March 7, 2006
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present. Student Commissioner Frei was present.
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed Wednesday, March 7, 2006, as “Friends of the Park Day”; and the week of March 6 – 12, 2006 as “National Problem Gambling Awareness Week,”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to receive the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 11, 2006; the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of December 19, 2005; the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting of November 22, 2005 and January 24, 2006; and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority Board meeting of January 23, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to approve claims to 303 vendors in the amount of $4,495,894.06 and payroll from February 19, 2006 to March 4, 2006 in the amount of $1,624,137.55. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Ixtapa, 2016 West 23rd, Ste: B; and the Pool Room, 925 Iowa. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Dennis “Boog” Highberger, Mayor; Barbara Huppee, LDGCO Housing Authority; Carrie Lindsey, League of Women Voters; Dennis Constance, Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance; Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering; Bill Yanek, Lawrence Association of Realtors; Bob Santee, Santee Denning Construction Co.; Rebecca Buford, Tenants to Homeowners; Mary Grob, Douglas County Bank; Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods; Lavern Squier, Chamber of Commerce, all to the Housing Needs Task Force; and, appoint Martin Miller and Ann Foster to the Public Transit Advisory Committee to terms which expire December 31, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to authorize the purchase of property from Matt and Pamela Eales for the reconstruction of North Lawrence Pump Station No. 2, generally located at 570 Walnut Street, for $35,700. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Landplan Engineering for $14,500 for design of Sesquicentennial Point improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7983, establishing the City Commission quorum at four commissioners. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7984, providing an additional exception to the prohibition against the possession of certain weapons (firearms range in Community Building) within or in close proximity to drinking establishments. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7980, amending city code provisions governing cereal malt beverage licenses to comply with state law, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to adopt Resolution No. 6631, appointing Dennis “Boog” Highberger as the City’s designee to the Board of Directors of the Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to approve Resolution No. 6632, authorizing the Mayor to sign the application for the 2006 Emergency Shelter Grant from the City to the State of Kansas. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-01-01-02) for Mary’s Lake Addition, a proposed 39-lot single-family residential subdivision containing approximately 15.98 acres, located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
2. Submittal of An Agreement Not to Protest a Future Benefit District for Improvements to 31st Street;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans for the construction of Harper Street (extended), sidewalks along Harper Street and within all pedestrian easements, and the extension of sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water mains. [The sanitary sewer extension plans should include modifications to PS-22 and are required to be approved by the Utilities Department prior to building permit issuance.] ;
4. Revision of the plat to include the following:
a. The addition of a note stating, “Existing trees within the landscape easement will be undisturbed and protected during construction.”
b. The addition of a note stating, “Additional trees will be planted within the landscape easement if existing trees are not available to serve as a buffer”.
c. The addition of 10-foot wide utility easements between each set of lots along the subdivision’s western side, extending from the u/e along the westernmost edge of the subdivision to one foot east of the 20-foot landscape easement.
d. The removal of 10-foot utility easements along the western side of Harper Street (extended) and bordering the frontage of lots within the cul-de-sac where no sanitary sewer lines are shown on the preliminary plat, as the unused easements would needlessly interfere with the placement of street trees.
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
b. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
c. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
d. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-7081a.3.
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to approve the site plan (SP-11-90-05) for an addition to the existing Lawrence High School, located at 1901 Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
2. Provision of the following modifications to the site plan:
a. Correct the site summary proposed calculations, so they correctly add up to the totals.
b. Modify the variances ‘requested’ note boxes to variances ‘approved’.
c. Provide a note that the existing 4’ wide sidewalk along W. 21st Street (local street) will be replaced with a 5’ wide sidewalk with future work.
d. Provide a note that the existing 5’ wide sidewalk along Louisiana Street (collector street) will be replaced with a 6’ wide sidewalk with future work.
e. Modify legal description to reference, to be platted as “Lawrence High School Addition.”
3. Recording of the Final Plat for Lawrence High School Addition at the Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with Douglas County for GIS data acquisition and aerial photography (the City contribution is not to exceed $150,000).Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Robert and Elizabeth Bond, 1713 East 17th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to approve as signs of community interest, the Friends of the Library Book Sale signs from March 31, 2006 – April 9, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Rundle, to receive the Utility Department 2005 Annual Report on System Development Charges. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Laura Green requested that Ordinance No. 7938, creating a city misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana be pulled for separate discussion. She said the majority of the time was spent discussing the marijuana possession portion of this ordinance. This ordinance also contained a possession of drug paraphernalia violation. The possession of marijuana was a $200 fine plus the mandatory evaluation and the possession of drug paraphernalia was also a $200 minimum. She wanted to make sure that the City Commission was aware that drug paraphernalia was being treated, essentially, the same as marijuana except for the evaluation. She said she reviewed the City Commission meeting minutes and did not see any discussion on paraphernalia and wanted to bring to the City Commission’s attention that this would be the most punitive paraphernalia municipal ordinance in the State of Kansas. She said she looked at other criminal ordinances and for example, open container was a fine of $50 to $200 maximum, and she thought the $200 fine for paraphernalia was too high. If a person was in possession of marijuana and a pack of rolling papers, that person would be looking at a $400.00 fine plus the evaluation and it seemed unlikely that someone would be arrested and not have paraphernalia.
Mayor Highberger asked what the fines were for drug paraphernalia under state statutes.
Green said under state statutes the fine was $0 to $2,500 and zero to one year in jail. She said the ordinance could mirror the state statute and leave it up to the judge to decide on the fine for possession of drug paraphernalia.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the ordinance, as written, was cumulative in that there would be both fines.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said if someone were convicted of both charges, the fines would be cumulative. Theoretically, the judge could sentence the two sentences to run concurrently and perhaps have some equitable authority to order concurrent fines.
