of what the policy change would be before they shut the door because there were projects in the chute.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible for Planning Staff to provide a note on their reports about the expected ultimate costs under current benefit district policies to the City. He said as the Commission had seen those projects over the past couple of years, Planning Staff knew at some point that Stoneridge was going to connect to 6th Street. He said Planning Staff could forecast that they were going to have an expense if there was a benefit district under the City’s current policy and that could be factored into the Capital Improvement Plan.
He said Commissioner Rundle made a good point about traffic lights and that at $150 grand or whatever it costs to construct an intersection, would the City be responsible for that total bill or would the developer pay part of that bill. He said the City Commission was not receiving enough advanced information to make a little longer range plans than they had been making.
Mayor Highberger said he shared Commissioner Rundle’s concerns in that he would like to be out front and provide infrastructure without waiting for development plans, but the City was not there yet. He also understood Commissioner Hack’s concern about fairness because this was an area that was contiguous even though it was not an item in the City’s Capital Improvement Budget at this point. He said with comparative costs, the City’s share would be relatively low for those improvements. He was willing to go ahead as long as they moved forward on looking at changing the City’s policy fairly soon.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for proceeding with the benefit district process. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (29)
Receive report on Pavement Management Program and 2006 contracted street repair projects.
Steve Lashley, Project Engineer, presented the staff report. He said the pavement and curb and gutter conditions were inputs that were produced as part of the Pavement Condition Survey. Collectively, the Pavement Condition Survey and other street pavement data such as street classifications, the maintenance work history collectively went into the Pavement Management System (PMS) as data. He said after looking at the data, staff would analyze that data and develop recommendations along with community input resulting in certain in-house or contracted street repairs. The activities of the repairs, once completed, act as data and input back into the system as maintenance work history.
He said some of the typical contracted street repairs were:
● crack sealing
● chip and seal
● microsurfacing
● milling and overlay only
● milling, overlay, and curb repair
● concrete repair only
● KLINK (Kansas Department of Transporation Connecting Links Resurfacing Program) - resurfacing of a state Highway System route within the City limits.
He said concerning contracting maintenance criteria, decision factors that typically impact staff’s recommendations were physical roadway condition, traffic volume, citizen requests for repairs, and project scope.
He said the first survey cycle (Cycle One) of street pavement condition overall average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Lawrence streets were 69.0 which was a general overall condition indicator and the curb and gutter condition would not impact that overall indicator.
Using the Pavement Management System’s database, 31.5% of the city streets had an unacceptable rating level. That percentage represented the backlog of streets that needed rehabilitation which ranged from mill and overlay to reconstruction. He said 68.5% of the streets were in relatively good condition and staff needed to focus on preventive maintenance activities for those streets. He said the PCI was broken up into three street classifications which were arterials, collectors, and residential based on prioritization.
Commissioner Schauner asked if 43% of the arterials were in unacceptable condition and required more than preventive maintenance.
Lashley said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that compared to 31% of the streets in total.
Lashley said correct. He said this was all the streets together in terms of the distribution. Breaking those streets up into what needed preventive maintenance based on the street being an arterial, collector, or residential, 57% of those arterials most effectively could use preventative maintenance and 43% need either mill and overlay down to reconstruction.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the breakpoint was lower on an arterial.
Lashley said the breakpoint was higher because there was a higher standard for an arterial versus a collector or residential.
Lashley went on to say that looking at the same type of distribution frequency for collectors, 71% of the collectors were in acceptable condition, but on the other hand 29% of those street might need minor rehab or possible reconstruction. He said on residential street there was a PCI of 55%, 72.5 percent of those streets would be acceptable and 27.5 was unacceptable condition.
He said the goals for a Pavement Management Program was to analyze and gather pavement condition data and report recommendations on maintenance of streets based on the specific maintenance need; apply the correct pavement treatment at the right time to establish a cost effective program; incorporate more preservation strategies and efforts by keeping the good pavements in good condition; and, overall provide and maintain a safe street network by implementing those tactics.
He said staff was working on a balance between preventative maintenance and addressing those backlog streets. As the program progressed, the plan was to incorporate more and be more aggressive about preventive maintenance.
He said staff’s recommendation for the 2006 Contracted Street Repair funding was $4.1 million and the total construction cost estimate was $3.9 million of which $500,000 would go toward crack sealing; $1.1 million to milling and overlaying; $2.3 million to a combination of the milling/overlay pavement replacement and curb repair with the reserve contingency of $215,000.
