April 11, 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 Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.  

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION

With Commission approval, Mayor Amyx presented the recognition of the Mayor’s Excellence in Education Award recipients.  The recipients were: Cindy Taylor, Deerfield Elementary School; Charlotte Anderson, Central Junior High School; and, Lorna Larson, Free State High School.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from March 28, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Lawrence Alliance meeting minutes of November 9, 2005; the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting of February 28, 2006; and Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals meeting of February 1, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.              

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to confirm the April 6, 2006 budget study session staff directions.  Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 264 vendors in the amount of $1,311,535.96.  Motion carried unanimously.  
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to Lawrence Arts Center, Lawrence Arts Center Inc., 940 New Hampshire; Maceli’s, Maceli’s Inc., 1 Riverfront Plaza; Ruchee Lawrence, Ruchee Lawrence Inc., 3300 Bob Billings Parkway; and Limerance, 8th Street Enterprises Inc., 1520 Wakarusa Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-11-86-05) for a new South Junior High School and an addition to existing Broken Arrow Elementary School located at 2734 Louisiana Street, submitted by Gould Evans Associates, LC for USD 497, property owner of record, 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.         On sheet SP100, correct the total existing impervious surface (should be 341,682).

b.         Verify the number of parking spaces.

c.         On sheet SP100, correct the parking lot landscape calculation (90 parking spaces x 280 sq. ft. = 25,200) and (25,200 x 0.15 = 3,780).

d.         Provide for ADA ramp crossings of the curbs from the parking lot into entrances of the two buildings.

3.         Provide a pedestrian crossing pathway from the elementary parking lot into the elementary school.

3.         Provision of the following note to be added to the site plan: “Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for the South Junior High School, USD 497 will provide for a written interlocal agreement reinforcing the USD 497’s and City’s cooperation on continuing the use of the City’s park space for the school’s football field/track and the tennis courts.”

4.         Provide a downstream stormwater capacity analysis to Public Works to determine if any detention or stormwater system improvement is required.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to initiate rezoning from RO-1 to RM-3 for 640 Arkansas Street.  Motion carried unanimously.     (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Nichole Demby, 1072 Home Circle.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                             (3) 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize distribution of a Request for Proposals for an executive search firm for position of City Manager.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (4)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said Scott Miller, Legal Assistant, made a presentation that was well received by the landlords regarding the Disorderly House Nuisance Ordinance and staff was looking for additional opportunities to improve on monitoring and enforcement of that ordinance. 

Also, he noted the Legal Services Department Law Clerk, Aaron Johnstun, was selected for the National Moot Court Competition.  He said Johnstun was a valued staff member in the Legal Department. 

He also pointed out that staff would build and add to the City Commission agenda, “Future Agenda Items” where staff would highlight future agenda items so the public would know that upcoming items of discussion were in the pipeline for City Commission discussion and direction.   

Finally, he suggested the City Commission drive to the intersection of North 2^nd and Locust Streets to observe the temporary improvements made by Public Works crews.  He said staff and the Kansas Department of Transporation had discussed moving that project ahead which would involve left turn lanes and a number of other improvements to that intersection. 

Mayor Amyx thanked City staff for completing those temporary improvements to make it a safer situation.  

Vice Mayor Hack said she and David Corliss, Interim City Manager, attended a Bioscience Conference in Chicago, Illinois, representing the City of Lawrence.  Others attending were: County Commissioners Johnson and Jones; County Assistant Administrator Pam Madl; Chamber Staff, Beth Johnson and Jamie Blaylock; Paul Carter and June Roberts from Kansas University; Matt McCoy, Sam Campbell, Laverne Epp and Calvin Heck from Grubb and Ellis; and Marci Francisco, Kansas Senate was also present.  She said the Governor was impressed with the force that Lawrence showed in terms of bioscience being an area of interest. 

Commissioner Schauner suggested the viewing public take a look at the City’s website, regarding the summary on the budget.  Particularly, the idea they would take one of their budget sessions into the community to allow people the opportunity to be part of that process.  He said the City Commission was interested in more community input and that people be part of that process. 

Mayor Amyx said during the budget process the Commission lacked a level of public input in setting priorities.  He said any time there were suggestions of getting people involved in the budget process was helpful.  He thanked Interim City Manager, David Corliss, for bringing up the budget issue, to the public, through the City Commission’s agenda.                                          (5)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Conduct a public hearing and make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed demolition of the structure at 429 Indiana and that the proposed demolition includes/does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property.

Mayor Amyx called a public hearing for the structure at 429 Indiana.

Lynne Braddock-Zollner, Historic Administrator, said on March 16, 2006, the City Historic Resources Commission voted unanimously to deny a design review permit (DR-12-110-05), which was a demolition permit for 429 Indiana Street. 

The applicant, property owner of record, was appealing the determination of the Historic Resources Commission to the City Commission as proscribed by the City’s agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office to conduct State Law reviews on a local level.  She said the City had an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office that City staff would conduct those law reviews on a local level to provide public hearings and public input by people who were familiar with those properties and the situation. 

She said according to that agreement, a determination by the Historic Resources Commission was that: “a project will encroach upon, damage, or destroy a listed historic property or its environs and if the appropriate governmental entity subsequently makes the findings required under K.S.A. 75-2724.”

She said some of the key factors that were important to the Historic Resources Commission in denying the demolition were based on the lack of structural analysis and some type of cost estimate for rehabilitation versus new construction and then a proposed replacement plan. The guidelines were very specific that demolition was never encouraged and the staff report indicated those reasons why demolition was not encouraged.  She said the standards pointed out that if a structure was removed there should be a replacement plan so an empty lot was not produced. 

Mayor Amyx said the City was caught in between two competing ordinances in that a replacement plan needed to be considered at the time the demolition was being addressed.  He asked if staff had not considered a resolution ordering the demolition of the property.

Zollner said correct.

Mayor Amyx said the City had proceeded with a resolution ordering the demolition of the property.  He asked if the City had placed their resolution in harms way because of the Historic Resource Commission’s interest in this issue.  He said the health and safety issue also needed to be addressed regarding that particular property.  He asked that Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, report on the safety of that structure before the public hearing.    

Commissioner Schauner said he assumed the property was zoned residential.

Zollner said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said the only allowable reuse of that property would be consistent with that zoning which would be another single-family residence.

Mayor Amyx said that single-family residence would need to go through the HRC.   

Zollner said yes.  In the past, the HRC had approved demolition permits without replacement structures when there was evidence in the form of the structural analysis that indicated that there was a public health and welfare safety concern, but in this case, without a replacement plan or a structural analysis, the HRC did not have proper information to approve the demolition permit. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if this property was an example of demolition by neglect.  He said in looking at staff’s memo, the cost of replacement was greater than the cost of the appraised value.  He asked if they had much choice in the matter even though they had two ordinances working in conflict with each other.

Zollner pointed out that portion of the memo was from Neighborhood Resources.  She did not have access to inside the structure, but the staff report even before Neighborhood Resources conducted a cost analysis indicated that structure was truly a demolition by neglect situation.  She said part of it was the natural aging of the structure, but a lot of it had been neglect of the structure. 