Mayor Highberger said he did not recall any discussion regarding the paraphernalia issue and he did not see any rationale for raising the fine above what was imposed by district court. He suggested sending this issue back for clarification on the intended fine for paraphernalia possession. He said mirroring the state statute was more appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle agreed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff had any information on how the district courts had treated the paraphernalia possession issue with respect to fines.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, said he was not aware of any statistical information and he speculated that it was similar to what had been done for possession. He said what was likely with those types of scenarios was that the defendant would plead to one charge and the paraphernalia charge would be dismissed, which was his speculation that happened in a number of cases. He said he did not have any statistical information about what the fines would be for paraphernalia in District Court other than state law had the same penalty range for possession as it did for paraphernalia, which was $0 to $2,500.
Commissioner Schauner asked if a person, hypothetically, rolled their own tobacco cigarette, would the possession of rolling papers be considered possession of drug paraphernalia.
Miller said no. The items needed to be held with the intent to ingest or inhale drugs and under those circumstances, would be drug paraphernalia.
Commissioner Schauner said he would prefer to limit the way it was and receive a report back to see how it worked.
He said the comment made by Corliss was consistent with what he would expect to see if there were two charges rising out of the same event regarding a plea on one charge and the dismissal of the other charge.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner’s comments. He said he would prefer to let District Court handles this issue because it seemed that they were trying to recreate everything.
Commissioner Hack agreed with Commissioners Schauner and Amyx. She said this issue should be moved forward.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7938, creating a city misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana, as authorized by the City Commission on February 28, 2006. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Schauner. Nay: Highberger, and Rundle. Motion carried (13)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said on January 17, 2006, the City Commission directed staff to work with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to find out if proposed medians at the 3rd and 7th Street crossings, and elimination of the 4th Street pedestrian crossing, were sufficient safety improvements for the establishment of a quiet zone.
Also, during the City Manager’s report, he mentioned that he was proud of the Neighborhood Resources Department and their efforts to cross train building inspectors to become certified as combination inspectors. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approving, subject to conditions, UPR-09-06-05: A request to extend the Use Permitted upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter; 944 Kentucky/214 W. 10th Street [supercedes Lawrence Open Shelter (UPR-01-01-03) and Community Drop-In Center (UPR-10-11-99)]. This property is located at the northeast corner of Kentucky and W. 10th Streets.
Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report. She said this was an application for Use Permitted upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter, located at 944 Kentucky. The UPR seeks to combine the previous UPR’s for the site as well as to create a patio area on the eastern side of the building and to increase the site’s capacity from 30-33 persons. At the December 13, 2005, City Commission meeting this item was tabled for three months to allow time for the Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH) to review and recommend revisions on the original conditions of approval before the City Commission. She said a few changes to note in those conditions were that the CCH recommended a five year approval, which was what planning staff had originally recommended as opposed to the one year approval that the Planning Commission recommended. Also, the applicant was proposing to remove a planned condition not related to enforcing a “no loitering policy” within 150’ of the property. This was due to the fact that the community shelter could not enforce a loitering policy off of their property.
Staff was recommending approval of the UPR, subject to the revised conditions. It was also important to note that a valid protest petition had been submitted originally, was still valid and required a supermajority vote of the City Commission for approval.
Commissioner Amyx said he understood that staff originally recommended a 5 year extension on the UPR, the Planning Commission recommended a one year extension, and the Community Commission on Homelessness recommended a five year extension. He said if the action of the City Commission was something other than Planning Commission’s recommendation for a one year extension, would that issue needed to be taken back to the Planning Commission.
Corliss said there was a recommendation from the Planning Commission and in order overturn the Planning Commission’s recommendation a super majority vote was needed. Also, there had been a protest petition, protesting the UPR and in order to approve the UPR, a super majority vote was also needed. If the City Commission wanted to approve the Community Commission on Homelessness recommendation, it could be approved by a super majority vote or sent back to the Planning Commission. He said unless the UPR was approved by a supermajority vote, the City Commission needed to act on that extension issue to ensure that the status was clear while the item was still under consideration.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Candice Davis, Oread Neighborhood Association, said their group supported the one year UPR due to the stress that existed in the area and the inadequate size of the facility. She said they believed the Shelter was necessary for the Lawrence community. The problems and solutions for homelessness had fallen to a small group of very dedicated individuals, but this was a city-wide problem. The association would appreciate a real financial commitment to help the homeless shelter. One problem was that the facility was too small for the homeless to stay and the association was asking that the Shelter try and reduce loitering on the Shelter’s premises and the public right-of-way.
Randy Dyke, Lawrence, supported the five year proposal. He said he agreed that the facility was too small. The Salvation Army was not allowing the homeless to hang around during the day and the only other place to go was the Shelter. He said the patio would cut down on a lot of loitering in front of the Shelter. He said the Shelter was trying to remedy the concerns, but it would take time. He said they were promised that there would be more social workers by January, but they had not seen those workers yet.
Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said he lived across the street from the Lawrence Open Shelter. He said he would like a correction to be made to the condition of a 150 foot limit for loitering to be dropped from the site plan. He said at the January 30th meeting the minutes indicated that the 150 foot limit was discussed at length including conversations involving Captain Ed Brunt, and it was decided to drop the 150 foot limit because it could not legally be enforced. He said this issue was important because if this UPR was approved with that condition, the LOS would not need to address loitering. The problem was the LOS had always been able to address problems of antisocial and illegal behavior in and around the LOS. Unfortunately, the director of the LOS had steadfastly prohibited or stopped any kind of action from being taken concerning neighborhood businesses and other interested parties concerns.
He said regarding the problem of loitering, the minutes from one of the Community Concerns on Homelessness, stated, “Loring Henderson has the most difficulty with this condition because loitering is not a concept that he could conceive.” He said that statement was said after three years of task force meetings and five stakeholder meetings which was mismanagement. He said this was not the only condition that had been ignored by Henderson and his staff. He said the east side of the building was to be used as a patio area, but that area was now used as a parking lot for staff and homeless persons; and the south door was not to be used as the primary door, the north door of the Drop-In Center and the east door of the LOS were to be the primary doors because those doors lead directly to the patio area where people could congregate. All of those conditions were conditions of the UPR and they had been ignored which could be remedied by ending the UPR itself. He said through exterior checks of the perimeter, loitering, trespassing, and other issues could be addressed, just by following the rules which was loss of services for actions within the LCS and loss of services for actions outside. He said with the cooperation of the neighborhood and the police, behaviors could be curtailed, but it would take a Director to enforce those conditions. He said those conditions were not meant to drive away or punish the homeless, but to add some boundaries to their behavior.
