February 28 , 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.  

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 14, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of February 6, 2006; and the Hospital Board meeting minutes of January 18, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 370 vendors in the amount of $1,912,695.20.  Motion carried unanimously.          
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Chili’s Grill & Bar, 2319 Iowa; On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina, 3080 Iowa; Royal Peking Restaurant, 711 West 23rd; the Retail Liquor License for Harper Corner Liquor Store; and the Cereal Malt Beverage License for Holiday Inn, 200 McDonald Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Marilyn Bread to the Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board, to a term which will expire March 1, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for road salt for the 2006 Crack Seal Program, Street Improvements for the Public Works Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Engineer’s Estimate                                       $500,000.00

                        Vance Brothers, Inc.                                       $452,500.00

                        Ferguson Paving, Inc.                                     $481,000.00

                        APAC-Kansas, Inc.                                         $522,335.78

                        Musselman & Hall Contractors                       $547,887.05

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Vance Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $452,500.  Motion carried unanimously.

(1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx,  to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7980, amending City Code provisions governing cereal malt beverage licenses to comply with state law.  Motion carried unanimously.                         (2)

Ordinance No. 7978, establishing City policy on maintenance of sidewalk and retaining wall, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                     (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the donation of the 1995 Ford Ambulance (City Unit 682) to Lecompton Fire Department.  Douglas County has authorized the donation pursuant to the City/County Fire and Medical Department Cooperation Agreement.  Motion carried unanimously.                     (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the offer from Mike Elwell to purchase approximately 1.1 acres of City property adjacent to the First Serve Tennis Complex, 5200 Clinton Parkway, for $26,000; and authorize staff to prepare a contract for sale for final City Commission approval.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                         (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to execute a cooperation agreement with the University of Kansas to allow the University to purchase five (5) buses for their park and ride system.  The purchase will receive partial reimbursement from the Kansas Department of Transporation with Federal Transit Administrative funds.  There is no City financial participation in the acquisition; however, because the City is the local designated representative for FTA funds, the City can serve as the conduit and administrator of the acquisition.  Motion carried unanimously.                                       (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the bid from Athco Vendor No. 69 for a Fair Play LED Baseball Scoreboard with wireless control system for $17,260.  There is no City financial participation in the acquisition, however, because the funds for this purchase have been donated and the City is serving as the conduit and to ensure the equipment is installed properly.  Motion carried unanimously.                  (7)

Commissioner Amyx requested that the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to construct traffic calming devices on 13^th Street between Connecticut Street and Haskell Avenue be deferred for one week to have discussion about funding sources.

It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to defer the item for one week.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (8)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Receive recommendation from the Recycling and Resource conservation Advisory Board concerning the U.S. Mayors’ climate Protection Agreement and the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities program.

Mayor Highberger requested the above titled regular agenda item be deferred as some interested parties didn’t get notice and were unable to attend the February 28^th meeting.  Moved to March 7, 2006 meeting.

Consider approving subject to conditions, SP-01-08-06, Lake Pointe Villas, a site plan for a 42-unit single-family residential development located at 2221 Lake Pointe Drive.  Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Garber Enterprises, Inc. property owner of record.   Deferred from the City Commission meeting of February 21, 2006.

            Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the project was a 42 unit single family residential development with detached housing.  This is the same property the Commission considered back in November of last year for a similar project with townhouse or duplex type units.  She said the previous request was approved.  This item has several conditions that staff has worked with the applicant to address and are typical, standard conditions.  Some of the newer conditions of this particular item address the provision of necessary access easements serving the internal access for this residential project. 

            Commissioner Schauner said the Commissioners received an email from Betty Lichtwardt asking if this should be a PRD rather than its current configuration in order to provide going forward protection for future buyers of the property.  He asked if Day had seen the email and responded to the request. 

            Day said she did see the email.  She said the request would require the initiation by this body to change the zoning.  She advised we have many examples in our community that have multiple residential units whether they be duplex, detached or apartment type buildings on a single parcel. 

            Commissioner Schauner asked if the PRD provides additional protections if any to these prospective home buyers at this location as compared with its proposed configuration or zoning. 

            Day said the staff recommendation regarding the provision of easements and dedication of those easements to be reflective on the site plan they hoped would provide equal protection.  The development or design standards that the applicant proposed exceed the requirements of site planning meaning their interior access would be to a higher standard than just a parking lot.  Thus there was no difference in that respect between this conventional zoning and a planned unit development.  Her conclusion would be that they are equally weighted in their configurations. 

            Commissioner Schauner asked Day what she meant by the phrase “they hoped.”

            Day said they hoped the protection of a planned unit development would not necessarily preclude property owners in the future having issues or concerns.  One benefit of the conventional zoning was if they want to amend site plan adding a detached structure it would be a much less cumbersome procedure than amending a development plan.  In terms of staff’s hope, Day expressed they are optimistic when looking at design and development that doesn’t preclude a property owner from coming forward to a body in the future to ask for common open spaces or access easements or private streets to be taken over whether they appear in a site plan or development plan.

            Commissioner Schauner asked staff to clarify his understanding that if it goes through the PRD process does it make those processes more difficult to do these items.

            Day said it makes it more difficult to make an amendment. 

            Commissioner Schauner asked if you would have to go back through the site planning process and amend the site plan. 

            Day said you would typically go back through both the Planning Commission and City Commission depending on the scope of that proposed improvement. 

            Commissioner Schauner continued to ask if that level of difficulty adds additional predictability to future owners with respect to what their property would look like, how it might be developed or changed in the future. 

            Day said the site plan the Commission is approving will be the enforcement document just as a development plan would be.  The difference with a development plan is it is recorded with the Register of Deeds.  So there is the other ability to have access to what that development proposal looks like. 

            Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if the fact that it is filed with the Register of Deeds does in fact make that document not only more publicly accessible but goes with the land, creating additional hurdles in order to change the way that development will look. 

            David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Director of Legal Service, said that is correct when talking about a planned unit development.   He said the restrictions we have in the code and adopted plan unit plan require additional reviews beyond the site plan procedures, going to various commissions.  With a site plan you have to go to the City Commission approval per our current regulations unless it is administratively altered.  He said he believed the attributes of planned unit development in the view of what the League of Women Voters has provided additional security both to future property owners and the community at large.  He agreed with Day that we have similar site plan examples where they have been successfully implemented in the community.  It is not an issue of staff’s preference but that it is allowed under the zoning and that it meets our standards.  He indicated if Commission desires to change it, then zoning needs to be changed to allow that. 

            Commissioner Amyx asked if the language recommended by staff protects the property owners in the future or not. 

            Corliss said yes.  He said the site plan does.  It really is a matter of degree that Ms. Lichtwardt is indicating and the level of certainty in the number of issues about private and public streets, the protections for maintaining those and the common areas; those kinds of things that have a different level of procedural protection under the plan unit development law as it stands now as opposed to the site plan.  Corliss indicated it is a matter of degree, not that there isn’t that level of protection under the site plan. 

            Commissioner Amyx said the level of certainty is greater with the PRD than it would be under what is before us this evening. 

Corliss stated that was a fair statement, but even more so to say there are additional procedural protections under the plan development.

            Mike Keeney, on behalf of the applicant, advised there is one condition on the staff amendment he would like to address in detail but first addressed the current discussion.  He said there is one property owner Mike Garber today and in the future there will be one property owner, Michael Garber.  He stated these are renter units.  It is essentially an apartment, multi-family project with single family apartments.  He said the only rules that should apply are those that apply to any multi-family project.  He said this property is zoned to 22 units per acre and under no circumstances would his client consent downgrading to POD to address what might happen in the future.  With that said Keeney continued that this was essentially an administrative amendment to a previous plan that was almost identical other than we had 60 units, two-unit buildings.  They amended that project to reduce it to 32 single-family units in a multi-family, all into a conventionally zoned site plan district. 

            He said there was the issue of proposed condition 4 regarding the dedication of pedestrian easements between the proposed development and Clinton Parkway which they have divided to provide under the pedestrian the hike bike path, additionally to that he asked that the second half of condition 4 stating “and for the access between the proposed residential development and the commercial development to the east” be removed.  He reviewed the outlay of the project and stated for them to provide pedestrian access between those two units would require them to delete landscaping and fencing, affording only the ability to do so between the two buildings.  To lay a five-foot sidewalk between two single family houses when there is only three-feet available he believes is excessive.  Kearney outlined the current public access and requested the second half of condition number 4 be removed. 

Mayor Highberger asked about the pedestrian easement to the commercial area regarding distances between the two existing sidewalks to Clinton Parkway and the entrance road.

Keeney said it is approximately 300 feet long.  With hike bike trail and public sidewalk there gives about 350 between the two existing.  Adding one in the middle would take pedestrians across the parking lot with boat trailers and cars turning around, not giving the most effective or reasonable access point to this commercial property from this subdivision.  There is reasonable access with more than reasonable connectivity in single family versus commercial development.  If this was an apartment project happening Keeney said he could see that happening because of lower expectations of privacy.  But in a single-family home with a bedroom in the back, washing your hair with people walking between your houses, it didn’t make sense.  Keeney reiterated his belief that this is an excessive and unreasonable demand placed on this project.  A demand that was not requested for this particular project, a brand new condition.

Commissioner Schauner asked if he knew what was going to be built east of the boat dealership.

Keeney said a strip center and Central National branch bank were planned there.

Commissioner Schauner asked where the sidewalk access was for the commercial property.  Keeney said for commercial property all access is in the center and at several locations to access the Lake Pointe Drive sidewalk. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if there were walks along the interior.  Keeney said yes, on either side of the entry plus along the perimeter.  No sidewalks are on the other side of the street as in accordance with city standards of streets.  They are offering connection to the 10-foot wide bike trail to the south.

Commissioner Amyx asked when the condition for the eastern sidewalk was announced. 

Day said the requirement to provide the cross access pedestrian connection between the residential and commercial development came through this project at about a similar time as staff were reviewing the site plan for the single-family project on the western end.  There was a submission for a development plan for the commercial development roughly in that same time frame.  In response to commercial design guidelines for the commercial development requiring pedestrian connectivity throughout interior developments to public access ways and also to adjoining residential areas, that comment evolved at the development plan stage and was carried forward into the site plan. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if those commercial lots all take their access from Lake Pointe Drive.