He said in 2005 the City spent $3.1 million for street repairs and 2006 approximately $4.1 million was budgeted for street repair. Based on the cycle one analysis and street deterioration rates, for 2007, 2008, and 2009, staff proposed that $6.5 million be budgeted for contracted street repair, $500,000 of which would be more into the crack sealing itself.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City spent the money that was recommended for 2007, 2008, and 2009, he asked what would be the net result in the percentage and how would they change the 31% of those streets that were beyond preventive maintenance.
Lashley said staff was trying to offset the overall deterioration of the City’s streets where those streets fall from acceptable to the unacceptable condition. Once staff started to implement those activities, treating those streets and spending a portion of that money on preventative maintenance, the deterioration rate would slow down and there would be less streets that fall from acceptable to unacceptable conditions and they would be able to address some of those backlogged streets.
Commissioner Schauner said 31% of the City streets could no longer be helped by preventive maintenance.
Lashley said correct.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City spent the money that was proposed for 2007, 2008, and 2009, at the end of 2009, he asked what the percentage of City streets would be that could not be helped by preventive maintenance.
Lashley said he would need to look at more analysis to get exact figures.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood the idea that staff was going to try to prevent streets that were currently acceptable from becoming unacceptable in the next three years, but he asked how would staff catch up on fixing those streets with something other than preventive maintenance between now and the end of fiscal 2009 that 31% of the City’s streets that were currently unacceptable and could not be saved through a preventive program.
Lashley said by using some of those funds for preventative maintenance staff would be able to make a shift and it would stabilize the system. He said he did not know the exact percentage, but it should not be any greater than 31.5%. If anything they would start addressing some of those backlog streets, but he did not know the exact percentage.
Mayor Highberger said assuming that the maintenance program kept anymore streets from falling into the unacceptable category, how much of the 31% was scheduled under this allocation to be repaired, milled/overlay, or rebuilt.
Lashley said he would need time to come up with those numbers.
Mayor Highberger said a letter was posted on the City’s website from Michael Almon regarding a section of east 15th Street from Haskell Avenue to Prospect. He asked where that area fell on the ranking system, how close was that area for making the cut this year, and if that area was not addressed this year, what was the likelihood of the area making the cut next year.
Lashley said there were distresses and cracks along that area. If anything, that stretch of pavement would need spot repairs done by street maintenance, but staff was not considering an overlay in that area at this point.
Soules said that area had a PCI of 61%, but it wasn’t slated for the next couple of years to have any other work performed other than what Lashley had mentioned. He said there were streets that had a lower rating.
Mayor Highberger said he understood that trips per day and other factors could be a consideration in the ranking system.
Soules said those factors were for arterial, collector, and residential.
Mayor Highberger said within those categories, he asked if staff looked at actual trips per day.
Soules said no.
Mayor Highberger said he knew that staff did not have data on every street, but that would seem like a something to consider if staff was ranking the importance of projects.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the crack sealing item was the only preventive maintenance item that they had in the 2006 budget.
Soules said this year staff was trying to put an emphasis on sealing those cracks then to go out and throw chip seal on top of those cracks. He said staff would like to emphasize their Crack Seal program this year and next year. He said next year they would try to come back with some type of surface seal on those streets that staff had cracked sealed.
Commissioner Rundle asked if staff had money in their regular street budget for chip sealing some of those streets that were cracked sealed last year.
Soules said they were planning on starting that chip sealing next year. The street crews were doing crack sealing and staff did not have the equipment to do the chip sealing.
Commissioner Rundle asked about the $215,000 contingency and at the end of the year if staff did not have to dip into the contingency would that money be carried forward or was it possible that staff could do another $215,000 worth of crack sealing.
Soules said staff could crack seal or mill and overlay. Typically, staff found some areas where they end up spending a lot of that contingency money. He said bid prices were a real issue right now and that was one reason for the contingency money.
Commissioner Schauner said he knew that the City had changed their bid requirements, which were the build standards for the City streets. He asked if the City had changed their build standards for classifications of streets. He asked how our City standards compared with other communities in this part of the state with this type of weather.
Soules there were a couple of communities that were not treating their base. He said for the most part our City was on course with everyone else.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the things he had learned in the last couple of years was that it was not just keeping water out of the street from the top, but you would also need to find a way to drain that street from underneath. He asked if that was the treated base that made that possible or was that just one of the steps in addition to drainage that made the street last longer.