Brandy Sutton, Lawrence, said she was a downtown property and business owner. She presented the City Commission with a written statement which read:
“We were last here on December 13th, 2005, at which time this commission directed the Community Commission on Homeless (CCH) to review the UPR and make recommendations back to the City Commission on how best to address the concerns which have been raised regarding LCS.
I would first like to address the issue of who is on the CCH. Mr. Loring Henderson is the Co-Chair of this committee. While I understand his importance in addressing homeless issues, I find it highly inappropriate that he would be the Co-Chair of the Committee which is reviewing his own UPR, even though he abdicated his chair during discussion but still very much participated. If it was my or any other business owner’s UPR, we would not be allowed to sit on a committee which was reviewing it. I find this highly unethical and a violation of conflict of interest!
My concerns with Mr. Henderson being the Co-Chair, were realized when Shirley Martin Smith and others made a motion which asked Mr. Henderson if he could “live with the restrictions which had been added at the Planning Commission level.” There was very little discussion about how these restrictions would be implemented but rather simply whether or not Mr. Henderson could “live with them. I feel that the CCH has completely failed the City Commission and the citizens of Lawrence in this task. Shirley Martin Smith in a memo dated February 7, 2006, indicates that all the concerns of the commission were addressed in LCS’ Actions and Consequences document which she believed to have not been presented to either this body or the Planning Commission. This statement is false. In fact, I personally addressed these documents and raised my concerns that they were not being used or enforced. Mr. Henderson was also questioned regarding these “Actions and Consequences” and whether or not they were being enforced. Mr. Henderson’s answers were vague and evasive.
On March 1, 2006, the CCH submitted its recommendation with regard to the LCS’ UPR. The CCH points out in its letter that these recommendations were reached with a 70% consensus and I can understand why after having attended their meeting. It appears that no one was willing to question, debate, or discuss the real issues at hand but rather kept asking Mr. Henderson “what he could live with.”
Their first point is that there are current mechanisms by which the UPR can be revisited at any time. The CCH was led to believe that anyone could raise concerns about the UPR and that there is a formal complaint process. This is wholly inaccurate. The City Code makes no provision for a complaint process with regard to a UPR. In addition, 20-1613 spells out the procedure for a UPR to be reviewed. It requires the City Commission on its own initiative or upon the recommendation of City staff or Planning Commission, to schedule a public hearing to review the UPR. Thus, their argument that there is a mechanism for the UPR to be reviewed at any time by anyone is incorrect. The whole point of reducing the UPR from five years to one is to have accountability in the process. CCH has missed this point.
CCH has recommended an annual report of shelter activity to be submitted to the CCH for review. This report shall contain accomplishments in serving the LCS guests’ program descriptions and staffing levels, program and staffing projection and costs. What do these items have to do with compliance with the UPR? Nothing. What is the criterion to be used to review this annual report? What are we looking for in this report? I submit this report has nothing to do with the UPR or this process.
CCH has recommended striking from the plan the “no loitering policy.” I understand that LCS can not call the police to enforce this, since the City of Lawrence does not have a Loitering Ordinance. But this is not different from the problems which Lawrence High School experienced some years back wherein the issue was controlled through rewards and punishments. I do not understand why LCS is not willing to use their own guidelines and attempt to regulate the behavior of their guests. As a business owner, I am expected to see that my patrons are not disturbing surrounding businesses. Do we also not ask the same of the downtown bars?
The CCH has also agreed to allow the occupancy to increase from 30-33 but again has failed to address the concerns of the citizens that there is insufficient control and monitoring of the LCS patrons.
The CCH has directed LCS to develop a mechanism for communication with neighbors and to work with the Community Cooperation Committee and develop a good neighbor agreement. Well….. didn’t LCS promise to do that in 1999? What is the point of this? LCS is willing to “listen” which is great but actions speak louder than words, and I personally have seen no action to resolve the issues which have been raised by the neighborhoods and community members.
The CCH has failed to do their job. They have done nothing but send back to this Commission the exact same thing they were given to review.
There were numerous promises made by LCS and its predecessors in their previous applications, but they have failed to keep those promises. There needs to be accountability.
The current model of the LCS does not work. We are simply providing services without accountability. There have been numerous studies done including one commissioned by the Office of Management and Budget which found that a rehabilitation model is the most effective model for delivery of services. If you look to the City of Lawrence Task Force on Homelessness’ Report, you will find that the problems that are created by the LCS are not unique but are rather common to “wet shelters.” In fact, there are very few “wet shelters,” and one of the “wet shelters,” which was studied by the task force closed. It does not work!
What is to be done about the crime, excessive police calls, loitering problems, trash problems, and other concerns expressed by the neighbors? What is to be done about the promises made by LCS which have not been kept? Nothing has been done to address the concerns raised by the LCS. Continuing with the status quo is not the answer! Extending the UPR for 5 years unfettered is not the answer! There needs to be accountability!
Tonight I am asking you, AGAIN to make sure the LCS is being held accountable for the problems they have caused. We can not sit back and let this issue linger in bureaucracy, something LCS wouldn’t mind. If this means that you have to take drastic measures, so be it, but the City of Lawrence can not afford to go on any longer with this situation.”
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said the accountability belonged to the entire community and not to the immediate neighborhood and not to the CCH. She said it was the entire community’s neglect and not Henderson and his staff. She said she could not disagree with the people who had discussed the overcrowding and what could be done with the people who had no place to go. She said this issue had been neglected for too long.
She said the City Commission could refuse the 5 year proposal, but the Commission had not dealt with the issues that needed to be addressed. There were far too many homeless people in too small of a place and the Lawrence community had not found the answers. That was the community’s responsibility. She suggested calling an emergency meeting to work this issue out because this community had the resources. The people inside this overcrowded shelter were experiencing terrible neglect.