Day said yes.  Access is restricted on Clinton Parkway and for a distance up Lake Pointe Drive as well.  Lake Pointe Drive is a collector street so there will be sidewalks on both sides. 

Corliss said Carrie Lindsey asked him to clarify that Betty Lichtwardt’s comments represent her personal comments and are not the comments of the League of Women Voters. 

Commissioner Hack asked Day if there was a significant difference in the distance between the entry way and into the residential unit and to that first commercial lot.

Day said no.  She believes we would be looking at 375 feet.  From the site plan that dimension shows the one and only access into that development off of Lake Pointe, we’d be talking about doing some kind of pedestrian connection.  Staff recognized if approved there is some amendment to the site plan as seen tonight that would be reviewed at the staff level to ensure we have all the set-back requirements and things met.

Commissioner Hack asked in terms of the distance between the two houses whether staff may not have it drawn correctly and for the detention pond and putting it on the site plan may not work.

Day responded not necessarily that it would not work but how close those buildings get to each other, whether they reduce by one entire building on the residential side was unknown.  She said she would need engineering assistance to determine that.  The other piece would be exactly where that pedestrian connection comes into the commercial piece.  Staff at review would recommend a more appropriate location for that pedestrian connection and it would be up further in northern side/back side of detention pond rather than in between units.  It would mean you would have to shift all those units around the drive. 

Keeney asked why it is so important to have that sidewalk or public access 25 feet from that other sidewalk.

Day answered the recommendation for the connection came about through request for staff to review the commercial design guidelines.  If we look at the commercial design guidelines as they are today that would be the kind of requirement that we would be seeing between residential and commercial development.  Not only is this a particular use for the boat but this is a small commercial center that will have multiple tenants and the bank.  Thus you have some connectivity or continuity between the residential and commercial not only along the public rights of way.  Day indicated that is probably not critical to either project but it is consistent with what the design guidelines say. 

Commissioner Rundle added a comment that the last time we had a site plan that was south of 23^rd Street where they were only going to put sidewalks on one side of the street he had inquired with Independence Inc.  He said that there has been a Task Force that has been looking at access across the city and their recommendation has been that the City requires sidewalks on both sides of the street.  Otherwise, if you are in one of those houses that doesn’t have a sidewalk, you are out in the street with your wheel chair if you want to get to a neighbor’s house.  He said this is one of those times the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is recommending.  He said we need to get these things together if this is a major recommendation by a group like that we need to translate that into policy. 

Keeney said the Commission asked about the distance between two points, he said it was 100 feet.  He said Mr. Dent Harris from the boat dealership here has made a good effort to work with Mr. Garber, a long-time Lawrence resident and developer, to have a working relationship here.  Keeney said he would like that condition to be removed from this project as it is unreasonable for a single-family development to do what is being asked.  He agreed with Commissioner Hack.  To take a property with only 22 units per acre and to do 42 units is not economically a good idea.  He stated he will lose money and cannot nor will not accept the condition of the additional sidewalk.  We can do just about anything else but we feel that is an unreasonable burden placed on a project which is already approved to do it without two months ago.  Two months later we have this condition put on here, we can do a lot of things to make this work for everyone here but popping sidewalks through is not something we are going to do or can do.  But I can say Mr. Harris will agree to put in an additional sidewalk to make accesses instead of 50 foot long it will be a 100 foot walk.

Commissioner Rundle asked if doing almost anything else probably doesn’t include putting sidewalks on both sides.

Keeney clarified Rundle’s comment came from a task force, and was not a requirement. 

Commissioner Rundle said he understood, and it was not a serious request but he wanted to float it in case it was something he could do as it never hurts to ask. 

Commissioner Schauner said he found it curious that the applicant said what he would do or not do.  Ultimately that isn’t his decision on what conditions are placed on the site plan.  He said there also seems to be some disagreement as to when this third sidewalk condition was imposed; however, if in fact best practices require additional connectivity between these two sites he sees no reason to vote against the staff’s recommendation.   We are trying to have greater connectivity, more places for people to walk, better ways to get to places without automobiles.  He said that doesn’t seem an unreasonable condition to him.  He stated he heard the applicant say he could put the sidewalk on the south side of the detention pond.  He was hard-pressed to believe that would cause him to lose an entire unit.  He suggested adopting the plan as proposed with the conditions as proposed.  

Commissioner Amyx said he did not understand why there was the need for the secondary sidewalk between the residential units where it is so close to the other sidewalk that is up on Lake Pointe.  He said we are talking about 100 feet and it is to connect to the commercial area or vice-a-versa to the residential.  He felt there isn’t a need for the second sidewalk to connect between houses and through into a parking lot.  He said the project seemed to work well with access on both sides of Lake Pointe giving access to all three of the commercial properties that are there.  He agreed to approve the plan with the exception of the access, removing the access between the residential development. 

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was when we get recommendations from staff if we begin to pick them apart based on our judgment over their professional judgment we should have some basis other than an opinion that it is a good thing to do.  He said he would like to give our staff more support, not less.  It strikes him there is a need for that sidewalk in that currently we have a boat dealership going in there but don’t know what it could be in the future.  With a strip center it will attract substantial pedestrian traffic that is why they are building it there, to serve those neighbors.  And with a bank on the corner if you could serve it by foot it would lessen the traffic on Lake Pointe Drive which can be a fairly congestive drive as it is.  He supported the staff recommendation and professional judgment.

Commissioner Rundle said putting the sidewalk on the south side of the detention pond works and he believed that would be a reasonable compromise. 

Mayor Highberger said he would like to point out that we are talking about more than 100 feet.  We are talking about access by the people who live on the southern or southeastern part to get to the commercial areas.  He felt it is not an insufficient amount of distance that people actually walk to get to places.  He said there are consistency issues on both sides of this room, consistency with the previous approved site plan, consistency with our commercial guidelines which we require the connection.  Although conflicted he would rather error on the side of the pedestrian crossings that we have all been asking for over the years and would approve the site plan as approved. 

Commissioner Hack asked Day about the commercial property shown that is immediately to the east, where Day indicated there is a detention pond.  Hack asked if there is any reason to have two detention ponds right next to each other and if they could be combined and then have the sidewalk go with that. 

Keeney said he was proposing the condition be amended to add a walk elsewhere because he cannot physically fit a sidewalk anywhere without popping it through a building which would leave limited space between the buildings.  He believes his proposal is more than reasonable and solves both working zones. 

Commissioner Hack said she understood that but if Keeney is the engineer for both projects what would be the possibilities.

Keeney interjected there are electrical lines and everything else there.  Also to do that he would be required to dedicate by separate instrument drainage easements, provide public improvement plans which would cost each of his clients about $5,000 apiece.  It is a matter of escalating scales of how do you do something and get it through the City process without breaking the bank.  That was actually something he tried to work out originally was to do one joint pond but just the legal process he has to go through on a daily basis standing in front of the commission is so overpowering that at some point you just take the path of least resistance and get the job done.

Commissioner Hack stated if that can’t happen she would agree with Commissioner Amyx.  She favors connectivity but felt it can be achieved.  She stated she doesn’t think that asking to walk a block around is a hardship but agreed with the Mayor it isn’t a direct connection.  She said she would approve the site plan removing the second half of the sentence regarding the sidewalk. 

Commissioner Rundle said he was still leaning toward the access being worked out.  He thought when it was mentioned south of the detention pond on this proposal and north of that last house it would work.

Commissioner Hack replied Keeney said there wasn’t room on that south side. 

Keeney said in the end you are talking about an extra walking distance the width of this room.

Highberger said that isn’t correct.  If you are moving the houses on the southern edge and you want to get to the commercial area on the right, instead of walking up to the sidewalk and cutting across you will walk up around to the entrance drive over and back down.

Keeney said there are a lot of grading issues here.  To make this whole thing grade you have to three-one swell popping down with essentially a ditch running in the back.  So we would have people crossing the ditch, and then with a curb and gutter you have a fence which we spent a lot of time to screen the neighborhood from this commercial area.  It is a brick and pillar every 10 foot, a very expensive, nice fence to do this.  These neighbors have agreed to put it up because there is a visual barrier between a Yamaha boat dealership and a single-family neighborhood.  Yes, there is an extra 100 foot or so of walking distance but in the big scheme of things this is small potatoes as we have access in two other locations and he would meet that condition on the next project that is coming before the Commission in two weeks.  In the end you still end up in the parking lot of a boat dealer, where cars are making turning movements.  It is unsafe to dump people into a parking lot, there is public health safety issues besides the common sense factor that connectivity to a boat dealership is not the end all be all of a planning design. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if he would refresh him again about access to the commercial properties from the Clinton Park side. 

Keeney said yes, Day was the planner on that.  Although he didn’t have a copy of that plan he stated essentially you have a boat dealership here, and another building with a sidewalk taking you to the coffee shop, hair cut place, etc. without taking you across the parking lot with boat trailers.  Two months ago everyone agreed this whole conversation never happened.  We spent 30 minutes arguing whether to put a sidewalk between two single-family homes into a parking lot of a boat dealer.  He feels he has offered reasonable solutions to overcome this.  He asked the commission take a second look at this proposal.

Mayor Highberger asked about the grade between the back of the houses and the commercial property. 

Keeney stated with the parking lot that water has to be directed from the property into the detention base, you have a higher point needing you to have a swell with only a 25 foot distance.  To make that grade work you have a ditch that increasingly gets deep until you reach a 25 foot wide swell which toasts three one down comes over and toasts three one up.  That doesn’t meet handicap accessibility guidelines.  You could put a sidewalk in there but in the end it is not ADA accessible.  Requirements are that sidewalks be accessible so it means how do I solve the whole range of issues?  Of course we have an idea but real world in implementing the idea is two different things.

Mayor Highberger said given those two pieces of information the connectivity on the south side to the commercial properties and the difficulty in dealing with the grade he was willing to reconsider his stated position.

Commissioner Schauner asked Day if she had come up with additional information as she was discussing with Chuck Soules about this. 