Commissioner Schauner said if the structure was demolished, that expense would be borne by the current owner.  If the Commission approved the demolition that process would begin with what next step.   

Zollner said if the City Commission chooses to overturn the HRC’s denial, then the HRC would need to give notification to the State Historic Preservation Office within five days and allow them a period to comment.  If the HRC did not make comment or if they understood why their recommendation was overturned, then at that point the demolition could proceed, but that demolition could not take place until the HRC was notified and they had responded.

Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, said staff had included an analysis on the rehab costs of the structure estimated at $80,000.  He said staff looked at the external structure, but not internally.  Based on their observations, the structure would need a new foundation, roof, new exterior walls, and basically the structure needed to be rebuilt.  He said staff did not enter the structure therefore, he did not know what the inside looked like, but just looking at the foundation and outside exterior walls, the structure would not support itself.

Mayor Amyx asked if the structure placed people in danger who were around that structure. 

Torres said the structure probably would not collapse under its own weight, but eventually it could unless repairs were made.  He said there were some safety concerns to the adjacent property owners.

Mayor Amyx said since staff had not been inside the structure, he asked if that analysis would be part of a normal structural analysis that would be taken to State Historic Preservation.

Zollner said yes.

Commissioner Hack asked if there had been any reports of people living in the house or living around the house.  She asked if the structure was boarded up or accessible.

Torres said that it was his understanding that the house was locked.  He said there were a few windows missing to where people could access the structure.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment. 

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx asked about the structural analysis and its importance.  He said he believed everything listed in the HRC report was this was a piece of property that was demolition by neglect.  He said many people were involved in trying to clear up this matter, but the City Commission was left with a situation where they had to decide whether or not that structure would be allowed to remain.  He asked how much information was needed for the State to make sure that this process could go through.  He asked if Torres’ staff needed to provide information on the structural safety of that building.      

Zollner said staff needed some type of structural analysis that looked at the foundation, structural membranes, the roofing structure, the wall structures, what was failing and what was still there.  She said they were not only looking at it from a structural analysis to prove that structure was unsound, but also how much of that structure was going to need to be replaced and Torres’ estimate did a good job of letting them know that even if they ordered repair of that structure, what was left of the historic structure might not be much.  She said the structural analysis needed to look at the structural factors and make some type of determination on whether or not the building was sound.  

Commissioner Rundle asked if the Commission needed that information before making a finding that there was no feasible and prudent alternative.

Zollner said that was her recommendation that they had that information available because that gave the City Commission a stronger case to overturn the HRC determination.  She said the HRC did not have that information available.  She said that if they could get that information, then that was a legitimate reason to overturn the HRC. 

Mayor Amyx said if it was Zollner’s recommendation to continue the public hearing until the analysis was made by Neighborhood Resources. 

Zollner said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said that was the most absurd thing he had heard during his three years on the Commission.  He said the building by every objective determination was: 1) not a contributing structure; 2) the structure was about to fall down; and 3) the structure had been an eyesore for years.  He said to spend $80,000 to repair this structure from a visual inspection, made no sense. 

Commissioner Rundle said this was just the sequence of the process and anyone who was in historic preservation would make sure the alternative was not viable. 

Zollner said the intent was that sometimes structures could look a lot worse than those structures were and sometimes those structures were structurally a lot worse than those structures might appear with a good coat of paint, but on the inside of the structure there were significant structural issues. 

Commissioner Schauner asked why this issue was on the City Commission’s agenda.

Zollner said it was her recommendation to bring this issue to the City Commission, but the Commission did not need that information to make that determination.  The applicant appealed the decision of the HRC along with the open case with Neighborhood Resources on the blight issue and that was the reason why this issue had been brought to the City Commission.

Commissioner Highberger asked how this situation compared with the situation of a barn in East Lawrence where the City required a lot of effort on the property owner to save the structure. He said he thought the Commission did not have enough information.  He said in reading the staff report there was some historic value to the property.    

Zollner said that there was some historic value to the property.  She said the barn in East Lawrence was in a historic district and staff looked at specific vanishing building type that was significant to the character of the neighborhood.  She said the key issue for this structure was if there were historic qualities left and was it significant.  She said the structure had not been listed and was an environs issue.  The key factor was not to look at the structure itself, but the harm or impact the structure had on the two listed properties.

Mayor Amyx said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner, but if staff needed this information so this item did not return to the agenda, he thought it was appropriate.  He said without the information going to the State, he thought this issue would be back before the City Commission and the Commission would then need to figure out a way to rehab and find the money for those improvements to the structure.  He said he did not believe a banker would loan money on this house to rehab. 

Commissioner Hack asked the Mayor to clarify where this issue was going and what needed to be done to proceed.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission needed to continue this public hearing until such time staff did that structural analysis and bring back that information so the City Commission could make a determination that there was no feasible and prudent alternative other than demolition recommended to the State.

Commissioner Hack asked if this issue needed to go back to the HRC with that information.

Mayor Amyx said absolutely not. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what if staff did that structural analysis and it came back showing the structure was sound.  He wanted to know who was going to spend $80,000 when the memo from staff indicated that even if staff did a lot of sweat equity, a lot of work needed to be done by an outside contractor.     

Commissioner Rundle said the memo specified those types of things that someone would look at when looking at feasible and prudent alternatives.  He said that structure would probably fail.  

Commissioner Schauner asked if the structure failed with what they knew now or failed if it came back with a structural failure. 

Commissioner Rundle said Commissioner Schauner had asked about the structure being sound.  He said there were other criteria that were mentioned.

Zollner said if there were feasible or prudent alternatives at that time, the City Commission could make that determination.  She said the structural report would indicate whether or not there were feasible or prudent alternatives.  The report would also help the City Commission make a decision.

Mayor Amyx said without the structural analysis information from Neighborhood Resources would this issue come back to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial or a way to cover the City from the State.  He said based on Torres’ recommendation he could go ahead and do what needed to be done.

Zollner said in her professional opinion she did not think the State would challenge the City Commission’s decision.  She said typically, the State would send a letter accepting the decision and allowing the project to move forward.

Mayor Amyx asked if the replacement plan needed to go through HRC.

Zollner said yes.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to place this issue in the context of the general effort for preservation.  It could be a possibility the State might want to save the structure and the State might come back and indicate that step was not required.  He said by going through this process, it would help establish that process and it would not take a lot of time or involve a lot of expense to get that evaluation.  He said sometimes it could be found that there were no feasible or prudent alternatives.  If that evaluation came back with a finding that there were a number of structurally sound elements, it still could be a high priced tag along with the other items in the staff report that lead them to a conclusion that it was not feasible or prudent.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not have an interest in sending a message to people that they could demolish properties of historic value through neglect. 