Peter Zacharias, Lawrence, said he was a downtown business owner and a member of the Downtown Lawrence’s Community Committee on Homelessness. He understood the need for homeless services in Lawrence as there had been an increase in population of the homeless although, one would need to ask the question whether it was the Drop-In Shelter that had brought more homeless to Lawrence or not. He said he believed this wet shelter served its residents and neighborhoods poorly. If the City Commission granted the 5 year UPR, that would put off finding an appropriate site and location for a homeless facility even longer.
In the last two years, he had more than 6 incidents where his daughter or his female tenants had been followed home by people lounging and loitering in front of the homeless shelter resulting in one attempted break-in, one actual break-in, and two police calls. Those ladies had been verbally abused on numerous occasions and were also afraid to attend the City Commission meeting to discuss this issue for fear or retribution.
The City Commission needed to find a solution to the homeless problem so that the homeless population was moved out of being homeless via employment and rehabilitation. He said the homeless should be encouraged to take responsibility of their own lives and that the neighborhood be protected from the negative effects of concentrating all of their homeless services in one area. He said he believed this was the only wet shelter left in Kansas and the reason was because wet shelters were problematic. If the operators of the shelter cannot control the residents, then their solution was often to discharge the people into the neighborhood or downtown Lawrence which was an inappropriate solution. He urged the City Commission to deny the UPR or at least limit the UPR to one year and to begin actively looking for an appropriate site that offered real rehabilitation services and protects the well-being of the neighborhood in downtown Lawrence.
Iliathan Williams, homeless person, said he worked 66 hours a week and was still homeless. He said he and his wife had applied at the Lawrence Housing Authority when they first came to town, which was over 4 months ago, and they were told that it would be 6 months to one year before they were going to be placed on a waiting list.
Jim Schneider, retired clinical psychologist and member of the Homeless Task Force, said he had experience with individuals who had severe psychiatric disorders. He said he was staff psychologist on the drug and alcohol unit and a director of a program that placed psychiatric patients from the structured environment of the psychiatric hospital to their highest level of function which included apartments. He said because of his experience, he knew something about the homeless population and what good treatment programs were and were not. He said he had been against the open shelter concept from the beginning not because he hated homeless people or that he was insensitive or lacked compassion. He said he objected to an open shelter concept in an output model which was “success is counted by the number of people served” not as opposed to an outcome model which followed a person from the street to the highest level of placement.
He said when he was on the task force they were to investigate alternative models which was never reported to the City Commission. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) had investigated effective homeless treatment programs and came back with an extensive report that stated treatment programs break down into two area which were output and outcome based. Amazingly, for a government organization, they concluded that care providers, communities, and federal agencies were moving toward the outcome base program which was a rehabilitative based program because that type of program worked. He said there was as situation with the Open Shelter that when providing food and shelter to people without requiring those people to be part of a treatment program, the weakest among the street homeless were going to fall through the cracks and eventually would die. The last seven deaths in this community over the past four years, with the exception of one, were not because of cold whether, but due to alcohol level toxicity.
He said when providing shelter and food and not requiring participation or an assessment of their medical/psychiatric needs, those homeless people were being neglected. He said those homeless advocates might feel good that they were providing services, but when allowing the homeless to simply go off into the night those people were being neglected and those people would die. He said Lawrence did not have the right type of shelter and the Open Shelter was the wrong type shelter.
He used the example of the Topeka Rescue Mission as an example of an outcome based program that worked. He said the women could be in those assigned units, but men could be one of three places which were: working at jobs, work details in the center or affiliated centers, or attending rehabilitation classes.
He said the Commission on Homelessness was Co-Chaired by the Director of a program that needed to be changed and it would not change without City Commission assistance. He said the program would not change by letting it sit for 5 years. He said the homeless people that were neglected, plus the community and neighborhoods need more from the City Commission. He said they needed direction and suggested a one year extension.
Herman Leon, Lawrence, spoke in support of the UPR renewal. He said the City Commission heard a person who raised a fundamental issue of human injustice. He said there was a new tone in tonight’s debate and it was personal castigation of a man who had been trying to do the right thing. He said that man was attacked by name, and wrong statements were made in that the homeless population had not doubled since the opening of the Open Shelter. He said he had worked closely with Henderson and like all human beings, Henderson had his defects, but Henderson was trying to do something about something and unfortunately, the other side was using their energy to undermine and destroy what Henderson was trying to accomplish which was that people were free to walk the streets.
Commissioner Schauner said there was some discussion about the 150 foot loitering ordinance and its enforceability.
David Corliss said the City did not have a loitering ordinance. He said the courts had been very clear that it was very difficult to proscribe conduct that fell under the category of “loitering.” As a private property principle, a property owner could remove individuals from his or her own property if the property owner desired that person to leave. He said that was the nature of the loitering condition in that if there was conduct that was loitering on other properties that were adjacent to the applicant’s property, then the applicant had the responsibility to enforce a loitering and they did not have the authority to go on someone else’s property and tell them they had the legal right to be at that location. He said they could not impose a condition on the Lawrence Community Shelter that gave them the authority to be on someone’s property and allow them to have the ability to tell someone to leave that property.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the neighboring property owner could enforce a no trespassing position by asking the person to leave. If the person did not leave, the police would be called to have that person removed.
Corliss said any property owner could enforce the laws that prohibit trespassing on their private property.
Commissioner Rundle asked if someone had a concern about a UPR condition how did that concern get expressed to staff or the Commission.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said staff did not have a form. If staff had a complaint, they would ask that individual to draft the complaint in a letter which would be provided to staff. Staff would then schedule that issue to be a receipt item for the City Commission and the City Commission would direct staff to schedule a public hearing. If the issue happened in a sequence that it was timely for a Planning Commission meeting, that issue could be dealt with that way and the Planning Commission could initiate the request for a public hearing.
Commissioner Hack asked if that language was part of the UPR and would the applicant understand that was the process.