Day said professionally she disagrees with Mr. Keeney but she is not an expert on the grading which is why she asked Chuck to look at it briefly here.  Yes, there is a swell but disagrees it is to the severity that Mr. Keeney describes for the commission.  There is certainly grading of the property that will take place but compared to many properties that we look at the overall grading for this project at least on the site plan is not showing many types of retaining walls and significant grading changes that we would see with some more challenging property.  Is the connection possible or doable?  Certainly it can be but staff’s preference is that it would be along the detention pond and we did explore trying to combine the two detention ponds into one and found that because of utilities and other needs in project review it would be to complex to try and execute the kinds of easements that needed to happen.

Commissioner Schauner asked Day to help him understand the sequence of events here.  The site plan that we are looking at this evening was brought to you when and when were the additional sidewalk conditions added to the report.

Day answered the application was submitted for site plan review in January of 2006.  We went through our typically review time period for the most part.  We did work through various projects and I believe the sidewalk comment came in the review.  After reviewing her notes she stated it appeared that comment for the sidewalk between the connection of the two projects came not at the initial review comments which were provided to the applicant around February 1st, but came within the next couple of weeks as actually another planner, Mary Miller, started working on the commercial review.  We talked about the coordination of that.  So they got it through the review process although not with the first round of review comments on February 1st. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the requirement of the sidewalk had been new information for the applicant.

Day replied yes, to some degree because it has evolved out of our very recent discussions of the Planning Commission level with commercial design guidelines.  What we do not have is a companion of design guidelines of the residential standard which I believe is forthcoming.  So it is not something they would have drawn on their plans as an initial submittal item.

Commissioner Schauner questioned to confirm that they wouldn’t have known to do that or that it might be required?

Day said not without staff telling them or without following what is going on at the Planning Commission level. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff wouldn’t have shared that information about that connectivity requirement until a couple of weeks ago.

Day said yes.  And site plans have a much shorter review period than the development plan.  A couple of weeks ago is still within what we are trying to turn around to you between review comments and submittal dates. 

Commissioner Schauner asked so the final word was that the swell was not so steep that it would preclude a sidewalk.

Keeney said the swell as drawn is only a half of a percent.  He is aware he needs to make drain better which means raise those buildings, meaning deepening that swell. 

Commissioner Schauner suggested that maybe this isn’t ready for the Commission’s consideration.  It seemed to him that the Commission is being asked to make a decision based on not having all the information.  Apparently not even the applicant is certain of what is required in terms of the drainage.

Commissioner Rundle said Keeney has persuaded him by not only his arguments but also by his passion on this.  He said rather than having Soules look at this moment and shoot from the hip it would be good that if this is a requirement it should be doable.  Maybe we can be guided better if there are some design guidelines that come eventually.  We are kind of midway between a lot of transitions here between old and new regulations. 

Commissioner Schauner said he did not want to send it back.  He had some empathy for the applicant not knowing until a couple of weeks ago we had a problem with the connectivity issue requirement but at the same time he was frustrated that the Commission was being asked to make sausage.  We are not equipped by experience or in fact information to make these kinds of technical decisions.  He said he supported staff’s recommendation.  It seemed to him the default position should be to support staff recommendation and not make our own judgment from impassioned arguments from the applicant.   To do so would end up making everyone mad. 

Commissioner Amyx asked Keeney from the plan they currently have, the multi-family units, that is an improved plan and there is no cross access going into commercial.

Keeney said correct.

Commissioner Amyx asked why was the change made to go to the single-family unit.

Keeney said simply because our client had the picture in his head of what he wants to build and what kind of environment he wants to build there.  He has done this long enough, he doesn’t need to build this to put his kids through college. He has made his way in life and builds for fun for his own pride and ego.  He takes a lot of pride in what he does.  He has very definite opinions of what he will and will not do.  And this is one thing he will not do. 

Mayor Highberger said he would modify his earlier statement.  He said this was a tough call, again he thinks these are really crucial with consistency issues on both sides.  Given the fact that we have an approved plan that can be built that probably may not be as desirable as this without the connection, and given the fact that there is a connection to the commercial area on the south takes away some of his concerns of walking distance from the people on the south side on the site plan with the middle pedestrian connection removed, he was willing to support a motion to that effect.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-01-08-06) for a 42- unit single-family residential development, located at 2221 Lake Pointe Drive, subject to the following  conditions (condition 4 revised): 

1.         Provision of the following documents:

a.         Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

b.         Execution of an encroachment agreement with Southern Star Gas prior to issuance of building permits

c.         Provision of an addressing scheme from Lake Pointe Drive for individual dwelling units to be recorded with the Register of Deeds office.

d.         Provision of recording fees for address assignment.

e.         Provision of a photometric plan and lighting detail for the private drive.

2.         Dedication of an access easement within the interior of the development by separate instrument.

3.         Provision of a revised site plan to note and show the deed book and page on the face of the site plan following review by Director of Legal Services.

4.         Dedication of a pedestrian easement between the proposed development and Clinton Parkway.

5.         Provision of a revised site plan to amend General Note 20 to state that the specific site improvements such as the interior access, sidewalks, and public improvements shall be complete prior to occupancy of units.

6.         Provision of a revised site plan to note and show the deed book and page on the face of the site plan for dedicated pedestrian easements.

7.         Submission and approval of public improvement plans as required for sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer prior to issuance of building permits.

8.         Provision of a guard rail at the western termination of the access drive within the development.

9.         Provision of a revised and simplified parking schedule since all units have the same parking requirement.

10.       Provision of a revised site plan to label units as 3 or 4 bedroom units.

11.       Clarify on the drawing which units have single-car garages and which units have double car garages since all are drawn with same detail

12.       Provide a detail for each housing type on the face of the plan including the driveway and unit dimensions.

13.       Approval of the drainage study by the City Public Works Department.

a.         Provide drainage easements by separate instrument if applicable with public improvements plans for the proposed storm sewer. Provide a note with the deed book and page for drainage easements to serve this development as applicable (if required for drainage easements, per City staff approval).

b.         Provision of a revised site plan to note deed book and page reference on face of site plan of any required drainage easements

14.       Provision of a revised landscape plan to include following changes:

a.         Include mixture of plants around the west and north boundaries of property along with English Box Hedge, preferably native or adaptable to create a layered, natural look of multiple heights and widths, include some evergreen and deciduous.

b.         Provision of groupings of screening directly behind the buildings and smaller trees evergreen shrubs along Lake Pointe Drive and the east and west property lines

15.       Provision of notes regarding the swimming pool as follows:

a.         Correct dimensional notations on swimming pool.

b.         Provision of a note stating the swimming pool construction shall comply with city code, Chapter 19, Article 11 and

c.         Note the pool shall provide for accessible access.

Motion carried unanimously, four to one, with Commissioner Schauner in the negative.

(9)

Receive request from Mayor Highberger to appoint an Affordable Housing Task Force. Receive request from Joint Housing Committee concerning affordable housing conference.

Mayor Highberger said basically we have two items, 1) a request on his part, a long waited request to look at housing needs and 2) a request from the Joint Housing Committee of the League of Women Voters to have some cooperation with an affordable housing conference.  Also in this request is a proposal to appoint an affordable housing task force.  The Mayor asked it be deferred until next week for additional changes. 

            David Smith, Joint Housing Committee of the League of Women Voters, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods and the Living Wage Alliance, said most of you have seen the written proposal that we are discussing tonight.  Basically we have been meeting since late 2000 with an ongoing discussion of affordable housing in the community.  We have a particular interest in the needs of people who are directly affected by lack of affordable housing.  We are specifically in the process of organizing a conference that we intend to hold in May of this year.  We are here tonight seeking your support.  Concretely, we are asking for a modest sum to help us organize this conference, we are talking about $3,000 dollars.  He said they are also extending a hand to invite one or more members of the commission to participate with us in the planning process.  We have had primarily discussions about structure and concept of the conference for awhile.  We are visualizing a city-wide conference and we are hoping to hold this in a couple of months and involve all stake-holders who have been involved in discussing or should be involved in discussing the issue of affordable housing.  There is certainly a need for discussion of structures and for the discussion of the economics of the situation in a bigger sense.  But we are primarily focused on the people who need affordable housing and we are very encouraged and heartened by steps taken by the City with respect to some of those important constituents.  In particular, we are delighted with what the city has done with respect to the homeless.  Some very important, tangible steps have been taken forward and we are also very encouraged by some of the steps taken with respect to renters who have the chance to become first time home buyers.  That is another very important constituency in the discussion of affordable housing.  But we want to call particular attention to not only these two groups that deserve continuing attention, in which we want to be part of the focus of the conference we are organizing, but over and above the homeless and the potential first-time homebuyers we want to call attention to the needs of a group we are calling the “precariously housed.” 

            He said they didn’t invent this term but are using it.  We are talking about people who are not affluent enough to be close to being first time homebuyers but they aren’t quite poor enough to be homeless either.  This is a group which is the nearly homeless.  In the 2000 census data shows that at that time there were 3,800 households in the City of Lawrence that fell into this category.  We are defining the precariously housed as the federal government defines a group called the “extremely poor.”  These are households with annual incomes of $10,000 or less which spend 35% or more of their total income for housing.  That means for households of that type they can afford no more than $300 a month for rent.  Often to $250, often less than that.  No this is a relatively invisible population unless you work with that group.  They are not on the street.  They are hard to see but there were in the year 2000 3,800 such households. 

            He wanted to underline their concern that the League of Women Voters, the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods and the Living Wage Alliance have been meeting for over a year with this concern.  We have had the opportunity to meet with a lot of people active in the field, a lot of service providers, and a whole range of people that we’ve learned a great deal from.  One thing we have learned is that there are a lot of people, not only in this predicament, but a lot of people in this field who have valid concerns who have insight that others of us may not yet have.  Thus we have felt a good first step to go further on the path the city has begun to take would be to convene a conference where we bring together everybody who wants to be involved in this conversation and hear everything that people want to say.  From builders and developers, to the precariously housed and the homeless themselves.  With that concept in mind, you have seen the attachment that was sent about the few ideas about how we visualize this conference. 

            With that idea in mind we are planning on going forward.  We have some fairly good ideas about aspects of the conference, some of our ideas are more sketchy.  We would appreciate input.  We are going forward and would very much like to have the City on board.  We invite your input.  We invite a commissioner or two to join our committee and help us plan this conference.  And we request a modest sum to help us organize the conference. 