He said if they went one more step and delayed this issue further, someone would incur additional expense for that structural analysis and when they came back with more information, that information would not mean that it would cost less to repair.  He said he agreed with the philosophical statement of Commissioner Rundle, but his common sense meter told him that when looking at the structure, they had lost this battle.  He understood that it was not a contributing structure.  This issue was only in front of the HRC because it happened to be in the environs of a historic district.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission had two choices which were to continue the public hearing or close the public hearing and proceed.

Commissioner Rundle asked if this was an expensive undertaking to go through the last step.

Torres said that if the law required a structural engineer to perform the analysis, staff would need to hire someone for that analysis.  Otherwise, staff could make an evaluation and have a report to the City Commission next week.  He said staff could perform that analysis quickly because they had a database of information from previous rehabs that had been done.  He said what they did on this particular case was made some assumptions because they could not get into the house.  He said the hard part about this issue was that if it was a rehab situation, staff would try to save as much of the structure as they could. 

He said he would not be surprised that once staff was inside the structure that staff would find something different than what the outside looked like.  He said the structure was not weatherproof and he believed water might have gotten inside the structure.  He said staff’s estimate was probably accurate.  He said he did not think staff would come back with anything that would change that estimate significantly.  He said staff would be glad to make that evaluation.

Mayor Amyx suggested that the Commission consider whether to continue the public hearing.   

Commissioner Highberger said if the City Commission was serious about historic preservation, then he thought it would be irresponsible for the Commission to issue a demolition without someone having been inside the structure.  He said he preferred to recess the public hearing, direct staff to analyze the interior of that building, and come back with a report to the City Commission.

Mayor Amyx said if the law required that a structural engineer had to be hired and if for some reason staff could not enter that piece of property, he wanted this item back on the agenda immediately to only address the demolition portion of this issue.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to continue to the public hearing until such time as Neighborhood Resources staff performs a structural analysis.  Aye:  Amyx, Highberger, and Rundle.  Nay: Hack and Schauner.  Motion carried.                                     (6)

Consider a proposal for the sale of the Old Fire Station Number 2/Fire Station Number 5 at 1839 Massachusetts Street

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said the City Commission authorized the distribution of a Request for Proposals for the possible reuse of the fire/medical facility, located at 1839 Massachusetts Street.  He said with the completion of Fire Station No. 5 and the movement of a number of administrative and operational staff to that location, that facility would no longer be used for the operations of the Fire/Medical Department. 

The City received one proposal, but since that time, they had received 3 additional proposals that had come in after the deadline for the Request for Proposals.  He said it was his recommendation that if the City Commission was going to entertain proposals outside of that deadline and timeframe, then the City Commission reopen and restart the Request for Proposal process because he was sure that somebody had turned someone away because the deadline had passed.  He said there might be someone else out there who would like to get their name or idea in the hopper as well.  He said the agenda on the City’s website, included those three additional proposals that had been received.  He said he had additional staff information as well.

Mayor Amyx asked if staff had investigated all possible public uses of that facility.  Someone had offered to buy the facility for $140,000, but it seemed that building was worth more and that space could not be replaced for that amount of money.  He said staff constantly discussed the issue of space needs and he did not want to make that decision to proceed with selling that property and turn around and buy something back to replace it that was of identical need.

Corliss said staff was interested in exploring additional space options for a number of City uses.  He said he was looking at Fire Station Number 1 for additional office space as those administrative offices were vacated as well as other facilities in the downtown area.  He had discussions with the owner for the remainder of the Riverfront Mall for possible acquisition of that space. 

He said one of the challenges of the fire station on Massachusetts Street was limited parking.  The parking for the existing staff was a one way alley that went east and west where the vehicles could park back behind this station.  Sometimes staff used the Dairy Queen lot during some of their transition, but they obviously did not own that.  He said for a larger scale public use where they would invite the public for a lot of office uses was not conducive.  The building was centrally located within the community, in a commercial zoned district so there was some promise for that site, but the reuse for that building as City office purposes was limited.  He said there had been some discussion about using the facility as an education center or a museum where there might be separate transportation to get to that site or use for storage might also be a possibility as well.  He said as far as general office needs, he did not see strong use, but for some of the other public uses, it might be appropriate.  He said there was certainly no obligation on the City’s part to transfer the property at this time.  He said staff could make sure the property was secure and use the facility for the appropriate storage needs that they might have at this time and perhaps pursue some of the options that had been discussed for public use and retain it until they get that superior use that they could all say was the right decision if that was the Commission’s decision on the public uses. 

Corliss said the City Commission should provide some direction or timeframe for those private individuals who were interested in the property.  It would be helpful to instruct those individuals because they had spent quite a bit of time on their proposal.  He said the City Commission was under no obligation to move the property at this time and staff was there to assist the Commission, not only with the decision making, but further additional inquiry, if the City Commission wanted staff to pursue the options on the museum education center, additional staff use, or any other uses.  He said the facility was not conducive for a lot of public traffic, but it might be conducive for other uses.

Mayor Amyx said there were three options that could be considered: 1) address the proposal that met the deadline of the RFP; 2) re-advertise the RFP for additional submissions; or, 3) not do anything at this time. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Matt Henderson, Lawrence, said he submitted a proposal for the reuse of the fire station.  He said he moved to Lawrence from Hays, Kansas in 1994 where he attended the University of Kansas.  He graduated in 1998 with degrees in English and Philosophy and to get through school he worked at the Lawrence Paper Company and continued on with that company several years after graduation. 

He was presented with a unique opportunity in 2001 to go into hotel remodeling work.  He said his first position was on a project in the Bahamas, living and working on a resort for four months, and deciding between the industrial manufacturing floor and the blue seas of the Bahamas, it was an easy decision for him to make.  He said for two years of his life, he put his possessions into storage and he traveled the country and beyond and did remodeling and renovation work to commercial properties.  He said after two years of traveling, he wanted to come back to Lawrence because he considered Lawrence to be his home.  He teamed up with some friends who were buying residential properties that might have been torn down and they renovated those homes.  He did that type of work for a little less than a year when he went into sales.  He had been in sales for three years and currently served as a sales manager for Prosoco.  All three of his years of sales were in the construction related field.  Prosoco was a company that leads the industry of historic preservation and the protection of architectural properties, often times historical.  He said they have been involved in properties such as the U.S. Capitol Building, the Empire State Building, the Douglas County Courthouse, not only in providing the products that were used to clean and protect the architectural surfaces, but also in diagnostic analysis. 

He said he wanted to use the station as a residential structure for his own use.  He was not going to reiterate his entire proposal, but he wanted to run down the highlights and key points as to why he thought a residential property was the best possible use for the Fire Station.

First of all, the parking limitations restricted a lot of uses of this property.  There was enough room in the back of the building for about three spaces without blocking anyone in.  He did not think parking should be allowed in front of the building at all as it detracted from the historical character of the building and the overall character as a fire station.  He said turning the property into a residence also required very little alteration to the property as it currently existed because it had a living space on the second floor; the conversion would only take cosmetic changes, nothing structural.  He believed the unique character of the building, along with the character and vibrancy of Lawrence would help to protect the economic viability of the property.  He said he wanted to be clear that his intent was not to buy this property, make improvements, and turn around and sell it for a profit.  He said he was interested in buying this property because it could be his dream home and because of that economic viability, he thought the beauty and the character of that building could be maintained for the community without further public cost. 