Stogsdill said when talking to applicants, staff had discussed the fact of the revocation section in the code. She said the speaker referenced Article 16 which outlined the process which the Planning Commission or City Commission would direct staff to schedule a public hearing if one of those bodies felt there was the need to review the actual permit.
Commissioner Hack asked if the memo from Pool that outlined the original conditions were the conditions the Planning Commission approved at their meeting. One condition discussed loitering, but it did not mention the 150 foot requirement.
Commissioner Amyx said that 150 foot requirement was not on the list of conditions.
Stogsdill said the note about loitering was on the site plan and it was not listed as a condition because that was a previous condition of the earlier UPR.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the 150 foot notation on the site plan had any impact on the enforceability of the Shelter’s duty to maintain order on its own property to prevent inappropriate conduct.
Corliss said the City Commission could establish a condition on the UPR that required the applicant to enforce those rules on their own property. The City Commission could provide the applicant with requirements and direction as to what they were to do regarding loitering complaints that might come from outside of their property. He said the Commission could not require the applicant to enforce a no loitering requirement on someone else’s property, but the Commission could require the applicant to enforce no loitering on their own property and require the applicant to keep logs of individuals who were at that location, signage in that they needed to respect the property, and reminders about the prohibition against trespassing.
Mayor Highberger asked if the UPR appeal would be different from the new code that the City Commission would be adopting soon.
Stogsdill said she thought the appeal process was similar to the existing code.
Commissioner Hack said since the 150 foot requirement seemed to be of a concern, she asked what would be the procedure for removing that 150 foot requirement.
Stogsdill said by a super majority vote, the City Commission could approve and modify any of those conditions. If there was not a super majority vote, the City Commission could return that issue back to the Planning Commission and ask that Commission to consider modifications.
Commissioner Hack asked if the current UPR was layered over the original UPR.
Stogsdill said the current UPR was replacing two UPR’s because the Drop-In Center was a separate UPR under separate management. She said the Community Drop-In Center’s UPR was not expired at this time, but staff suggested that for the efficiency purposes that those two UPR’s be grouped since those two centers were under the same hospices.
Commissioner Amyx said the City Commission at some point would need to deal with that bigger question of how to direct City money on the issue of homelessness. He said the recommendation from planning staff was for a five year Use Permitted Upon Review. After hearing the comments, the Planning Commission recommended an extension of only one year for this permit. He said that was a reasonable amount of time. He said the Shelter had a responsibility because they were given special treatment to be at that location. He said the Planning Commission and Planning Staff had made a reasonable attempt in making sure the Community Shelter was allowed to operate and function at that location, assuming the facility followed those conditions. He suggested a one year approval with Planning Commission conditions. He specifically referenced condition number 4 in the Planning Commission minutes.
Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Amyx was proposing an amendment to change the word “should” to the word “shall” on Item No. 4 in the report dated March 7, 2006 from Lisa Pool, Planning Staff. He said he was generally in agreement with Commissioner Amyx, but unfortunately, he was heavily persuaded that the rescue mission approach of outcome as opposed to outputs was a place the City Commission should be placing their energy, money, and talent to use. He said regardless whether it was a 1 or 5 year extension, they would think something was done positive.
He said it needed to be recognized that sometimes it was easier to give a person $20 and feel good about it rather than helping that person address, in a meaningful and sometimes difficult way, his or her own demons. He said the City Commission needed to take a hard look at whether this community wanted to endorse an output model or outcome model. If the community addressed an outcome model, it might or might not mean the Lawrence Open Shelter continued in its current form. He sensed if the City Commission adopted an outcome model, the LOS would not continue to exist in its current form. He said a five year UPR puts the pressure to find a better answer way too far into the future. He said he supported the one year UPR.
Commissioner Rundle said every time this issue was addressed he wished they could find a real solution to this problem. He said it was not fair to compare Lawrence to the Topeka Rescue Mission. He said that Mission started slowly and it took about 25 years to get it where it was today and it was not just that Mission, but numerous agencies that were brought in to bring the services that really helped people achieve success in getting out of homelessness and into housing. He wished they could extend the UPR for a five year period. He said rather than having everyone spend their energy coming to prepare for hearings, they could be working on those issues. He said they had worked to contract with Bert Nash for case managers that were needed to help make this problem more manageable. He said if there was any flexibility in the City’s financial report in resources, he would be pushing to address this issue.
Commissioner Hack said they had to separate the issues on how the community dealt with homelessness and the issue before the City Commission which was whether or not the City Commission supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation of a one year extension to the UPR or the suggestion of the five year extension. She said she could not support a five year extension, but a one year extension would be appropriate with the automatic trigger for review because there were valid concerns expressed by enough people.
Mayor Highberger said he supported the one year UPR for two reasons. First, because the current facility was not adequate to meet the needs of this community and the one year time period would help keep the Commission at looking in the direction of meeting that need; and second, because the neighbors deserved some accountability. He said in looking at the report from the Homelessness Task Force, a treatment model was recommended and they had started taking steps to develop that concept, first by allocating money for case workers and he thought the City needed to take additional steps in that direction to provide the funding requested by the task force report in the 2007 Budget Year. He suggested changing two recommendations for those conditions. He said he did not think it was unreasonable to ask the Open Shelter staff to require their patrons to be on the new patio area if they were going to be outside the building. Also, concerning the reporting requirement that was recommended by the CCH, he thought the Shelter should report things that worked and did not work well at the Shelter. He supported the one year UPR.
Commissioner Hack suggested that perhaps Corliss and Loring Henderson work together to draft condition language.
Corliss said he would be willing to do so.
Stogsdill asked for clarification on the intent of one year and whether the Commission meant one year from today or one year from last December.
The Commission suggested one year from today.
Corliss said he and Stogsdill would be working with the Planning Commission to place it on the City Commission’s consent agenda next week. He said they were only discussing the loitering requirements in the UPR, but the City Commission could approve the remainder of the UPR at this time.
Mayor Highberger said they were talking about changing the wording in item 4(a).
Commissioner Rundle asked if the wording could be changed without a formal hearing.