            Mayor Highberger said this was a great idea.  He said the conference would be great and he supported City participation.  He also said he would be willing to volunteer on the committee.

            Commissioner Hack said she is somewhat on overload and can’t help with the planning but would be in support.

            Commissioners Rundle and Amyx also supported the conference.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve request from Joint Housing Committee for city participation in the Affordable Housing conference in the amount of $3,000.  Motion carried unanimously.

            Mayor Highberger continued with the second request for authorization to appoint a task force.  He would like this task force to first look at recommendations that came out of the Community Housing Assessment team report that we reviewed last year.  Do cost benefit to determine what might work and not work for this community.  Then to come back with recommendations in a quick time frame.  Also to make any other recommendations that might be helpful for the Commission to make sure people who work in Lawrence can afford to live in Lawrence that is where we will have the quality of life we value in this town. 

            Mayor Highberger asked we defer appointments until next week in a separate motion.

            Commissioner Schauner asked if the Mayor was looking for authority to appoint an affordable housing needs task force later. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to postpone appointments for an affordable housing needs task force until the next meeting.  Motion carried unanimously.              (10)

Receive recommendation from the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board concerning the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities program.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to defer the Mayor’s recommendation for one week.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                              (11)

Receive staff report concerning Ordinance No. 7938 creating a city misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana.

Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report.  He advised there are two new versions of the marijuana ordinance that we’ve been discussing.  This is the fifth meeting that we’ve discussed these ordinances. The first version before you substantially reflects the version of the ordinance that received the most support at the last city commission meeting.  Then there is a version that was requested by the Mayor which has a lower minimum fine and a little bit different treatment requirements.  The only difference and the main points of contention that exists right now regarding the ordinance are whether or not a minimum fine should be imposed.  If so, how much the minimum fine should be.  And, third whether any sort of treatment, education for marijuana dependence should be imposed as either discretionary or mandatory condition of any plea or finding of guilt. 

First, regarding the minimum fine Miller offered review of the history of the provision.  Until November 29^th which was our fourth meeting on this subject there was no minimum fine that existed.  Up until that time it reflected a Class A misdemeanor under state law which is a fine of zero to $2,500 dollars and a jail term of zero days up to 365 days or one year.  At that meeting there was support from two commissioners for $300 minimum fine.  There was a third commissioner supported $300 dollar minimum fine with some departure criteria so that the judge if he/she felt it appropriate could assess a lower fine upon finding there was substantial and compelling reasons to do so.  Those standards are incorporated in each of the ordinances in front of the commission this evening. 

The only difference between the two ordinances is that one ordinance requires a $100 minimum fine and the other requires $300 minimum fine.  The other difference is based upon comments made by Kim Richter made at the last city commission meeting when this was discussed.  She recommended a different treatment protocol for people who were convicted under this ordinance or different counseling protocol.  That counseling protocol is based upon the federal government protocol that has been statistically tested and is marijuana only called the Brief Counseling for Marijuana Dependence.  After reviewing the information about that it has been incorporated as opposed to add SAPE class and alcohol drug safety action program.  That has been incorporated as the preferred treatment in the ordinance. 

With a $100 ordinance that treatment would be required of anyone that was convicted of possession of marijuana who entered into diversion.  The $300 minimum fine ordinance that evaluation would be required only if the judge in his/her discretion decided it was appropriate.  So that is the menu of choices before you this evening.  As stated earlier any minimum fine that a Commissioner wants to propose can be easily written into the ordinance and the options regarding the evaluation and subsequent counseling can be tweaked as well.

Commissioner Schauner said he received an email today where the question was asked if a person either pleads guilty or is found guilty under this ordinance, if there is a subsequent conviction for possession, does that second conviction become a felony.

Miller said yes. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be difficult for our judges to make that known to persons before they plead to this first offense. 

Miller said no, the judge could easily do so but it isn’t required of the law for judges to inform people who plead guilty to an offense of collateral consequences. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be unreasonable to request or require the judge to make such an announcement to someone before they plead guilty.

Miller said he was not in a position to judge reasonability but stated it would be a departure of every other statute that exists under the law.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that warning or that information could be on a plead document, a waiver of trial document for example.

Miller said yes.

Kim Richter, spoke in favor of version 3.1, the version with the $100 minimum fine and also the mandatory evaluation.  Though either of the ordinances are better than none she is in favor of version 3.1 because so many arrestees are dropped before they are seen in district court.  If one is worried about the perception they are being soft on marijuana actually people will have their day in court whether they like it or not if it’s an ordinance and that is why she is in favor of it.  Also, with either ordinance someone’s student loans wouldn’t be put in jeopardy if it is heard in a city municipal court.  She prefers version 3.1 because she favors the evaluation.  This would be the first ordinance that she is aware of that really addresses the reasons marijuana is illegal.  That is in some people’s minds that is some people are harmed by marijuana use.  Some people abuse or become dependent upon marijuana, and it provides people to get screened for their marijuana use and get feedback on their level of their use and whether it is creating any problems for them.  Then people who are having problems may go on to enter treatment providing a gateway to treatment which is terrific and an investment by this commission in the future by changing the direction of some people who are using recreationally perhaps more so to have them rethink their drug use and maybe either slow it down or stop it.  She thinks in that way it has the punishment with the $100 fine because it costs money to process these things and also because it is illegal.  And on the other hand it serves as a gateway to treatment.  Therefore she feels it is a terrific ordinance and is very pleased.  She encouraged the commission to vote for it.

Leslie Eldridge, KU Student Senate, said since the beginning they have felt this is a student right’s issue and they wish to stress keeping the most students in school as possible.  They feel upon passage of either ordinance would be taking a step forward.  She thanked the commission for supporting students at KU.

Mayor Highberger asked if Eldridge or the students she represent have a preference of either ordinance.

Eldridge said no, they hadn’t had an opportunity to discuss the specifics.

Mayor Highberger opened for public comment.  With none he proposed version 3.1 because bringing it to municipal court frees up valuable resources in the district court for more serious offenses.  He doesn’t see any justification for a higher fine in municipal court than would be imposed in district court.  Although he doesn’t really like the $100 minimum as he would rather leave it to the discretion of the judge especially when given his information that fines in district court are often $25 or $50, maybe $100 for diversion so he can live with a $100 minimum.  He likes the mandatory evaluation because most people who use marijuana don’t have any trouble with it.  There are a few who do.  If we could identify those people and get those onto a better path that would be great.  He would like to see the $100 minimum and mandatory treatment.  He also agreed having a first time marijuana conviction should not preclude someone for getting a student loan and is pleased this addressed that.  He shared Commissioner Schauner’s concerns stating he finds it outrageous that a person convicted of a second marijuana possession would be convicted of a felony.  Thus the more we can make people aware of that the better.  We don’t have to include it in the ordinance but strongly encourages our prosecutors and judges to keep people well informed. 

Commissioner Amyx said he has been in support of the $300 fine.  He has had the opportunity of the last eight to 12 weeks to read both versions.  He realized that probably the most important part for him is to help folks that find themselves in a situation where you make a mistake once and maybe we can understand.  Taking all the information into account, he said to break the deadlock he felt it important for Lawrence, KS to have an ordinance.  He recommended the minimum fine should be $200.00 and the treatment should be required.  He thinks the five points Commissioner Schauner requested about the discretion of the judge should be included and if this is a way to break the deadlock it is critical to get it in place.  He appreciated all the information everyone provided.

Commissioner Rundle said he supported the Mayor’s version 3.1

Commissioner Schauner said the thing he heard from Richter that resonated the most with him was that our current use of the district court for these matters has proven to be fairly ineffective.  It seemed to many times to be no consequences for being ticketed or arrested for possession.  He doesn’t believe it is up to this body to decide whether marijuana use is good, bad or indifferent.  That is for another body to decide.  What we need is an ordinance that provides a reasonable disincentive for those who use an illegal drug of which marijuana currently is.  He said he did support the incorporation of a mandatory evaluation program directed specifically at marijuana use.  He also supported including the factors allowing mitigating or suspension of the fine.  Because there is a possibility of mitigating the fine he said he could support splitting the difference as Commissioner Amyx’s $200.00 proposal as it carries with it enough safe guards to give the judge sufficient leeway to make a different assessment of the fine.

Commissioner Hack asked to clarify, $200.00 minimum fine, mitigating factors, and mandatory treatment. As well as adding comments to document the defendant may sign about the second offense being a felony. 

Commissioner Schauner said yes.  He said he has previously represented people who have been convicted of felonies and it really messes up your life good.  So people need to be aware of what that consequence is and then they get to make their own decisions about their behaviors. 

Commissioner Hack thanked Richter for getting the Commission to this point.  Regarding the terms of treatment is something that we all wanted and was the missing part of it.  She said she definitely wants the mandatory evaluation and could agree with the $200 minimum fine along with the mitigating factor.  She wanted to express she doesn’t believe this is a student right’s issue.  This is a responsibility situation and our hope as commissioners is that we can make this efficient for ourselves and law enforcement and to help those folks who find themselves in this situation where they need treatment and assessment.  She believes that is important and wanted to clarify that point. 

Mayor Highberger asked what would be the justification for having a higher fine than imposed in district court. 

Commissioner Amyx said we could easily leave it in district court.  If this is a way that the municipal court might be able to help that one individual then that is how he will look at it. 

Mayor Highberger said he sees it as a separate issue whether it is a good idea to move it to municipal court and how much the minimum fine should be.  He doesn’t see any justification offered imposing a stiffer fine than district court. 

Commissioner Hack said it is a line she feels she needs to draw, that $100 isn’t significant enough to discourage people from doing this. 

Mayor Highberger asked Hack if she doesn’t think fines in district court are high enough.

Commissioner Hack said perhaps not.

Commissioner Rundle said when looking at the ordinance and all the other criminal penalties for damage to property and person, where this has no victim that is being harmed most fines are capped at $100.00.  Fines are $10.00 and no greater than $100.00 unless staff can identify to the contrary.  The other thing regarding the responsibility issue, he feels it is also a responsibility issue for legislators.  We have all sorts of laws with mandatory prison sentences and comes with such a high public cost that it is breaking taxpayers’ backs.  He thinks it makes people feel good about something they are emotional about.  If you try to come to some rationale way for the penalty such as comparing it to other acts or district court and other prevailing fines at levels they are set he thinks that makes more sense.