He said in addition to the promises that he has made in his proposal, he would also like to suggest that they put a façade easement for the building that would ensure that any successive owner who came into possession of the building would be bound to certain requirements when it came to the preservation of the façade.  He said that would include the roofline, the decorative eaves, the decorative brick, natural cut limestone, as well as the commercial size bay openings. 

He said there were currently a number of preservation needs that the building had right now.  On the façade, and only on the façade, they had used “rake joints”.  On a rake mortar joint, rather than slogging the joint flush with the brick, they actually used a tool to create a recession in the mortar joint.  He said this was for decorative purposes, however, at the base of the building and the lower portions, a lot of those mortar joints were completely gone.  He said even the ones that were not gone had receded greatly which was probably due to the use of deicing salts over the years and those need to be repaired as they would allow for water intrusion if they were left alone. 

He said other preservation needs were the decorative eaves needed to be scraped, primed, and repainted, and also the spire on the north side of the façade was completely missing.  He said he met with the owner of Architectural Cast Stone out of Wichita and the owner assured him that if he could take the spire that was remaining on the other side off, he could create a mold that would replicate that spire. 

He said aside from the façade, there were other masonry needs.  The mortar joints were failing; there was one brick where the face of it had spalled away, which might have occurred from water intrusion, and as the mortar joints eroded, that would only increase.

He presented a picture with the addition that was created in the 1950’s joined the original wall.  Once again, the mortar joint was failing and in need of repair.  Henderson suggested that it be cut out and replaced with a soft joint as that would provide greater protection against water intrusion. 

He said he put together a hypothetical timeline for preservation work which assumed that they could close on the property July 1^st if the Commission decided to sell the property.  On July 1^st, he would make immediate improvement efforts to the second floor, the living space, just so he could get some of the major things done before he moved in.  He said that included painting and putting down hardwood floors.  By September 1, 2006, he would paint the eaves and bay openings and wherever surfaces had white paint, he would repaint them.  By August 1, 2007, he promised to have the entire masonry repaired around the façade and rest of the building and to have a replacement for the missing spire on the north side of the façade.  He said by the fall of 2007, he would like to apply water repellant to the building that would extend the life of the masonry and mortar joint.  He said that it was not just a special treatment, but a treatment that had a silica additive that would actually penetrate the masonry and mortar joints and re-strengthen it and bind it all together.  He said that if one would run their finger or thumb across one of the mortar joints, especially on the façade, sand would come loose and fall out of the mortar joint. 

He said concerning long term goals, he was seeking to find an adaptive reuse for the ground level.  He said most likely, he wanted to keep the entire property as a residential property.  He said he was not completely opposed to commercial ideas and commercial uses for the property, but in order for those to be feasible, he would have to buy property immediately north or south of the property to make that happen.  He said down the road he would like to replace the existing garage doors with either replica of the original doors or commercial windows and doors that were sensitive to the historical character.  He said if he was truly going to create a second living space in the bay area, putting in functioning replicas of the original doors was probably not a feasible idea from an energy cost stand point.  He said he promised to maintain the strength and good repair of all of the original masonry. 

He said regarding the zoning, the property was currently zoned C-5, but the new development code would take effect on July 1^st  and the C-5 zoning would become GPI, General Public and Institutional Use District, which allowed residential use.  Therefore, there would be no conflict and it did not allow retail. 

He said he was already pre-qualified for a commercial loan and it seemed to be his only option for financing this property because the Fannie May and Freddie Mac, who ultimately financed all mortgage loans, required that the property look like a house, and this facility would never look like a house, it would always look like a fire station as long as he was the owner.  In addition, it was difficult for an appraiser to find a comparable property to actually make an appraisal value.  He said he would prefer that it would be reclassified as a residential property, but if they wanted to leave it under a commercial status, that was okay as long as the City was  willing to issue him an occupancy permit or special use permit that would allow him to live in the building. 

He said he realized that other proposals had come in, but it was his hope that the City Commission would consider his proposal alone.  He said he had the dates and titles of five Lawrence Journal World articles that were published before the proposal deadline that indicated no uncertainty as to the future use of the property and one of the articles was specifically dedicated to the open house that was conducted at that building and stated that the Commission were calling for ideas from the public. 

Greg Thomas, Lawrence, Chair of the Design Department in the School of Fine Arts, said he had come to love Lawrence after 40 years of being in Los Angeles and that facility got his attention the day he moved to Lawrence.  He said he missed the RFP request, and there was no good reason why he did.  He said the proposals the Commission would be seeing were based on the applicants wanting to live at that location and his was no different, other than he planned on doing things differently. 

He said his background was in design and architecture and a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation as well as the International Interior Design Association and the Society for Environmental Graphics.  He also owned a consulting business and traveled to various cities across the country to discuss restoration issues, most recently Astoria, Oregon, and in North Carolina.

He said he had documents from the City stating that the City place a conservation easement on the façade of the building to ensure that historic preservation of this architectural feature as a community asset.  He said there was a comment made earlier that the people of Lawrence should enjoy the use of this property.  He said his proposal would be an opportunity to look into a public venue for the efforts of firefighting history of the City on this property.  He said the front driveway had a lot of cement that could be utilized better.  A greenscape could be incorporated in that area and a number of different uses that would not deter from the architectural component of the building.  He said his interest in this property would be to live in that structure, but also make it a part of Lawrence history.

Commissioner Highberger asked staff if Henderson was correct about the zoning status of the property. 

Stogsdill said yes and staff confirmed the single family use.

Commissioner Highberger asked if office uses were allowed.

Stogsdill said yes.  A GPI district was generally the district for public properties such as schools and public facility offices.

Commissioner Highberger asked if it would be appropriate, in Stogsdill’s professional judgment, to change that zoning if it was no longer a public use.

Stogsdill said that area was slated to be rezoned to GPI.  If the City was no longer the property owner the new property owner could certainly propose a use that might be more compatible to their needs.   

Commissioner Schauner said he and Commissioner Rundle genuinely did agree on historic preservation.  Clearly this building was an icon in the community.  He said he appreciated the time and effort Henderson put into the proposal and suspected that he would be a fabulous steward for this property.  He said having said that, his interest in selling this property had waned significantly over the past months as they toured the building and talked to staff and other people about it.  He recognized that it was a difficult facility for adaptive reuse, but at least at this moment, he would prefer to reject the one timely proposal and not entertain any further proposals until such time as they had a better sense whether there was a public use for the facility.  He said he did not have a particular use in mind.

He said Architect Treanor did an adaptive reuse of fire station in Topeka, but he did not think Treanor bought the structure, but simply had a long term lease arrangement.  He said ultimately, that might be something they end up doing with this building, but he preferred to graciously reject Henderson’s offer and pull back and see other options for future use such as the Bleeding Kansas.  He said the cost of maintaining that building was not significant and he preferred not realizing the facility to the public domain.