Corliss said the City Commission was directing staff by their approval concerning wording in response to the City Commission’s general directions, but not specific wording on the issue of loitering.
Commissioner Schauner said if the Shelter was required to do items A - F in the next year, he asked if it would be helpful to have that in a report form sometime before the 11th hour of the one year extension. He said this would give the City Commission some sense of where they were in terms of police logging, loitering concepts, keeping a log of guests, and other issues.
Mayor Highberger suggested an additional condition requiring reporting should be provided to the City Commission at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the UPR.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the UPR for one year subject to revising the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions with the following changes:
1. Condition No. 4 - Change “should do the following…” to “shall do the following”;
2. Condition No. 4(a) - Direct staff to draft language regarding the loitering concept to be placed on the consent agenda for City Commission approval;
3. Add a Condition No 4(g) – Reporting shall be presented to the City Commission at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the UPR; and
4. Direct staff to change the notation on the site plan regarding the loitering.
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Receive Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) recommendation to construct traffic calming devices on 13th Street between Connecticut Street and Haskell Avenue. Refer request to 2007 budget consideration process.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said at the February 6, 2006 meeting the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) heard a request from a resident to provide traffic calming along 13th Street between Connecticut and Haskell Avenue. The TSC recommended approval. The City Commission, last week, had questions and the issue was pulled from the consent agenda to be reconsidered. He said the plan for the area had not been developed, but they had an approved ranking system which was included in the City Commission’s packet. He said that project fell 3rd in the ranking system and would come in before some of the previously approved projects, but after the two projects that scored the highest.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he had asked that this item be pulled from the consent agenda last week. He said he had looked at the number of projects in which they did not have a funding source earmarked to take care of those problems. He said they put criteria in place to establish where traffic calming devices were warranted, but they still did not have the money for funding. There was also concern about pedestrian safety in various locations. He asked if staff would be looking at a way to fund those projects and noted that he did not care for traffic circles and roundabouts. He asked how long the list was going to be allowed to grow before they actually came up with a funding source. He asked if stop signs would be warranted at those locations.
David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, said additional stop signs would not meet any of the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If stop signs, speed signs, and other signs of that nature worked as far as traffic calming, then no one would have heard about traffic calming circles, speed humps, or any of the other myriad of traffic calming devices. He said as an example, the number one item on staff’s list was from the University Place Neighborhood Association. He said in the 1980’s the association had a number of stop signs installed throughout their neighborhood. As a result, those signs did not work and they came back to the City Commission approximately 4 years ago asking for traffic calming. Two of the temporary traffic calming circles in that neighborhood today were at 4-way stop intersections and the other two circles were at 2-way stop intersections. Again, stop signs were not a good idea for speed control and there was a problem with people running signs that were not warranted and those signs were not recommended for controlling speeds.
Vice Mayor Amyx said when he was thinking about stop signs, he was taking into consideration the pedestrian crossing.
Woosley said again, if the sign seemed legitimate to the drivers then sometimes it would work, but if putting up a sign that wasn’t and the pedestrians think that would make it safe, sometimes that would backfire.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if a stop sign was legitimate.
Woosley said stop signs were not legitimate in all cases.
Commissioner Schauner asked about an effective way, other than putting chuck holes the size of Volkswagens in the middle of the street, of slowing traffic.
Woosley said throughout this country, they had found that it had to be something physical to force the driver to slow down whether it was something that caused that person to turn right or left or to go up and over. He said a sign had never forced anyone to slow down and pavement markings did not slow anyone down either.
Alfred Latta, Lawrence, said he was concerned about the approval of this item as a further precedent for proliferation of traffic calming devices, speed bumps, and the intended construction costs to the City and the citizens. He said he lived in an area where approximately $390,000 was spent for traffic calming circles and speed bumps. He said on their street of 15 houses they had a traffic circle at each end of the block and speed bumps in all directions beyond. After construction costs of $390,000, he learned the City was unable to find approximately $90,000 to repair streets in other parts of the City. He said he found that streets of un-repaired surface were more effective in slowing traffic such as 8th Street which became Goldfield, outside the traffic calming devices, 8th Street between Monterey Way and Prescott where there were un-repaired seems and were as effective as speed bumps.
He said he would encourage the City as an alternative to speed bumps, to enforce speed limits by increasing the number of speed limit signs, but more by the utilization of Police Officers to stop traffic speeders to teach all drivers that all speeds limits would be enforced in Lawrence. Also, by an increasing sequence of fines, including loss of license, no reduction in charges so that insurance premiums would increase; and incarceration for continued offenses. He said fines would pay for an increased number of officers and that would help ensure speed limits. He asked the City Commission not to authorize further expenditure for speed bumps and traffic circles and start by not approving this particular item.
Janet Good, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said speeding was definitely a problem. The preferred traffic calming seemed to be the speed hump. She said several issues came up at the TSC meeting including wheelchair users on that street. Because of Independence Inc., several wheelchair users were on that street quite frequently. Sidewalks were another issue, because a wheelchair was not a vehicle and should not be on the street, but on a safe sidewalk. She said the association had been working with David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, about their concerns on 11th Street for quite some time and Corliss had been very responsive. She said those streets needed to be looked at in a holistic way because 12th and 14th Streets had been cut-off with the Burroughs Creek Drainage. She said whatever was done with 13th Street would force more traffic onto 11th Street.
Michael Almon, Lawrence, said he lived in the Brookcreek Neighborhood which was on the east side of this proposed traffic calming. He said he was in favor of those traffic calming devices because it was a different situation on the east side of Lawrence. The west side of Lawrence was primarily a bedroom community. The commercial activity out there was mostly retail. On the east side of Lawrence was a highly utilitarian part of town. Also on the east side, he imagined children walked a lot more to the schools, but nevertheless, they wanted traffic calming on the east side of Lawrence. He thanked Woosley for coming up with a solution that worked. He said Traffic Safety Commissioner Brune suggested staff design those devices in connection with the residents of those two neighborhoods. Right now, the idea floated was a couple of small traffic circles added in the middle of an intersection and a couple of speed humps, but personally he did not care for either of those concepts. He did agree with some of the comments that were submitted to the City Commission that a number of people did not like those islands or pedestrian refuges because they caused a lot more problems than they solved and those islands did not slow down traffic.