Commissioner Schauner said the fact that the judge will be given some specific guidance that he/she may use in reducing that fine to a lower number provides a safety valve for the fine being greater than the individual under those circumstances could or should reasonably be required to pay.  That is why he first suggested it in conversations previously.  He still believes the judge is in a better position to make that determination based on a recommendation from the prosecutor than we are.   He thinks the commission is providing a public policy tool of which the judge and the prosecutor can make rational and reasonable decisions about recommendations and sentencing. 

Mayor Highberger said he doesn’t like the fact or idea that we don’t have any other ordinance like that where the ordinance has judicial discretion other than a minimum with specific instructions in reducing it. 

Commissioner Schauner said he found it interesting that five people who don’t always agree but who generally have a common sense of direction find more to talk about in this ordinance than many of the other things we talk about which involve the spending of millions of dollars.  It is an emotionally charged issue about which there sometimes is not much rational bases for discussion. 

Commissioner Hack said this in no way in her estimate is a “feel-good” kind of ordinance.  But what she does feel good about is the idea as this progresses we may be able to help individuals who need it, get it, find a way to evaluate where they are and what treatment options there are.  To define the punishment doesn’t feel good to her.

Commissioner Amyx said his recommendation for all of the items he proposed was based on moving this item from the district court to the municipal court.  He thinks he heard Commissioner Schauner say this was a way to accomplish this.  If this is a way to get it into municipal court and consider the important factors to us then this is a way we can do it.  What is it worth to save that student loan?

Mayor Highberger said it isn’t necessarily a trade off. He said he was open to a motion.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7938, creating a City misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana to include a $200.00 minimum fine, adding safeguards regarding notifying offenders that a second possession offense would be a felony and requiring mandatory treatment as in version 3.1.  Motion carried.  Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Schauner.  Nay: Highberger and Rundle.                             (12)

Receive draft Downtown Beautification Plan.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the staff report.  Last summer the budget allotted $9,000.00 for downtown beautification.  The city hired Bartlett & West to provide recommendation of funds usage.

Darron Ammann, Landscape Architect, Bartlett & West introduced Mike Engler, also a Landscape Architect with the firm.  Ammann began by thanking the commission, City Manager’s office, Park and Recreation staff and members of Downtown Lawrence Inc. for all their time, comments, efforts and assistance during the course of this study.  This project was a collaborative effort.  All of these parties really strengthen the backbone of this plan.  The purpose of this study is to provide a framework and guidance for current and future development enhancements in the Downtown Lawrence area.  More specifically described as New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont from 6^th to 11^th Street.  As a part of the overall purpose the main focus was directed toward increasing landscape amenities and overall ideas for beautification specially intended for initial implementation along Massachusetts Street.  The study provides general landscape design solutions and research on the evaluation of existing tree and shrub health and function within the overall downtown area.  For example, currently numerous existing Ash trees along Massachusetts Street are either over grown and continue to become deformed by constant trimming or by disease.  During the fall of 2005 and into early 2006 34 trees have been identified for removal many of which have already been removed. 

The study also investigates and provides recommendation for more seasonal color and beautification along Massachusetts Street.  This additional landscaping is proposed in specific and constant planting pallets for use throughout downtown.  As illustrated on the screen, typical planting plants have been created for Massachusetts Street intersections and mid-block crossings to provide a common landscaping theme constant from block to block.  These landscaping plans along the specific planting schedules and timetables will allow Lawrence Park and Recreation staff a reliable and useable guide for incorporation in the overall downtown area all year long. 

Along with the main focus of increased color and beauty through landscaping, other long term master planning ideas and recommendations were investigated.  One specific example, includes considerations for addressing the increased publication rack clutter problem as it is termed and discussion for ideas on how the City of Lawrence may provide some solutions for this problem. 

Other master planning ideas discussed in the study are some recommendations for landscaping near the 9^th Street bus stop location.  The use of additional amenities to create entrance hierarchy within the downtown area.  Ideas for constructing additional landscaping corners similar to what has just been created near the Hobbs Taylor corner.  And also provide more midblock crossings along both New Hampshire and Vermont streets. 

The study is finalized by providing a general timeline and guidance for a five year plan of action.  To assist the Lawrence Parks and Recreation staff in it’s planning and budgeting purposes it should be noted that the timeline and plan of action that we have developed have both been reviewed and coordinated with other public improvements that will be taking place in the Downtown area as well. 

It is recommended that all proposed landscaping plans and planting pallets be adopted in the entire Downtown area.  The addition of more areas for colorful and attractive planting at every intersection and mid-block crossing at Massachusetts Street enhances Downtown and makes everyone want to be proud of their Downtown community.  With these enhancements also comes the realization that additionally planting means additional time and staff commitments to get these areas beautiful.  It is not that the plan has created a complicated network of new tasks but time required to provide more of a quality of service to the downtown area is necessary to keep everything healthy and appealing. 

With that it is concluded that additional year-to-year funding is a must to cover these increased maintenance costs and staffing needs with the new plantings as noted in the reports proposed budget.

Commissioner Schauner said we’ve seen our sidewalks become more and more used for outdoor dining purposes, the available sidewalk for their intended original purpose, pedestrian traffic, has been limited.  He said one of his concerns from the beginning is whether or not it would make sense to remove the curbs around some of the smaller trees and go to iron grates that would take their place.  He has seen them in big cities all across the country from Michigan Avenue to Des Moines, Iowa.  He understands Parks and Recreation has some issues involving litter and so forth in those but no solution is perfect.  He asked if Ammann has a professional opinion about whether those would prove problematic or would assist. 

Ammann said with the existing scenario with the raised curb does propose additional tripping hazard for anyone that walks down there.  When you are talking about five blocks potentially of putting in iron grates the cost would be substantial.  Looking at the possibility of adding plants versus grates Ammann believes the cost would be better weighted toward the planting and the color you would get.  In terms of long term maintenance, the more expensive grates typically will last 15 to 20 years while the dollars to buy them increase versus raw iron grates in maybe 10 years because of the pounding weather issues start to rust and crack.  Then anytime litter goes down into the cracks staff has to pull them up to get it out.  So there are issues that would have to be weighed for that type of solution.

Commissioner Schauner asked you are not proposing doing plantings in those around trees where there are just those curbs.

Ammann said no.

Commissioner Schauner said so those would continue to have to be maintained as per our current practice.

Ammann said yes.

Commissioner Amyx asked why wouldn’t we consider putting plants around those trees.

Ammann said because of the ability for them to get stepped on very easily, people cutting across, kids can run through them, dogs, people park their bikes there as well instead of using proposed bike racks.  It is also difficult to grow plantings with tree roots which grow irregularly and just the cost for maintenance for staff to try to keep things up that are just going to get trampled.  Better to focus more of the City dollars on the corners and high visible areas is probably the best solution.

Commissioner Amyx said he was visiting with people this weekend and said the idea was to add color downtown.  We have lots of organizations that come to us that ask for all kinds of things and want to become involved. 

Ammann said right now the City’s Parks and Recreation staff handles what they can to take care of those trees and litter issues.  The problem he saw was if you adopt an organization to do three or four of them and you didn’t get folks to take care of the other ones you could have some that are and are not maintained.  That would require revising this type of plan to get a very constant pallet as to what you are going to put in there because you may have one group that might want to go southwest style, one that wants Mediterranean and you could all have kinds of different things going on.  He said that could be controlled if the plan were more focused but sees it as difficult to keep it green and looking nice. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if there was an approximate price for tree ring grates.

Ammann said that could range anywhere from $300 or $400, up to nearly $1,000 just for the grate itself.  The bigger problem than the cost is not all the spaces are the same size.  You wouldn’t want to order multiple size grates and have them special made so you would also be looking at a lot of concrete modification to the hole where the grate was going to go in addition to the labor to get it all in.

Commissioner Amyx asked why it would appear they work fairly successfully in a lot of other metro areas.

Ammann said yes, they have been used successfully elsewhere but they do require a high level of maintenance to keep cigarette butts and other things out of the grates. 

Commissioner Amyx said they are not a perfect solution any more than what we currently have is.

Ammann said unfortunately they cannot think of a perfect solution on any complete basis. 

John Francis, on behalf of Downtown Lawrence, and as a board member and store owner in downtown Lawrence, said over the past couple of years there has been noticeable improvements Downtown.  In the area of landscape our members have noticed it as well as the community.  Bartlett & West along with the City of Lawrence have worked hard in formulating a five-year plan to enhance the beauty of Downtown Lawrence.  The five-year plan will not only attract customers to Downtown but also potential businesses as well as families that want to locate in Lawrence.  We wholeheartedly supported this plan.  We commend the city staff and Bartlett & West for the wonderful opportunity to promote and enhance the focal point of the city.  He said they strongly supported the plan and urged the Commission to approve the plan. 

Francis indicated if he offered suggestions to the actual plan but it would be fun if each individual business could adopt their own.  As it is right now it is his understanding merchants cannot touch the planters.  It would be fun, a competition if individuals adopting a planter.  He however does love the plan as it is. 

Ralph Gage, World Company, said all of us are in favor of downtown beautification.  He said he serves on the Chamber board with Commissioner Hack and Maria Martin.  At a meeting last year he personally voted along with the other members of the Chamber board to encourage the beautification effort.  He said his company is a member of DLI and they obviously have a substantial investment in downtown Lawrence and have every reason to want the downtown community to prosper and thrive, and to look attractive.  He said his main reason for commenting was regarding the newspaper vending machines. 

Gage said he had the opportunity to meet with Dave Corliss, Maria and with others about this issue.  He doesn’t believe they were drawn into any elaborate, collaborative  process and was surprised by the findings that were presented.  Never-the-less his company wants to be part of a solution but it needs to be a solution that will be workable for all parties.  There are important constitutional issues associated with the placement of these newspaper racks.  It’s not as simple to deal with as to photo shot a picture and take out ten racks and replace them with four.  It just doesn’t work that simply. 

Commissioner Amyx asked Gage if they make such racks that would be able to fit those needs and be able to comply with this plan.