Commissioner Rundle said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner.  He said he would like to look at a public use until they had exhausted those possibilities before they moved to liquidate the property.   

Commissioner Highberger said he was confused about requesting an RFP if they were not going to consider other uses.  He said the facility was too small for staff office uses.  He said it was his preference to move forward with Henderson’s proposal provided they could arrive at a fair market value. 

Commissioner Hack said this was an issue where she saw very strongly, both sides.  She said she agreed with Commissioner Schauner and not wanting this facility to leave the public domain.  She also believed there were some issues in terms of the practicality of keeping the facility.  She said she thought the museum idea was awesome, but she did not know where people would park which was a concern. 

She said Henderson had a very good proposal and there was no doubt in her mind that Henderson would preserve that building in honor of those people who had served this community as fire fighters.  She said she liked the idea in terms of having guarantees written into a contract as way to protect that structure. 

She agreed with Commissioner Highberger in that Henderson followed the RFP process and provided what the City Commission had asked for.

Commissioner Rundle said he fully expected former Chief McSwain to make a proposal for a Fire Museum.  McSwain’s was no longer living in the City and McSwain felt he could not commit to coming back to Lawrence every day.  He said they always had the option of rejecting bids and proposals that came forward if the Commission deemed those proposals were not appropriate.  He said he thought they needed to look at historic tourism and this was a good resource that the City owned.  He thought it would be much more expensive to find a new place and building a new building for those kinds of things.  He said he did not think it was unfair to reject that proposal because it was a great proposal.  He said the Commission could come back to this proposal if they could not find a feasible proposal for public use.

Commissioner Hack said the City Commission had rejected a whole slew of RFP’s because the Commission did not feel those proposals were right for the building.  She said her comment about fairness was the premise that was set out in the RFP in that the Commission would be looking for other uses for the building other than the City owning the building.   She said that was the genesis of that comment.

Commissioner Schauner read a provision from the RFP which stated: “The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to negotiate terms and conditions with applicants.  The City will consider a sale or lease of the facility as the City determines appropriate.”  He thought people did have fair notice the City might or might not sell or lease that structure.  He said the deadline for the RFP was February 17^th, 2006.  He said if the City Commission did decide to move the property, he would not be interested in consider everything that came in after that proposal.  He said that would be fundamental fairness to live with the deadline the Commission gave, assuming they found something by that date that they liked.  He thought there was fair notice to people that the Commission might reject any or all proposals.

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss the amount offered by Henderson. 

Henderson said $128,500.

Mayor Amyx said he did not believe the RFP should be extended to receive other proposals.  He thought there was adequate time that was given for people to respond to this RFP.  He asked that Henderson’s offer be the only one that they considered, but only after staff looked to see if the City had any need for this facility.  He said the City could not replace that building for $129,000.  He could not support the selling of the building to an individual.  He asked how the City Commission could leave Henderson’s proposal open to consider if a City use could not be found for that property.

Corliss said a three month time frame could be given and then Henderson’s proposal could be placed back on the agenda for consideration.  He said staff would notify Henderson at that time and review of the issues would be back on and if Henderson wanted to proceed with his proposal, the Commission could authorize staff to draft a contract for sale and authorize the execution.

Mayor Amyx asked if that time period was adequate time for Corliss and staff to see what type of needs the City might have.

            Corliss said staff had a number of other priorities, but three months was a fair time.  He said if the City Commission made this issue a priority, then he would make it a priority. 

Commissioner Schauner said he thought six months was more reasonable. 

Corliss said retired Chief McSwain was still interested in that public education opportunity at that location, but McSwain could not make it a daily commitment  and maybe others could come forward and assist him in that possibility. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to request that this item be placed back on the Commission’s agenda in 6 months to allow staff time to consider possible public uses and noting that the RFP would not be extended or reissued and Henderson’s proposal would be the only RFP proposal considered.  Motion carried unanimously.                                             (7)

Receive staff report on the status of contractor licensing ordinance for electrical, plumbing, and mechanical trades.

Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, said she was present to provide a status report on an ordinance for the licensing regulations to add the Trade Contractors to Chapter 5 Article 12 of the City Code.  In March of 2005, the City Commission adopted regulations that called for uniform regulations for building and residential contractors and it provided for uniform licensing fees and mandatory continuing education courses. 

She said originally, the draft ordinance had those trades included, but after public comment the City Commission requested those sections be removed from the ordinance and the Trade Boards had an opportunity to review and comment.  She said late last fall, the boards completed their review.  Since that time, the Legal Department had been working on preparing an ordinance for the Commission to review.  She said the ordinance was very lengthy because staff had to go through several sections of Chapter 5 to make sure the new provisions did not conflict with any of the existing provisions.  She said that during the review, staff took an opportunity to clean up the code and make corrections so the code would reflect current practices and to correct some errors that were in the code.  She said their staff memorandum provided a brief summary of what each of the amendments involved. 

She said the Electrical and Mechanical Boards had made a recommendation that was not reflected in the draft ordinance.  The recommendation was that each of the trade’s boards would have a contractor that was appointed to the Contractor Licensing Board.  That licensing board was activated whenever there was an appeal involving one of the contractor’s licenses.  She said the Mechanical and Electrical Board’s had recommended that the contractor that was appointed to the Contractor Licensing Board be an existing member of the Electrical or Mechanical Board.  She said one of the Electrical Board members stated the reason for that recommendation was they felt one of their members licenses was at stake.  They wanted someone on that board who was very knowledgeable about their particular code.  She said she did not include that recommendation in this ordinance only because she received that information late and did not want to make a hasty amendment because she thought it would take some special language because of the terms on the two boards.  She said on the Mechanical and Electrical Boards, those terms are for three years and the Contractor Licensing Board had different term lengths.  She wanted to make sure if the Commission wanted to proceed, that staff was careful to make sure that if they had to be a member of both boards, that staff make it written so that could be achieved and there was no lapse and they were not in violation of a code they had passed. 

She said the Plumbing Board did not make this recommendation, but she thought it made sense to do this for all of the boards.  She said they do have a Building Code Board and perhaps that would be something the Building Code would also want to review and to her knowledge those boards had not commented on that particular recommendation. 

She said she would be meeting with the Mechanical and Plumbing Boards later this month and plan to go over this draft ordinance to make sure those boards were comfortable with the provisions and be available to answer any questions.  She said this issue would be placed on a May agenda for the Commission to adopt and if the Commission did adopt the ordinance, staff recommended a July 1 effective date as a starting point.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the report. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                    (8)

Commissioner Highberger said the Commission also needed to provide some direction from the membership of the Contractor’s Ordinance Board (COB).  He said he did not see a problem with honoring the requests from those boards.  He said it made sense to appoint one of their representatives to the Contractor’s Licensing Board.

Commissioner Rundle suggested that those terms be concurrent with the term of the Chair.  He said it was important to have somebody from the boards, but it was important to represent those trade boards.  He said when this was written they were not going to be part of the boards so it did not have anybody on it and clearly to have the expertise of the trade effective would be appropriate. 