He said instead of vertical deflection of humps or bumps were the horizontal deflection. He suggested a curving street. When people had to negotiate a curving street, physically it would slow down cars and well as creating a psychological barrier. He said it was key in how those traffic calming devices were designed and all options should be on the table and he looked forward in working with staff to develop those devices. He said in 2004, Commissioner Schauner asked about the feasibility of having an in-house designer of those traffic calming devices rather than subcontracting. He said Mike Wildgen, City Manager, was going to track six months of design costs to see if it was going to be cost effective to have an in-house designer and he was curious what became of that idea.
Wildgen said an in-house report was done, but not just for those particular items. He said Woosley did many of the designs for some of the smaller work.
Almon said if the neighborhoods were working with City staff, he asked if that scenario would work.
Wildgen said yes.
Almon presented a diagram showing a two lane chicane which was his preferred type of traffic calming device. He said basically they would be creating a curving street and if that was done every 1,000 feet or so, then to avoid the problem of bicycle conflicts or wheelchair conflicts, there could be a ramp up each on those curved extensions. He said the chicane could be an effective device to slow down traffic.
Vice Mayor Amyx said again he hated to give neighbors false hopes when the City did not have money to fund those projects.
Mayor Highberger said one of his goals during the budget process last year was to setup a several year plan for funding what they had and he intended to bring that up again during the current budget process. He said he had discussed with staff setting aside one or two hours to discuss this issue, in addition how much money would be spent, and the participation by neighboring property owners.
Commissioner Rundle said there were two issues that the City Commission heard over again which was getting someone across town with minimum stops as quickly as possible and at the same time keeping the City safe for pedestrian, dogs, wheelchairs, and children. The research showed that traffic calming was the one technique that was successful in accomplishing both of those goals. He said if they had done the best planning possible, staff would not be fixing them retroactively. He said in the 1980’s, non-motorized transportation needs were considered on a somewhat more equal footing to the streets for cars. Sidewalks were part of the transportation system and they needed to be more systematic about finding out those gaps in neighborhoods.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish traffic calming devices on 13th Street between Connecticut Street and Haskell Avenue; and refer the request to 2007 budget consideration process. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
The City Commission recessed for approximately 10 minutes.
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.
Kyoto Protocols was a decision that the population of this country was able to say that they did not agree with and that they wanted to take their own initiatives because they saw the issue of climate change to be a critical issue for the future of our lives, for the future of our children and grandchildren. He said it would make him a proud resident if the City decided to be a part of that initiative and it would be a very valuable teaching function for all Lawrence’s residents and go far beyond this community in its impact.
Kyoto
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities program and direct staff to prepare a baseline emissions survey and other appropriate measures. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Receive 2005 Year End report.
Ed Mullins, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He said the Finance Department and/or independent auditor had performed activities in conjunction with the audit of the 2005 financial results.
He said when comparing all the funds to some of the budget levels, the City did well. He said the City was exceeding the budget on the revenue side and stayed within the budget on the expenditure side. A bit of the bad news was that when looking at the percent of general fund expenditures, the City was over 98% which were preliminary numbers and subject to change. On the revenue side the City saw an increase of approximately 6% and a major component of that percentage was the increase in interest rates. He said the City earned about $719,000 more in interest this year than last year.
On the expenditure side all the departments were below their budget level with the exception of Parks and Recreation and that was direct impact from taking over Memorial Park expenditures. He said Parks and Recreation was approximately $52,000 over their budget which was related to that cemetery program.
He said special revenue, recreation, transportation, and public transit funds were doing well and the revenues exceeded the projections and their expenditures were less than budgeted.
As for the enterprise funds, particularly water and sewer funds, saw some significant increase in revenue which was under 15% and some of that was due to growth of usage because with a 4% water increase and a 9% sewer rate increase. Their expenditures were also high because historically they were in the budget at 98.4%. He said they did put away approximately 10 million dollars into cash financing future Capital Improvement Projects.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that data was on-line with the projection for the equity purchase of the Wakarusa Treatment Plant.
Mullins said all of that went into the big pool. He said they had a source of Capital Improvement Funds which was going to be bonded debt in transfers. He said that part they could control because it was a straight transfer of part of the water and sewer fund into a sub-fund.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City was on track with their projection for accumulating cash to equity purchase the Wakarusa Plant.
Mullins said that would be largely funded with revenue bonds because of the amount.
He said the Golf Course Fund did a little bit better in trying to meet its own generated revenues that met their expenditures. Overall, there was a 2.5% increase in revenues over last year and they only spent less than 85% of their budget. He said they were conscious of trying to control their expenses to meet those revenues, but were not quite able to make it.
Concerning the investment portion of the report, because of some of the bond issues, they had approximately $121 million cash on hand which was a lot of money to try and invest. During the 4th quarter their earning rate was approximately 3%, currently they were approximately 4.5%. He said in that short time period from 2005 into 2006, the City was seeing a continuing increase.
He said the City still had over 22 million dollars worth of temporary notes that this fall the City would permanently finance with General Obligation Debt or if the projects were not completed, roll that over into another temporary note. In Capital Projects, the City spent almost 35 million dollars during the year. Some of those were benefit districts where some of the financing was the special assessments and not necessarily the general tax payer.
Mayor Highberger said it was noted that several of the funds that the percentage of expenditures was a higher percentage than it had been in the past. He asked if Mullins contributed that to more unanticipated expenses or tighter budgeting.
Mullins said that was a hard question to answer. He said he had not done a survey, but he thought there was a conscious attempt to try and catch up on some of the maintenance issues.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said one of the costs that the City did not anticipate in May 2004 was the huge increase in natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel which clearly had an impact.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Mullins could provide the table that had the fiscal year end analysis broken out in the same way the receipts were listed in their budget (Page B3).
Mullins asked if Commissioner Rundle wanted just the general fund portion.