Gage said we would have to have a definition of what those needs are.  Certainly there are a variety of different cluster boxes that would serve different numbers of publications.  He said he counted 15 racks over at the Post Office.  He knows there are other publishers that want to add racks to the downtown area. 

Newell Jensen, General Manager for USA Today who oversees Lawrence and several states in the Midwest, said this came to their attention and they had understood this was going to be a beautification plan for plantings and then as I was able to download and read the recommendations there are about 14 references to the clutter of news racks.  He is concerned with this recommendation as is, not for the planting of bulbs or the trimming of trees, or anything like that, but only for the concerns of the racks.  He asked that the Commission remove all references to the newspaper racks in the beautification proposal.  He agreed with Gage that it is a constitutional issue.  He stated he doesn’t know the people of Bartlett & West or how well they are versed in legal issues, nor is he a lawyer.  But he said, he does know this is a very sensitive issue and asks that those references be removed. 

Commissioner Schauner said we’ve had some conversation with Corliss in the past.  It seems we should focus tonight on common ground and continue to work with the vendors on finding an acceptable solution so we can have the best product that will help downtown.  He said he doesn’t think anyone here wants to throw down the gauntlet or take a hard position on it tonight but are more interested in moving forward and finding a solution.  On the newspaper side, he had concerns about parts of this project but didn’t feel they needed to be discussed further at this point.

Commissioner Hack agreed.  She said an attempt to change things in our downtown should not in anyway be interpreted as taking away anyone’s First Amendment rights.  Obviously our newspapers and local papers are very important to us.  Our consultants didn’t bring this up themselves.  It was something we brought up as a potential for making some changes but certainly this isn’t anything anyone wants to force.  She thanked Gage for his offer to work with staff and consultants to find a useable and workable solution. 

Mayor Highberger said he was glad the newspaper box issue was raised.  He may not consider it as much as a problem as others.  He doesn’t like the cluster box idea.  He said he thinks freedom of expression is part of a thriving downtown.  We could impose some guidelines on what boxes may look like.  His concern is about unpleasing plastic boxes that are empty all the time and within constitutional limits we could place some controls on that but then he doesn’t want to tell a coffee shop they can’t put a newspaper box out front.  He appreciates the Van Go newspaper boxes we have which add to downtown.  He stated he is not ready to approve every detail of this plan now and more discussion is necessary.  We haven’t really talked about the large monuments at the primary corridor entrances.  He said more thought is needed before approving that detail.  Overall he generally approved the concept and moving forward on it, approving more money for staff to work on additional plantings downtown.  He liked the adopt a planter idea but he shared the visual continuity concern. His preference was to continue with Parks and Rec staff to manage the project.

Wildgen said we have worked with folks and agencies that want to adopt.  We have a hard time being constant in summer when it is hot as no one wants to get out there.  We really need to be consistent; it has to be all year long.  And when they are dead in the fall they need to be removed.  We’ve had experiences like that and if standards could be met that would be one thing.  That is why the public needs to be involved in this because we are there 365 days a year.  If we could come up with a good plan that would work, consistency is key.

Commissioner Rundle said there are a number of details that need to be discussed.  He wanted to see us move forward on some sort of plan as there is so much room for things to be enlivened and more variety downtown.  He said he understood the challenge of working with volunteers.  He has relatives in McPherson they had a volunteer adopt a planter program which had good support initially that tapped off.  We are a bigger town than McPherson.  Maybe we wouldn’t have to have all of them up for adoption.  He said he was unwilling to give up on the idea of the adopt a planter program especially if it saves money.  He said he always hears staff say that we are short on money, so stretching our resources by getting other people to come in would help.  He recently saw another community that had adopt a grate program for their tree grates paying half the costs. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff needed direction with the budget.  He said it appeared that the $12,000 for the newspaper rack purchase could be used for other purposes.  He thought Parks and Rec. staff would want to know today what kind of money they have to spend to move forward with planting season and so forth.  He said it would make sense to coordinate this with the water line replacement. 

Commissioner Hack said the timeline is noted in the back of the proposal. 

Commissioner Schauner asked Crystal Miles if she needed additional direction.

Miles said one of the items on the funding is full time maintenance staff person.  She said they would want this person on board before we start planting in May.

Wildgen said he would like to see the direction on page 17 adopted regarding the $90,000 budgeted for 2006.

Commissioner Hack confirmed Wildgen’s preference for a yes or no direction on page 17 and whatever we would do for 2007 we would discuss then.  She said the Commission already approved the $90,000 so it is just a matter of how to distribute it. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Downtown Beautification Plan and directed staff to spend the 2006 additional funds of $90,000 as requested on page 17 of the plan minus the funding for the newspaper racks.    Motion carried unanimously.                       (13)

Additional conversation continued about the John Francis idea to adopt a planter box area. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if Francis or staff could help with ideas to that end.  He said the $12,000 set aside for newspaper boxes could be used for grates. 

Commissioner Schauner said as more people are on the sidewalks eating and such we have reduced the usable space on the sidewalks. 

Commissioner Amyx said he would like to see the City try a couple of grates and see if they work.  The curbs are just places for dogs to sit. 

Commissioner Hack said a leaf blower could work well to clean up the grates. 

Receive staff report concerning 2006 Downtown Waterline Improvement Projects.

Brian Kingsley, B & G Consultants presented the staff report.  He started by giving a brief history to remind everyone this project was started in 2004 with a number of draft primarily design reports that were prepared for the project.  He said the final draft, and it was left labeled draft as it is a work in progress, because they are not closed minded to change throughout this project, is available online in more detail than what is going to be discussed tonight. 

Kingsley then reviewed the proposed timeline for the 2006 portion including the waterline improvements from 7^th to 9^th Street along Massachusetts Street.  He said those are dual 8 inch water lines, one down each side of the street.  Also this summer concurrently with the construction will be a Public Works project that includes reconstruction of an intersection at 7^th and New Hampshire and on around to 6^th and Massachusetts and then a pedestrian crossing that also going to be reconstructed.  That was designed by Public Works. 

Kingsley said the primary design report included the construction down along 9^th Street in the 2006 construction.  One of the reasons that was removed or moved to a future date is because of the length of the project with a completion of October.  Depending on Mother Nature we may be mid to late October with the completion.  We didn’t want to drag this into the winter months.  One of the themes of the previous discussions we had with downtown businesses and trying to get this project coordinated as well is we recognized there is no convenient construction project.  This is right in the front doors of people and this is their livelihood.  They are down there trying to make a living with their business.  So we are trying to balance the project inconvenience with trying to facilitate getting the contractor to actually get this project constructed.  We didn’t want to drag out the project for too long of a period of time.  We feel like one of the ways to do that is to eliminate or defer some of the construction along 9^th Street to a later time.

Kingsley next discussed project estimates.  He said they had not received any bids on this project yet.  The waterline improvements consist of about $710,000.  Those are the two eight inch waterlines dual down Massachusetts Street from 7^th to 9^th.  Street sidewalk component of the estimate is $148,000 and that includes milling overlaying Massachusetts Street from 7^th to 9^th.  Also removing and replacing some ADA access ramps.  What we want to try doing there with some of the discussion between staff and engineering is to try and bring some consistency to those ramps.  Right now you have some ADA ramps that have been replaced recently that are ADA compliant and some that aren’t.  So ideally all those would be consistent so that somebody traveling that needed to utilize the ADA ramps would have some consistency throughout the downtown.  We are going build this phase of that during this project.  Also removal and replacement of the brick crosswalks that are deteriorating and replacing those with stamp concrete. 

The electrical component to this project is going to consist of about $315,000.  There again concurrently with the waterline makes sense to the planning to look at replacing whatever electrical and installing electrical outlets in the planning boxes and so forth from 7^th to 9^th through the same area we are constructing the waterline.  There is also significant component within the electrical to upgrade the electrical service panel. 

The final component of this year’s project is to install irrigation hydrants at a cost of approximately $57,000.  There is more involved than just putting in a hydrant, there are meters and so forth to go along with that.  But we come down to a total construction estimate at this point of $1,230,000.  We got to that number by taking the 2005 bids received and adding a contingency to it.  Hurricane Katrina has really thrown a wrinkle into some of the material costs we have been seeing.  Pipe pricing is starting to stabilize but during the past six months they really have been fluctuating.  So he wanted to point out this is an estimate, but he hoped the prices will come in underneath the estimates but there is no guarantee. 

Regarding the project timeline and where we will be going the next few months and ultimately toward the end of construction, he said generally we have final construction plans in for review for the City right now looking at advertising for bid around March 13, receiving bids on or around April 4^th.  We will bring that back before you with a recommendation for approval.  We are going to involve the public as much as possible.  He said the approach on previous construction in 2005 actually involved the public once we had the contractor on line.  That way the contractor is sitting there and they hear the interaction we have with the public.  They hear the promises that have been made or the discussions that have taken place between the public.  They know what expectations we are going to place on them during construction.  It is one thing to read it in the plans but when you hear it first hand in that public meeting it helped last year for them to understand the importance of some issues to the downtown business and how that relates to their business. 

There will then be a preconstruction meeting following the public meeting with the contractor and then beginning construction on May 22^nd.  That is a magical date because that is after KU graduation so we want to try and get that activity done before construction started.  Weather permitting October 6^th would be the final completion.  This would be where we have it currently specified a working day project.  We allotted so many working days.  If it rains, if there is weather that prohibits construction where they can’t actually be efficient constructing work they might be dragging excess dirt from the street or something like that we stop construction for a day and not charge them a working day. 

He then discussed the phasing of the project.  Right now we’ve divided the project into five phases.  Generally the work hours that we came up for, again summarizing a lot of public involvement through meetings and downtown business owners that showed up to previous meetings, they wanted to see work everyday.  They wanted to see the contractor in there mobilized, they realized the contractor may not be efficient working seven days a week just because you wear out in the 100 degree heat of the summer.  But they didn’t want to see the contractor demobilized for days at a time with no activity going on.  They would rather see construction continue.  What we tried to do come up with a reasonable work week where they can both be productive and making some daily progress.  Work hours from 7:30 to 5:30, 50 hours minimum a week working Monday through Saturday. 