Corliss said he anticipated that this issue would come back on a consent agenda and the Commission would receive comments from the different boards so that the Commission knew that those boards had an understanding on how the Commission was proceeding. 

Receive staff report from staff regarding follow-up activities subsequent to March 31, 2006 Sewer Summit.

Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.  She said the plan was to put in to place six projects that were recommended.  She said three of those were optimization plans for pump stations and three were acceleration plans.  She said this plan was recommended by staff and would be an opportunity to increase capacity and find solutions for the sewer issues that existed. 

Mayor Amyx asked Van Saun to review each recommendation that was in the staff report. 

Van Saun said the first optimization project was two pump stations that served the Baldwin Creek Area.  She said those two pump stations would be increased in capacity to allow for additional development.  The pipe project that was included was one project that was on the master plan that would be accelerated in the tank area to allow for the pump stations that were going to be optimized to flow to that area and have capacity.  The Wastewater Master Plan also included a Baldwin Creek Pump Station and it would be constructed right away and concurrently.  She said there would be an acceleration of the Wakarusa Plant.

Mayor Highberger asked if the timing of the Yankee Tank Pipeline would be able to handle increased flows from the optimized pump stations. 

Van Saun said yes.  It would be a concurrent project, design build not only that project, but a project that was recommended for the Baldwin Creek Pump Station to the north.  She said design build allowed the opportunity to expedite the traditional design build process and it would be concurrent to the two pump station projects that were recommended for 44 and 45 and would need to be concurrent.

Commissioner Highberger said the completion date was going to be significantly later.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said the absorption rate needed to be kept in mind and in that area, not all the construction was going to be built at once.  He said staff knew a number of additional public improvements were required for the area north of 6^th Street, Queens Road, Stoneridge, Overland, and George Williams Way.  While those public improvements were being put into place, it would eventually allow for the development in that area to proceed.  He said those improvements would also be constructed and staff felt comfortable that the necessary public improvements would be in place at the same time.

Van Saun said the Yankee Tank Pipe Project would also have absorption in the Yankee Tank Creek, which was not completely realized.  She said that would be taking place concurrently as well.   That was not a completed build out set basin at this time.

Mayor Amyx said the memo from Van Saun indicted the cost of Pump Station No. 45 would not be borne by the City.  He said he assumed the report that would be completed in the next month would reflect those improvements and any type of cost associated and a breakdown of those costs.     

Van Saun said the first draft of the update would be in May.  She said there would be opportunity for public comment and public review before the report was finalized the first part of June.  She said she anticipated that those projects would be part of that plan and it be more flushed out in terms of costs.  She said staff anticipated the RFP process could be started on a couple of those projects and ordering pumps on the optimization of the pump station projects before the Commission would see the drafted plan, if that was the Commission’s recommendation.  She said the acceleration of those projects and optimization of the pump stations would allow for that capacity and would see some of the details as to the costs that would be in the update report next month. 

She said design build also allowed someone to quickly see actual costs of projects and two of the projects were significant.  The pipeline and the Baldwin Creek Pump Station Project had those firm costs after they select a team. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about the last line of Optimization of Pump Station 44, which read: “Opportunities to share these costs with development benefiting from this improvement will be explored.”  He asked what that statement meant.

Van Saun said they needed to see who would be served in addition to who was currently in the Baldwin Creek No. 2 Benefit District.  She said those details had not been worked through completely. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be benefit district participation in those costs.

Van Saun said possibly.

Corliss said there were some properties that had not been in benefit districts that if those properties were going to be sewered to Pump Station 44, that they would participate in those costs. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if Pump Station No. 45’s increased capacity would be a benefit district cost.

Corliss said it would be either a benefit district cost or those property owners would pay for those improvements.  He said if they were going to improve the improvements then they needed to make sure that whatever was put in would still be appropriate for the system, but they simply might provide cash. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if Pump Station No. 18 would serve the Bauer Farms Project.

Van Saun said that pump station could serve Bauer Farms.  She said they had not done a lot of extensive study on that particular pump station as to how it might be optimized as much as they had done on the other two, Pump Station No. 44 and 45. 

Commissioner Schauner said he thought he remembered from the sewer summit that there was some concern about the collection transmission system from Pump Station No. 18 would flow through an already built environment.  He asked if increasing the capacity of that station required any downstream retooling in the ground system.

Van Saun said that pump station currently went to Pump Station No. 44, but that station at one time went south through one of the Wakarusa River sub-basins and that was the built environment that she thought Commissioner Schauner was referring to. 

Mayor Amyx asked if it was Van Saun’s recommendation to continue to pump that to Pump Station No. 44.  He said if they were looking at going south because of the increased cost of the infrastructure that was already in place. 

Van Saun said not going south was correct.  She said potentially not going to Pump Station No. 44 ultimately, it should go to the new Baldwin Creek Pump Station. 

Mayor Amyx said that the reason Pump Station No 18 was not being taken to the south was because of the increased cost for the new infrastructure that Commissioner Schauner had referred to and the cost involved.

Van Saun said correct.

Commissioner Schauner said the acceleration of the Wakarusa Treatment Facility was approximately 3 months ahead of schedule.  He asked what plans were being developed to increase that acceleration to a full year so that they might have that on-line a year ahead of the proposed time table.

Corliss said staff was looking at a number of options and staff did not know if it was feasible or not, but staff was going to look at a number of different options in consultation with not only Black & Veatch, but others to see if there were some opportunities to reduce that timeframe.  He said staff had assembled a good site review team to move on that expeditiously, but staff wanted to make sure it was thorough and staff would also be concurrently looking at the basis of design report and how to move that project along and looking at delivery system options as far as getting the facility in place.

Commissioner Schauner said if they did those improvements, he asked if staff would be able to issue building permits for all of those properties which had been platted and were simply waiting to see if the sewer conditions had been met, which had been a basis for this discussion.  Also, if they did those improvements, he asked if they were going to cause any problems in the rest of the system.  If they did those improvements, he asked if they were going to push the problem into another part of the collection, transmission or treatment system. 

Corliss said he would address the latter question first.  He said that was one of the clearer goals which was staff would not push the problem anywhere else.  Staff was not going to reduce the quality of service that they provided in the community.  He said they were building improvements to the south and north of the area.  They were looking at ways to challenge themselves to get the water reclamation facility up and operational sooner without adding costs, but adding a little additional burden on this to look for opportunities to improve it.  They were not in any way going to reduce the level of service they provided to the community. 

He said it was staff’s understanding that there was one property now that had a development condition in that they must meet to show the utility department that they could have at wastewater capacity.  He said if the City Commission authorized those improvements to proceed, staff would be able to have this in time for them to be able to build. He thought staff could go ahead and authorize building permits at least on that one site.  He said as the other sites came on line that were going to be served by Pump Stations No. 44 and 45, staff anticipated within a couple weeks, staff would have contracts to optimize those pump stations and those would be at their full capacity and have people in that area build to their full capacity also knowing that the downstream improvements would be underway in the design and planning of a building and also the Baldwin Creek Pump Station as well.  He said staff had a solid comfort level with their ability to build as the community builds its private development if staff followed that master plan of improvements.  It would be a challenge for staff.  He said in his staffing memo there was a request for them to staff up so they could handle those types of additional requirements, but also the additional analysis that they were also expecting in other areas as well.  He said staff understood the challenge and staff would meet it. 