Soules said on Kasold, for example, staff thought there were some ground water issues and they were putting in an under drain system. Typically, on lots of residential streets, staff would treat the subgrade, but basically the soils in the ground sets up and did not react as much with water and you would not get that shrinking and swelling. On typical residential streets, staff was not going to the extent of under drain systems unless they knew there was a specific problem.
Commissioner Schauner asked if topography made a difference on how they would build that street with all of that hilly terrain and did that require more drainage on residential streets that you might put if you were building it on a flatter terrain.
Soules said yes, there would be grade to drain if there were hills.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Commissioner Rundle thanked Lashley for his work. He said this program was a critically important tool and it would help the City Commission in their decisions.
Vice Mayor Amyx thanked staff for their work. He said as they looked at the amount of money that was put out in repairs and maintenance, he asked if it was going to keep the addition of that 31% from growing. Any information staff could provide during the budget process would help.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the report on the Pavement Management Program and 2006 contracted street repair projects and directed staff to implement the 2006 program. Motion carried unanimously. (30)
Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to meet with attorneys for the City on matters which are deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The justification for the executive session is to keep attorney-client matters confidential at this time. The regular meeting of the Commission will resume in the Commission meeting room.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session at 9:00 for 40 minutes to meet with attorneys for the City on matters which are deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The justification for the executive session is to keep attorney-client matters confidential at this time Motion carried unanimously. (31)
The Commission reconvened in regular session at 9:40 p.m.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2006
1. Purchase – Cab & chassis, Shawnee Mission Ford for PD/Animal Control, MACPP bid for $17,504.
2. Engineering Service Agreement – Kasold waterline relocation to Professional Engineering Consultants for $35,913.
3. Purchase – Street sweeper for Public Works from Key Equip Co., for $140,010.73.
4. Shared Access – Long John’s & Mongolian BBQ to Construction Services Bryant, Inc. for $18,568.
5. Bid Date Set – 2006 Crack Seal Program, Feb 21, 2006.
6. Bid – 2 backhoes from Murphy Tractor for $75,514.82.
7. Bid – Beds, hydraulics, spreaders & plows for 1 ton truck to Knapheide Truck Equip for $32,484.
8. Ordinance No. 7972 – 1st Read, Historic Register, Hobbs Park, 702 E 11th.
9. Ordinance No. 7973 – 1st Read, Historic Register, Fire Station No. 2, 1839 Mass.
10. Ordinance No. 7974 – 1st Read, Historic Register, Grover Barn, 2819 Stone Barn Terr.
11. Ordinance No. 7962 – 2nd Read, Disorderly house nuisance.
12. Resolution No. 6629 – Kasold Dr Bridge, $1,321,000 to KDOT.
13. Final Plat – (PF-12-45-05) Pioneer Ridge Golf Estates, 1.233 acres, 408 Homestead Dr.
14. Final Plat – (PF-12-46-05) Langston Heights, 27.57 acres, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between K-10 & Diamondhead Sub.
15. Site Plan – (SP-01-06-06) Communications equipment (Freenet) City Hall, 6 E 6th.
16. Site Plan – (SP-01-04-06) Communications equipment (Freenet) Stratford Water Tower, 1815 Stratford Rd.
17. Site Plan – (SP-01-02-06) Communications equipment (Freenet) City Water Tank, 3708 W 6th.
18. Site Plan/Non-conforming use – (SP-12-97-05 & N-12-06-05) Mad Greek, 907 Mass.
19. Rural Water District No. 5 letter.
20. Annexation request – 97 acres of Corp of Engineers property. (Sesquicentennial Point)
21. Mortgage Release – Loman & Estalene Lathrom, 524 N 7th.
22. Mortgage Release – Christopher Griggs, 1808 Atherton Ct.
23. Signs of Community Interest – Pilot Club Int’l, US bank at 23rd & Harper.
24. Contact Negotiations – Development Process with Matrix Consulting Group.
25. Contract – Case Management to Bert Nash for $160,000.
26. City Manager’s Report.
27. Public Hearing – Berry Plastics Tax Abatement, KS Constitution.
28. Architectural Plans – Carnegie Library, 7th & Vermont.
29. Debt Funding – Stoneridge, S of W 6th.
30. Pavement Mgmt Program – 2006 projects.
31. Executive Session