He said the first four phases are waterline construction.  Each phase there again when we talk about the project budget we had the waterline aspect, the electrical aspect, the sidewalk and access ramp cross walk construction. He said if you can picture in your mind half of one block at a time that is what is what we are going to confine their construction activity to for each major phase of work.  That is what we are talking about here a major phase being phase one. 

Activities in each one of those phases is going to be substantially complete.  The major activities are going be complete.  There may be some clean up efforts that they don’t need to have a large construction zone to define that become less dangerous to public where they can take down some of the pedestrian fencing that we have put up during the project.  Generally those major activities will be done before they move on.  He said it would be very similar to the activity from 6^th to 7^th street construction along Massachusetts Street last year.

Kingsley said they went through a process where they identified 26 working days for the construction.  That involved breaking the project up into four different activities; the installation, the chlorination and testing, the service connections, and the pavement rehabilitation or restoration of the pavement.  We have a really good idea of how many days it is going to take to do this work if everything goes right.  There has also been some talk about incentives for the project to get the project done early or other means. There again recognizing we have written the specifications for the project in an effort to try to minimize the impact to downtown businesses.  We feel we have done a best case scenario here in the design. 

He said there would be a $1,000 liquidated damages clause for every day they are late.  That is to motivate them to keep going and get the project down on schedule. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the liquidated damages was proposed for each phase or for the whole.

Kingsley answered for each phase.  He said they are giving them 26 working days to get a half of block done.  If they fall behind on that block they will evaluate on the end of each block too regarding efficiencies through the project.  One of the activities they have is the opportunity to save some time on is the chlorination and the pressure testing.  If that all goes well they could save a little bit of time in the schedule.

Kingsley continued with reviewing a diagram of the traffic control plan.  He said there would be one-way traffic through the construction zone.  We also have experience in downtown projects where we did streetscape work and one of the things that is always a concern to downtown businesses is keeping people in front of the businesses.  Parking is the next important issue other than visibility that is usually identified.   We’ve slated to keep parking on one side of the street concurrent with construction activities.  He said there would also be breaks at the mid-block and intersections as allowed during construction for pedestrian crossing because we don’t want pedestrians getting ambitious and trying to jump through the construction zone and cause a safety issue.  He said there would be a chain link fence similar to what you saw in the previous project.  That will keep those pedestrians from trying to cross the construction zone as well. 

Commissioner Amyx asked how much sidewalk would be left in front of the business to that fence.

Kingsley said the area they are walking in right now is what we are going to try and leave open.  While they are connecting into services they may end up with some places where they pull that construction fence out just a little bit but generally you will have the same area that is a walkable area right now.

He said in summary they hoped one of the things they can do after they’ve inconvenienced the public is leave them with an environment that is as good if not better as what they started with.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the direction of the Commission would be to do it in 20 fewer days than the proposed recommendation what would that require in terms of contractor supplied labor and so forth.  He said the State built the Kansas Turnpike in 22 months, 237 miles and 60 plus bridges.  And we’re talking about four months to build two blocks of water line.  I recognize there are all kinds of issues with that.  He thought the way they did the turnpike was they just threw more people at it.  Because of the substantial inconvenience to business people downtown and so forth, is it realistic to believe that project could be finished in some time shorter than the projected timetable. 

Kingsley said absolutely the project can be constructed quicker.  The trade off there is how much inconvenience are the downtown business owners willing to take to facilitate that construction.  If you want the least expensive, quickest construction allow them to close that street and the parking, and we will have multiple contract crews in there and we’ll be installing waterlines down both sides of that street at the same time and we’ll be in and out of there in a shorter period of time but the trade off to the businesses is that they are not going to have access right in front.  It’s going to be an inconvenience to get to their business.  You aren’t going to drive by and see it.  All those public meetings that we’ve been through to get to this point take that into account.  He said he understood Commissioner Schauner’s concern and Kingsley said he didn’t take downtown work light heartedly at all.  He did the downtown street improvements in Tonganoxie, Bonner Springs, Mayetta and is currently working on Hiawatha.  He said he took that work very seriously and valued all the opinion and feedback gained through some of that public comment to date. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what about two shifts rather than closing the whole street.  Two contractors, two shifts or working not just 7:30 to 5:30 but 7:30 to 5:30 and then the second shift comes in and works eight hours later.

Kingsley said if that is acceptable to some of the apartments and some of the diversity that you have down there they could do that.  He said they will implement whatever you would like us to implement.  We have had a lot of discussion and all these things you’re talking about tonight have come up with staff.  He said he believed they had a workable solution but are open to that input. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if you shut from 7^th to 9^th down, can that project be done in less than 26 days plus the mill overlay.

Kingsley said realistically he thinks that the 26 working days includes a reasonable amount of time to expect a contractor to install the pipe, to pressure test and chlorinate.  You have a lot of businesses through each block and then restore that pavement.  So the 26 working days would be a base.  If you were going to consider that I’d pull it back to one block definitely and I would have to put in a little more thought into than right here on the spot.  But 26 working days is a base.  If you had two contractor crews in there part of the activities are going to be in each other’s way and there isn’t a full 26 days of efficiency you are going to gain.  There would be some time saved though but he couldn’t say how much.

Commissioner Schauner asked so essentially what you presented to us tonight is not the best practices in finishing this project in the shortest amount of time but a compromise that has come about as a result of your experience and the wishes of the people who have attended these public meetings. 

Kingsley said that was right.  He said these discussions we had, the presentation that was brought before the downtown business owners that showed up to the meeting and there again, we are going to have another presentation when we have a contractor on line, but we went through in detail sort of the process that we went through to establish work on one-side of one block at a time.  Everybody generally agreed that yes, I do want to have pedestrian access to their store front.  The added component of having one-way traffic and people being able to park in front of their business or at least across the street and be a quarter block away from the door rather than a full block away from their door and not even be able to see their business was an issue. 

Mayor Highberger asked Kingsley to clarify if there were incentives on completing this project.

Kingsley said we are not recommending incentives on this project.  During the past week they have had a lot of discussions with staff.  He said incentives are a great approach on the right project.  The caution for this project is that we don’t necessarily want to motivate the contractor and produce negative results.  If we motivate this contract in a tight, confined work space where public safety an issue, abandoned services I can just give you the example of digging along with a backhoe and coming to an area where we have written in the specifications if you see sand we want him to hand dig and try to find that old abandon service that Utilities can’t locate on the ground because we don’t want them pulling it out of the waterline or we have to shut the waterline and everybody’s service down to fix it.  So if we motivate him with an incentive to get done early he’s probably going to have that backhoe cranked as high as it can go and he’s going to have production on his mind rather than some of the unique things we have in the specifications to minimize the inconvenience there. 

There was no public comment.

Hack said she appreciated Kingsley’s explanation of the pluses and minuses and cost/ benefit of this project.  It is similar to what we wrestled with on Kasold.  That we knew it would be a faster project if we shut the thing down and just went for it.  But I don’t think that’s what we wanted to do to the merchants in that area and we certainly don’t want to do it to the merchants downtown.  She was convinced that Kingsley and his staff were the experts in terms of how it was going to be done and that it will be done well.  There were certainly a lot of compliments on the process that was done last summer.  She appreciated that and looked forward to that on this project as well to the extent that these things have to happen.

Commissioner Amyx said as a downtown business owner he appreciated all the work that Kingsley has done and appreciated all the work that has gone into the project a year ago and it seemed to work pretty well.  I hoped to get the signage for the left-hand turn when we get in front of 9^th Street.  He said there may have been a little problem there a year ago although he could not say for certain.  He appreciated the comments that Commissioner Schauner brought up.  He said to remember that even though work would not start until after graduation since students return about August 1^st we have the first two months of back to school in this project.  Therefore it is important to make sure that if there is a way to shorten the time that works well for everybody I think that is a good idea not only from the university perspective but certainly for downtown businesses as well.  He said having parking on one side is always going to be an important help that way you don’t give up all of it at one time.  There is one thing that I know that when we did the sewer line that came down 9^th Street I think the overlay and milling was all done in the evening.  He hoped that we would be able to do that in the evening time. 

Commissioner Rundle said it would be great if we could get it done before school starts.  He appreciated the effort you have done to coordinate with people.  If this is what meets with everyone’s approval that is great.  He encouraged Kingsley to be creative but his main concern has always been that people know that downtown is still open for business and not to put up any signage that tells people you know, avoid all this, go down south.  He said they did a great job last year of really working around the businesses and making the best of just something you have to do. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if they anticipated last year’s contractor to bid on this project.

Kingsley said yes, he does anticipate that.  He has had some meetings where he has given them primarily copies of the plan and tried to identify and cost savings value engineering type things that we could do for the project.  He has tried to get them interested.  .

Commissioner Schauner said the contractor has working knowledge of some of the line too which is something you can’t buy.

Wildgen added this contractor has done other projects such as 5^th and 6^th and Mississippi and the project at 17^th.  He said it was not sewer line work but the contractor is mobilized and is good.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by            Amyx, to receive the report.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                  (14)

Receive draft policy regarding take home vehicles for city employees.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said right now in the City’s Employee Handbook we have a policy that deals with vehicles.  It does not indicate how that is determined against those who benefit.  The administrative policy that you have before you has been worked on by Debbie Van Saun and other staff.  We introduced it to the management team and a variety of different city employees involved.  It is based on having more specific criteria.  If you look at the draft it deals with a number of service calls, type of emergencies during off duty hours, specialized equipment that may be needed for response.  Then there is some secondary criteria dealing with such things as operational efficiencies and the vested interest of the City. 

We have about 65 vehicles now that go home after hours some of those certainly are outside of the city limits.  This policy should reduce that number.  He said he asked every department head to go ahead based on this draft to present their recommendations.  He is still getting those but would like to go over this policy and answer any questions.

Commissioner Schauner said if there are take-home vehicles assigned to people who are not on call, it seemed that would not be a good use of City funds.  He offered an example of Ed Mullins, who doesn’t go out and shut off meters himself as not needing a car although he said he doesn’t know if Mullins has a car or not.  If there are employees who have a take home vehicle assigned to them and don’t have regular, on-call responsibilities it seemed we are not implementing a policy that makes best use of the dollars we have available.  He also believed employees who lived outside the city limits should not be allowed to take a city vehicle home.  That seemed to be an important change in the policy. 