Mayor Amyx said that Commissioner Schauner brought up a very good point.  He said one of his main concerns had always been if they would create problems for existing home owners and just transfer the problem.  As much as he supported the construction industry and the importance that it had on not only the economy of Lawrence, but to the families that he knew personally, he said he did not sense staff might be making a recommendation that would create a problem in the future. 

He said he understood that construction meant a lot to this community and the amount of work that people do and the amount of taxes that were paid and the amount of paychecks that were made.  He thanked staff for the amount of work that had been done on this issue to make sure those items that needed to be corrected were corrected immediately.  He said that they needed to make sure there was a plan in place that could take care of the improvements that were necessary to allow developments to be built in a timely fashion.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the total costs were for all of those improvements.

Van Saun said the cost of the large pump station was unknown at this time because there was going to be some land acquisition issues.  She said another piece to that lack of information was a potential of phasing in a first phase that might be a 4 or 5 million gallon pump station that was then able to be increased in size to the ultimate capacity.  She said staff did not have that information yet.  She said she hoped some clearer picture on costs would be available in the update and recommendations from Black & Veatch.  She said it was difficult right now to put that total cost together.  She said staff did the best they could, based on the scope as they defined it.

Commissioner Hack asked if staff had asked Black & Veatch to speed the report up. 

Van Saun said the draft report coming out in May was their best effort.  She said Black & Veatch were still working on some of the specific details on the recommendations, but she was confident they would be able to meet that timeframe.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Phil Struble, LandPlan Engineering, said he echoed the Commission’s comments regarding staff’s efforts being outstanding.  He said his firm would stay on task and work through all the details.  A majority of the property owners in the projects that had been referenced were going to share a burden, if not all, the costs of those improvements.  He said he had yet to run into a single property owner that had said they were not on board with this project. 

He said from their standpoint, they were looking at this as South Lawrence Trafficway east in that they were taking care of this area.  There were small pockets of land that were referenced as not being in benefit districts, but they needed to rectify that issue and get those properties up to capacity.

Mayor Amyx said he believed staff’s recommendations should move forward and get those costs. 

Commissioner Hack echoed the Mayor’s comments in terms of thanking staff.  She said that it really did prove that when there were major stakeholders at the table and you ask them to look for solutions, that this City had a community of great minds and a community that could work together to find a way to solve those problems.  She said that they had her and the Mayor’s commitment to make sure this issue was progressing forward as well.  She concurred with Option A in the memorandum.

Commissioner Schauner further echoed the comments thanking staff for their hard work.  He said he wanted to make sure they had learned from this experience and they would not be conducting those types of meeting again.  He said his view of the challenge was as they continue to grow, how they would not duplicate this issue.   

Corliss said the Commission had seen some of that discussion already in the memorandum that he had provided on some possible staffing or resource changes and he thought that could respond to some better accountability and appropriate resources.  He agreed with Commissioner Schauner that they need to make sure they were not in this situation again.  He said staff needed to get their hands around all of the plans and it was not sufficient enough to get the plan and receive the plan.  He said he was not talking about the land use plans, but a number of resource type plans and have a more streamlined view of what they were going to do with those plans. 

He said they had a Wastewater Master Plan and staff was not adequately monitoring it in this one instance, but staff was doing a great job in a number of other things.  He said this situation completely overshadowed the great work staff was doing in so many other aspects.  He said staff had to find some mechanisms and he was committed toward spending some time to do that.  He did not think staff needed a consultant to tell staff how to write plans, but instead sit down as a management staff and present the City Commission with the assurance that staff was monitoring plans that were given to the City Commission and giving accurate timetables as to when staff was implementing those things.  He said the Commission needed that level of assurance that the Commission spent money well in planning this community.

Commissioner Schauner said the City had been involved in the business link where they tried to develop greater transparency, consistency and predictability.  Clearly, there was nothing more critical than the ability to continue to grow.  He said he was pleased to hear there was going to be some additional conversation of integration of plans.

Corliss said that thinking gets back to the infrastructure overview that had been discussed.  He said they had found out some missing links in their sewer master planning implementation and what the City Commission and community needed was confidence that staff had their hands around the other infrastructure, whether it was key infrastructure or things that were important, but did not rise to that crucial level.  He said his point was that all the structures needed a good plan.  He said staff was not trying to bite off more than they could chew, but trying to get their hands around their priorities.  He said that this was staff’s first priority, to show the Commission that staff could still follow the master plan, but they had to accelerate projects and City financing to recoup some of those costs. 

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to implement the plan as recommended in its entirety in a concurrent manner, as appropriate and upon receipt of the Northwest Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update, act upon the remaining recommendations included in that Update in order to provide the infrastructure necessary for future development and to direct staff to initiate the request for proposal (RFP) process for the following design/build projects for the YTC-2 Pipeline Project and the Baldwin Creek Pump Station/Force Main with Gravity Sewers in BC-1 and BC-2 Project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                   (9)

Receive Notice of Intent that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is intending to adopt an existing Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said when they had the study session regarding the South Lawrence Trafficway, it was indicated the Notice of Intent, (NOI) was about to be published in the Federal Register and that would advise the public of the intent of the Federal Highway Administration to adopt the existing Environmental Impact Statement on the South Lawrence Trafficway.  There was background familiar with what that document stated about the various different build and no-build options and what it stated about the 32^nd Street Alignment.  That publication had occurred and in the Metropolitan Planning Office they actually had a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement and that office was one of the places the public could view the document and prepare any types of comments.  He said comments would be accepted until May 31^st, 2006.  He said he knew that this was of interest to Commission and staff wanted to give the Commission time to decide whether or not they wanted to provide any comment as a City and also give direction and preparation to that comment so staff could send those comments before that deadline.

Commissioner Highberger asked the City Commission to go on record to oppose the 32^nd Street route.  He encouraged the Commission to reevaluate the Environmental Impact Statement and to take a close look at other feasible and prudent alternatives.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger’s comments.  He said what was troubling was that on one hand he thought the 32^nd Street Alignment did some good things for the City such as giving the City good mitigation expenses.  One of the things the Environmental Impact Study considered was the social impact and was concerned about the proximity of the 32^nd Street Alignment to the existing built environment in the City and the impact that proximity was going to have on existing neighborhoods.  He said he was in Kansas City on 61^st Street approximately 2 miles from Antioch from I-35 and the drone of traffic at 6:15 and 6:25 in the morning was significant.  He did not know how they valued the social impact of the 32^nd Street Alignment, but there were many people who lived near that 32^nd Street Alignment and many more people who would live near that location in the future who probably hoped that road went some place else.  He said he knew people were split on this issue, but he thought there was a significant social impact and feared had not been given significant consideration and that was not to denigrate the hard work of a whole lot of people over the past 20 years discussing this project, but he was concerned about the impact on the proximity to the built environment and the impact it would have on those people.