Commissioner Rundle said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in 2006 the City was going to spend the fund balance down to $231,000 on the combined Wastewater amount. He said there was a list of 25 to 30 items of improvement that were going to be made and the following year in 2007 was when the City was getting into the bond issue that dealt with the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mullins said 2009 was the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he wanted to make sure that they would have funds available and that the City was saving as many dollars as they could to be able to reduce that amount of bonding to make sure that project came in on time.
Mullins said on the last rate study, Black & Veatch provided a group of spreadsheets that assisted in making sure they could monitor the source of Capital Improvement Funds as well as if it had an impact on rates. He said when staff looked at the additional cost for the Wakarusa Water Treatment Plant, he was able to update the information in those spreadsheets and confirm that the source of funds were still positive in terms of cash balances. As future years go by, he would continue to update those spreadsheets to monitor the progress.
Vice Mayor Amyx said when looking at the amount of projects the City had, he asked if Mullins had any concern about the City spending that fund balance down to $231,000.
Mullins said historically, they seemed slow in spending some of those items just because of the engineering to get the project started. He said when looking at those budgets those were goals, but it did not necessarily mean those amount of funds would be spent exactly that year.
Commissioner Schauner said the City was projected to spend approximately 67 million dollars to build the Wakarusa Wastewater Treatment Plant between now and 2011. He said with what had been seen with increasing construction costs he asked if the City Commission would see an updated forecast on costs.
Wildgen said yes. He said those were from the Master Plan of several years ago and there was much more updated information that was coming as a result of Black & Veatch’s work.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the 2005 Year End Report. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Consider authorizing the City Manager to proceed with the negotiation of a contract for a Performance Measurement System with Management Partners. Commission will approve final contract.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said based on direction of the Commission, a proposal from Management Partners, Inc., was developed to help provide a comprehensive performance measurement system for the City. He said this company had developed the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement and was qualified to provide this type of consulting service for the City of Lawrence. In checking references from Olathe and Overland Park, Kansas and Rockville, Maryland they stated that Management Partners had provided timely, responsive service in their performance measurement systems. He said staff was recommending their services.
Commissioner Rundle asked about the amount of the contract.
Wildgen said the proposed contract amount was $125,000.
Commissioner Rundle asked if that amount was in the 2006 Budget.
Wildgen said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if doing this work would move them toward satisfying that Commission goal about developing some performance management standards.
Wildgen said yes. He said this was not a one year issue because it would take several years to develop the measurements and refining those measurements over time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was some upfront expense and refresher benchmarks as going out.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they should expect not only to see this cost, but some additional costs along the way.
Wildgen said he thought so, but once it was established in the budgeting process, it would be refined enough that it would be automatically done and integrated into the budgeting process.
Commissioner Rundle said he was curious how Wildgen made the choice because it seemed like the City Commission should be involved.
Wildgen said that could be done.
Mayor Highberger said he understood Commissioner Rundle’s concerns about City Commission involvement in the process, but the research had been done and other jurisdictions nearby were using this same company and their system and it seemed to be working. He said he was comfortable with moving forward because it would help the City Commission meet a long-time City Commission goal.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not have any reason to believe that this wasn’t a quality operation looking at the work they did in Olathe and Overland Park. He said it would be a great way to integrate some of the City’s long-term plans. He suggested moving forward.
Moved by Schauner , seconded by Hack , to direct staff to negotiate an agreement with Management Partners. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None (20)
REGULAR AGENDA (CONT’D)
Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purposes of: 1) consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship, 2) discussion of possible acquisition of real estate. The justification for the executive session is keep confidential matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship and to keep possible terms of real estate acquisition confidential.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purposes of: 1) consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship, 2) discussion of possible acquisition of real estate and to extend the meeting to 10:25. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 10:25 at which time, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting to 10:35 and to recess to executive session for the purpose of consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 10:35 at which time, it was moved by Commissioner Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to extend the meeting 10 minutes to 10:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess the meeting until 10:30 am Wednesday morning. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reconvened at 10:30 am March 8th in the City Commission Meeting Room at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess in to executive session for the purpose of discussing non elected personnel matters for 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission returned to regular session at 11:00 a.m. At 11:05 a.m. it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to return to executive session for 45 minutes for the purpose of discussing non elected personnel matters. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission returned to regular session at 11:50a.m and reconvened in the atrium of the 4th Floor of City Hall. It was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner to accept the City Manager’s resignation effective 5pm Friday March 10, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
It was then moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to adjourn at 11:52 am. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Purchase Property – Eales, 570 Walnut for N Lawrence Pump Station No. 2.
2. Contract – LandPlan for $14,500 for Sesquicentennial Point.
3. Ordinance No. 7983 – 1st Read, City Commission Quorum at 4 Commissioners.
4. Ordinance No. 7938 – 1st Read, Misdemeanor offense possession of marijuana.
5. Ordinance No. 7984 – 1st Read, Firearms close to drinking establishments.
6. Ordinance No. 7980 – 2nd Read, CMB to comply with state regarding employment.
7. Resolution No. 6631 – Appoint Dennis Highberger, Board of Directors, Lawrence/Douglas County Bioscience Authority.
8. Resolution No. 6632 – 2006 Emergency Shelter Grant
9. Final Plat – (PF-01-01-02) Mary’s Lake Add, 15.98 acres, N of 31st & E of Haskell.
10. Site Plan – (SP-11-90-05) Lawrence H.S., 1901 Louisiana.
11. Memorandum of Agreement – Douglas Cnty for GIS data acquisition & aerial photography.
12. Mortgage Release – Bond, 1713 E 17th.
13. Signs of Community Interest – Friends of the Library Book Sale.
14. City Manager’s Report.
15. UPR – (UPR-10-11-99) Lawrence Community Shelter. 944 Kentucky & 214 W 10th,
16. TSC – Traffic calming devices, 13th between Conn & Haskell.
17. US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement & Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Program.
18. 2005 Year End Report.
19. Contract – Performance Measurement System with Mgmt Partners,
20. Executive Session – property acquisition.
21. Accept City Manager Resignation