Wildgen said there are employees that live outside the city that are on call, or need specialized equipment or have some response required in the performance of their jobs and under this new policy would still be allowed to take vehicles home but the new policy may reduce that number.

Commissioner Schauner said to him the primary criteria should be if there are people who have regular, non-duty hour call back requirements that seemed like an appropriate person to have a take-home vehicle.  Anybody else or another position probably should not.

Commissioner Rundle said regarding the out of town employees, it seemed to him if someone is on-call and it is important that they respond in a timely manner that some kind of residency requirement would be needed.  He said he didn’t want someone who is critically important having to drive from Topeka for an event that the extra 20 minutes could make a major difference.  He knew we did not have residency requirement for most staff in general but for a job that is critically important for somebody to respond it might be appropriate to be within a certain distance.

Commissioner Schauner said it appeared about 8 percent of the workforce has a take home vehicle given that we have approximately 750 employees and about 65 employees have take home vehicles.

Wildgen said that has been reduced slightly because some departments like Neighborhood Resources have already implemented some of this policy.

Commissioner Schauner said if his numbers are correct it seemed like an awfully high percentage of people who are driving take home vehicles.  He said we need to work real hard to get that number substantially reduced.  He didn’t have a magic number in mind but 8% of our workforce driving company vehicles seemed like a high number to him.

Commissioner Amyx asked Wildgen if the frequency of call backs used within the report  represented only after hours and on-call use.

Wildgen said yes.

Commissioner Amyx asked what time period that was based on.

Wildgen answered one month.

Commissioner Amyx said we can’t really make a determination from that how often that individual is going to be called back.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Rundle said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern.  Simply driving back and forth to work and don’t have a critical reason to be out in the field justified not having a take home vehicle.  He said it seemed as if some of these vehicles are employee benefits.  It would be important to know how many of these cars were offered as a condition of employment.

Wildgen said he doesn’t think many of them were.  Most of them are because of the job they are in not because they were hired with a particular car.  Everyone is taxed.  These are not untaxed benefits. 

Commissioner Schauner said but the fact they pay tax doesn’t mean our expense is any less.  That is an expense to them and we have an expense owning and operating the vehicle. 

Commissioner Amyx thought one of the things we are really looking at is Commissioner Rundle made a request of staff to look at a way to be able to reduce our costs and the City Manager has brought a report to us that is going to make a recommendation that we are going to reduce that cost by about $29,000 per year less the cost of somebody has to end up being called back in and mileage we have to pay.  But we are looking at a savings of about $29,000.  He said staff has made some very good recommendations and sometimes we’ve got to allow the City Manager to make decisions.  That is what we hire him to do.  He has made some positive recommendations here.  He said he did not disagree with Commissioner Schauner but he said the City Manager has brought us a report, is saving money and so let him do his job. 

Commissioner Rundle said he is not so confident the savings is there.  He said as he pointed out in email using gasoline costs does not reflect the true cost of using the vehicle.  He pointed out that he used information from the National Transportation Statistics which he found in other communities.  He said every time he asks Ed Mullins for copy of the final CAFR he tells him it is unaudited .  He said these reports have to be accurate too.  He said he was not sure the numbers were accurate. 

Commissioner Hack said if that is the case then you, Ed, Debbie and Mike should sit down and go number by number over which ones you feel are not accurate so they know what to address and they can figure out if there are issues that you have.  I know you have expressed this before but I would agree with the Vice-Mayor.  We asked the City Manager to do a job and he has at this point and we continue to hope that all of our costs don’t exceed what we had hoped they would. 

Commissioner Hack said she also agreed with Commissioner Schauner.  If we can reduce the number of take home vehicles and still be an efficient city and do the things we are suppose to do fine.  If not, if it costs us city confidence and the ability to respond to issues we are not saving anything.

Commissioner Schauner said just looking at the Neighborhood Resources vehicles there are five vehicles and no call backs for the past 30 days.  I don’t know if that is unusual or whether that represents the typical use.  It seemed that paying mileage for back to work off duty time is substantially cheaper than investing in an automobile, maintaining the automobile and insuring the automobile and all the rest of it.  We have had a lot of conversation recently we’ve got 40 million dollars of sewer problems in North Lawrence and we’ve got $300,000 here and $1.2 million to fix the waterline downtown.  Little savings do add up.  And reducing our fleet of take home vehicles, reducing our vehicles period, does save some money.  You have to start some place.

Mayor Highberger said he didn’t understand this as reducing our fleet of vehicles. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was talking about reducing our fleet of vehicles that are available for take home purposes which may ultimately reduce our fleet of vehicles.

Mayor Highberger said he is not convinced of that. 

Wildgen said there are some circumstances where it is efficient to have someone responding to call backs straight from home without going to another location to get the vehicle or equipment. 

Commissioner Schauner said but they all own cars, they can drive back in their own vehicles and we’ll pay them mileage.  We don’t have to provide them with an automobile for the occasional come back. 

Commissioner Rundle said when there is infrequent use he agreed the employee should not take a vehicle home.  He thinks there are other things, not just call-backs.  There are some people who when they come to work they actually go right out into the field.  They don’t come into their department, get a vehicle and go out because it costs more in time.

Wildgen agreed saying we have inspectors who go right to the job site. 

Commissioner Schauner said what he hopes we get out of this review is a hard look at the number of take home vehicles and determine whether there is a reasonable way we can reduce the number of those vehicles.  And what I look forward to is a report about what changes have occurred as a result of this policy.

Mayor Highberger said it isn’t so much the concern with take-home vehicles as vehicle use in general.  Other cities have some really innovative policies where they partner with a car share company.  They were able to cut quite a number of cars out of their fleet by having cars shared and actually the company provides them really cheap because after hours the company can use them for other customers.  I have some contacts that got some information on that.  I can pass on to staff and run it by the recycling board.  If we are talking about reducing city vehicles I think it’s something to throw into the mix.  But right now we have a specific policy in front of us to comment on.

Commissioner Rundle said the policy contains one criteria of whether the city manager deems it is in the best interest of the city for the employee to have a take home vehicle.  He said that is exactly the kind of vagueness we were trying to get away from.  

Mayor Highberger said he tended to agree with Commissioner Amyx on this overall issue.  He said the frequency of call backs makes sense but he said we could not anticipate every circumstance and this discussion was getting awfully close to micromanagement. 

Commissioner Amyx said if Commissioner Rundle would like to visit with Wildgen and work out a plan of reducing the number of cars that you don’t think should be taken home that is fine.  Bring it back to the entire Commission and we would discuss it.  But the City Manager has met what was asked. 

Commissioner Schauner said what he would like to see come out of this is just that we have a report back about how you’ve been able to make a change in the number of take home vehicles as a result of this policy.  He said that was a fair request.

Wildgen said cell phones are the same thing.  That is a benefit now that the IRS is looking at taxing too and if so we will have to justify use of a cell phone.

Commissioner Schauner said the context for him in this conversation as we begin to look at the matrix and budget process calendar today we are going to be looking at making some pretty hard decisions about how much do we raise the mill level, do we lower this, or whatever. To the extent that we can make some internal efficiency changes then we should be doing that.   He said that is what he thought the City Manager was wanting to accomplish.

Commissioner Rundle said he is not interested in micromanaging and he’s also not interested in functioning as the independent auditor.  He said he has had enough experiences that make him sense we need to have verification sometimes or someone independently bringing the Commission reports.  He said he feels like the numbers are made up.  He asked how would he know that for certain unless he was an independent auditor. He said it obviously a topic for future discussions.

Commissioner Hack said she it was unfortunate when a comment is made that the numbers are made up.  That is not fair to our staff.  She said if Commissioner Rundle is that concerned it is absolutely appropriate for you to sit and go over the numbers you think are made up.  That is only fair to staff.

Mayor Highberger said management has adopted a new policy.  There has been a request as to whether the policy results in a reducing of number of vehicles taken home. 

There was no public comment .

Without motion, the Commission directed staff to bring back a report in one month on the changes made as a result of the draft take home vehicle policy.                                                     (15)

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess until 9:00 am Thursday, March 2^nd. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (16)

The City Commission reconvened in regular session on Thursday, March 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Commission meeting room with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to recess into executive session for two hours in the City Manager’s Conference Room, 4^th Floor, to discuss the City Manager’s evaluation in executive session with the justification for the executive session to discuss personnel matters of nonelected personnel.  Motion carried unanimously. 

The City Commission reconvened in regular session at 11:10 in the atrium of the 4th Floor of City Hall at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to recess until Monday, March 6^th at 8:00 am.  Motion carried unanimously. 

The City Commission reconvened at 8:00 a.m., Monday, March 6, 2006, in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present, at which time it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session for two hours in the City Manager’s Conference Room, 4^th Floor, to discuss the City Manager’s evaluation in executive session with the justification for the executive session to discuss personnel matters of nonelected personnel.  Motion carried unanimously. 

The City Commission reconvened in regular session at 9:30 am in the atrium of the 4th Floor of City Hall at which time it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to adjourn the meeting.  Motion carried unanimously. 

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006

1. Bid – 2006 Crack Seal Program to Vance Brothers for $452,500. 

2. Ordinance No. 7980 – 1^st Read, amend provision to CMB licensing to comply with state law.

3. Ordinance No. 7978 – 2^nd Read, policy on maintenance of sidewalk & retaining wall.

4. Donate – 1995 Ford Ambulance to Lecompton Fire Dept.

5. Purchase Property – 1.1 acres adjacent to 1^st Serve Tennis Complex, 5200 Clinton Pkwy for $26,000.

6. Cooperation Agreement – City & KU purchase 5 buses for park & ride system.

7. Bid – Athco Vendor No. 69 for $17,260 for Fair Play LED Basketball Scoreboard.

8. TSC – Traffic calming devices, 13^th between Conn & Haskell.

9. Site Plan – (SP-01-08-06), 42 unit single-family residential district, 2221 Lake Pointe Dr.

10. Appoint Affordable Housing Task Force.

11. U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement & Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Program.

12. Ordinance No. 7938 – 1^st Read,  City misdemeanor offence for possession of marijuana.

13. Downtown Beautification Plan.

14. 2006 Waterline Improvement Projects.

15. Draft Policy – Take home vehicles for city employees.

16. Executive Session – City Manager Evaluation