Commissioner Rundle said he would piggyback not just on the built environment, but the cultural importance of that area.  He said he did not think the State Archeologists did a very thorough job in documenting that type of information when this issue started.  He said people would like to be seen was a solution where no one felt like the loser and he thought that was possible. 

Commissioner Hack said she disagreed with the majority of the Commission.  She said there were issues on this road no matter where it was built.  She said the 32^nd Street route had been through heavy scrutiny and thought all parties spent a lot of time looking at this issue and it was determined by a fairly large group of people that this was the route that should be looked at.  She said she could not vote in support of the comment, but she knew she would lose.

Mayor Amyx said he agreed with Vice Mayor Hack.  He said he had been in support of the Trafficway since the mid 1980’s and had been involved with elections to get people to commit to public funding to help the process along.  The 32^nd Street alignment might be the best for him to comment on what the Federal Highway and Corp of Engineers had already done because they had held meetings and accepted comment on every part of this section of roadway as it went from US 59 East to some point, hopefully K-10.  He said he would not support responding to the Federal Highway Administration on the final environmental impact, but he understood the majority of the Commission supported it.  He said the South Lawrence Trafficway was very important and could be incorporated.  He said former Mayor Highberger started a process in looking at problems of traffic movement from outside the county that would come into the county and he still believed this was an important part of traffic movement. 

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with the latter part of Mayor Amyx’s comment.  He said the recent announcement by the Kansas Turnpike Authority concerning the building of a Tonganoxie exit had influence on this community and where that road hooked into K-10 would make a huge difference to the City’s ability to build out the eastern part of the City.  He said he did not think there was anything that had more long term importance than the City’s ability to provide a proper road network.  He said he would like to focus on how they could move forward in moving an agenda to build a road network that would serve the community, whether it was the South Lawrence Trafficway on 32^nd Street or any other way.  The Commission needed to move that agenda in a way that actually placed the Commission in an active position instead of a reactive position.  He said he thought the Commission would be doing a disservice to the community if they did not begin to have serious dialogue with various stakeholders on that question.

Mayor Amyx asked if a statement was the type of action needed by the City Commission.

Corliss said he thought the Commission should have someone in the majority along with himself work with staff and others to formulate the appropriate draft letter that could come back and be voted on by the Commission or other alternatives.  He said the communication needed to be in writing and reflect the majority rule of the Commission and staff would help in any way they could.

Mayor Amyx asked if any City Commissioner would like to work with staff to draft a letter commenting on the Impact Statement of the South Lawrence Trafficway.

Commissioner Highberger said he would work with staff to draft a letter. 

Mayor Amyx asked if staff would place those comments back on the agenda in the next few weeks.

            Corliss said he and Commissioner Highberger would get together and work on a draft letter and the Commission would see the results of that work.                                               (10)

PUBLIC COMMENT:           

Dennis Brown said that he understood Commissioner Schauner’s frustration with 429 Indiana, but his comment to Historic Resources Administrator, Lynne Zollner, startled him.  He said he thought Commissioner Schauner owed an apology to Zollner because what she was saying was if you were charged with finding no feasible and prudent alternative to demolishing property, someone might want to go inside.  He asked how Neighborhood Resources could come up with an accurate estimate of rehabilitation costs without going inside.  He said he would not buy a house without going inside it and he would not tear one down either.  Neighborhood Resources should go inside 429 Indiana and if they had done so before tonight, this whole matter would be over right now.  He said to know that and confront Zollner for doing her job was unfortunate. 

He said he was a Lawrence Preservation Alliance (LPA) Board Member for 6 years and for over a year, a liaison to the Historic Resources Commission and had attended all of their meetings.  He said he was really impressed with the job Zollner did as a Historic Resources Administrator because she was thorough and did a great job with the HRC.  He said he knew every member of the HRC past and present felt very strongly about Zollner’s work.  He said he had noticed that in dealing with all types of members of the public, Zollner strived to educate about preservation and puts a smile and positive face to all of her public interactions and to him was something that should be valued in a city staff person. 

He said he thought like many members of staff Zollner was overworked and underappreciated and maybe there was not much they could do about the overworked part, but to be underappreciated was unfortunate.  He said he really did not think Commissioner Schauner meant that, but when he heard Commissioner Schauner’s comment that was what he heard. He said he was a person who liked to pat people on the back when they deserved it and he liked people to get along. 

He said the current Commission, in his opinion, taken as a unit, was one of the best Commissions he had seen in his 30 years in Lawrence, Kansas.  He said in a like manner, he hoped Commissioner Schauner would contact Zollner and tell her that he appreciated the job she did for the City. 

Mayor Amyx said that staff would enter the house, which was recommended by the City Commission.  He said he thought Commissioner Schauner’s comment was a reflection of this whole issue and he did not think it was an attack on anybody.  He said he believed Commissioner Schauner’s comments were appropriate because he was ready to make those same comments.  He said they did pat staff on the back every chance they could get and would continue to do so.  He said he appreciated someone like Brown coming down and being involved in projects because he knew the list was endless. 

Brown said he really understood the frustration with this project and Zollner was a thorough person and wanted the process followed through.  He felt like their frustration put Zollner on the spot.  He thought maybe Neighborhood Resources could be put on the spot, but those direct comments were coming right to Zollner and he felt someone needed to have her back.

Commissioner Schauner said that he was always pleased when people actually watch the City Commission meeting, whether they liked what happened or not, and he appreciated Brown coming down. 

He said he would visit with Zollner because it was not his intention to attack her.  He said part of his concern was that staff needed to acquire additional information and if staff knew that, it seemed that was something the Commission should have with the staff report so the Commission could have brought this matter to some step forward in the process rather than a further delay.                                                                                                                                (11)

Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purposes of  consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship, The justification for the executive session is to keep confidential matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purposes of consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship.  Motion carried unanimously. 

The Commission entered executive session at approximately 8:50.

The Commission returned to regular session at approximately 9:20

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger , to adjourn at  9:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (12)

APPROVED               

_____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2006

1. Site Plan – (SP-11-86-05) S Jr. H.S., & Broken Arrow Elementary, 2734 Louisiana.

2. Rezone – (Z-09-54-05) 640 Arkansas, RO-1 to RM-3. 

3. Subordination Agreement – 1072 Home Circle, Nichole Demby.

4. RFP – Executive search firm for City Manager position.

5. City Manager’s Report.

6. Public hearing and determination –429 Indiana demolition.

7. Proposal Sale – Old Fire Station No. 2/Fire Station No. 5, 1839 Massachusetts Street.

8. Contractor licensing ordinance – Electrical, Plumbing, & Mechanical.

9. Follow-up activities – Subsequent to Mar 31, 2006 Sewer Summit.

10. Notice of Intent – Fed Hwy Admin, Final Environmental Impact Statement, SLT. Trafficway.

11. Public Comment

12. Executive Session