The Board of Commissioners of the City of
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval the Mayor proclaimed June 17-24 as Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle approve the City Commission meeting minutes from June 6, 2006 . Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to accept the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of April 13, 2006 and May 18, 2006 ; the Public Health Board meeting of April 17, 2006 ; and the Board of Electrical Examiners & Appeals meeting of May 3, 2006 . Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to approve claims to 464 vendors in the amount of $2,090,202.39. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to Red Lyon Tavern, 944 Massachusetts
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Highberger, seconded by Rundle to authorize the Interim City Manager to
execute a Service Order with Marsh McBirney in the amount of $282,000 for the
installation and initiation of data delivery services for the Permanent Flow
monitoring system. Motion carried
unanimously. (1) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the Wakarusa WRF
Supplement No. 2 for pre-design services with Black & Veatch Engineers
increasing the existing services contract for $1,332,000. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to approve the purchase of Firehouse
Software off the state contract from ACS for $45,145. Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to authorize the Interim City Manager to
enter into a contract with Professional Engineering Consultants, from the
design/build team of CAS Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants, for
$290,800 for preliminary field investigative services to be delivered as part
of the design/build services for the construction of the Baldwin Creek 1 Pump
Station 1. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to set a bid date for North Lawrence Pump
Stations 1, 2, and 3 for
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7880,
adopting the codification of ordinances of the City of Lawrence, Kansas as
authorized by Ordinance 7879. Motion
carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8013,
TA-03-02A-06: A table of clarifying text/corrections provided to clean up the
November 11, 2005 Edition prior to the July 1, 2006 effective date as
authorized by the City Commission on May 16, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first
reading Ordinance No. 8014, TA-03-02B-06:
Section 20-205; proposed revisions to the purpose statement for the new
RMP, Multiple-dwelling Residential-Greek Housing District and to clarify that
conversion of Greek Housing to other uses deemed to be compatible with adjacent
residential development are permitted through a special use permit for Adaptive
Reuse. Conversion to other multiple
family residential uses will require rezoning to another RM District. Sections 20-1703 and 20-1704 have been
modified to clarify Adaptive Reuse sections.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8015, TA-03-02C-06: Section 20-403 currently permits the development of Retail Establishments, Large in the CS, Commercial Strip District. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to
place on first reading Ordinance No. 8017, TA-03-02F-06: Proposed revisions to 20-908 regarding
driveway standards in various residential districts. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8018, TA-03-02H-06: Proposed revisions to 20-1304 regarding the criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8019, TA-03-02I-06: Amendments to 20-1739 to identify additional uses permitted in the Manufacturing and Production, limited category to address public comment received at the February 22nd meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Ordinance No. 7949, Text Amendment (TA-07-04-05) to Chapter 21 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.(13)
Ordinance No. 8004, Text Amendment (TA-01-01-06) repealing of a 50’ setback along West 6th Street/US 40 between Monterey Way and Wakarusa Drive (Chapter 21, Article 12). As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Ordinance No. 7990 regarding overweight vehicles, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Ordinance No. 7991 regarding vehicle safety requirements, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to authorize the City Manager to execute
a Confidentiality Agreement and Entry Agreement with the FI Remediation
Trust. These agreements will allow the
City and
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to approve as signs of community interest
a request from the Downtown Lawrence, Inc. to place banners on the construction
fencing in 700 and 800 blocks of
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to authorize the Interim City Manager to
enter into an Encroachment Agreement with USE 497 for the installation of an
The first reading of Ordinance No. 8016, a text amendment (TA-03-02E-06) for proposed revisions to Article 7, Planned Developments was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the provisions established in Ordinance No. 8016 reflected additional amendments to the new development code in Chapter 20, Article 7. He said Article 7 was the article where there were specific regulations for planned developments, formerly known as PUD’s. The concern from Planning Commissioner Burress was that some of the language was inadvertently deleted from this provision. The Planning Commission, next week, would consider the text amendment that responded to that concern and the City Commission would receive that recommendation in July. Staff did not have a concern this was an inappropriate gap. There were no pending PUD’s or planned development zoning requests therefore neither the City Commission or Planning Commission would consider any of those zoning category concerns until the text amendment was changed.
He said the other concern about this provision in the zoning code was there would no longer be specific language which allowed conditions to be placed on PUD’s regarding use or other structural items. He said he was familiar with that text amendment because he wrote it back in the mid 1990’s as part of the PUD changes. Under the current code, use restrictions and other conditions could be made under PUD’s, but not under conventional zoning. The good news, which was forecasted a number of times, was that with the new development code, there was specific language that allowed staff to condition rezonings. Again, he said this text amendment issue was being cured by the Planning Commission next week and the text amendment would come before the City Commission in July. There were no pending zoning matters in regards to PUD’s that would be impacted. As an additional protection, they had the authority, under the new development code effective July 1st, to establish conditions on all zoning categories. Although the concern raised by Planning Commissioner Burress had raised was a concern that needed attention, staff did not think it was necessary to halt the adoption of this ordinance or to do anything else other than allow for the existing text amendment that was before the Planning Commission next week to be heard, the City Commission will get it in July, that change would be made and the zoning code would be in good shape for that particular area of the zoning code.
Commissioner Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Rundle asked if there was advantage or disadvantage to tabling the first reading of this ordinance until they had the final language.
Stogsdill said staff had those amendments rolled into a document and hoped to have it published on July 1st. She said while there would be future amendments, it contained everything that had been approved up through July 1st.
Mayor Amyx asked if those were the final pieces of that package.
Stogsdill said it was everything the City Commission acted on. The City Commission had deferred the text amendment related to the accessory dwelling unit and additional work was needed before that text amendment was brought back to the City Commission. Staff would have some additional ideas from next week’s meeting and potentially some clarification they would be made in the next month.
Mayor Amyx asked if Stogsdill had had discussions with Bill Mitchell who brought this issue to the City Commission’s attention.
Stogsdill said she had a discussion with Mitchell and Mitchell sent her a letter. She said she had been researching to figure out if there was additional language for the definition that could be added.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger
to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 8016, a text amendment (TA-03-02E-06)
for proposed revisions to Article 7, Planned Developments. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During
the City Manager’s Report, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, reported that KDOT
had taken speed studies and found the 85 percentile speed was somewhat faster
than the posted speed. KDOT had
recommended an increase in speed to 45 miles per hour. Design of the intersections had been reviewed
concerning sight distance and staff concurred that 45 miles per hour could be a
safe traveling speed on
Mayor
Amyx asked when KDOT did their speed studies, did they take an average of the speeds.
Soules
said it was the speed at which 85% of the vehicles were traveling which would
be the average speed.
Commissioner
Highberger said former Commissioner Dunfield often pointed out that streets
needed to be designed to encourage people to drive the speed limit. He said that street was designed to have
people drive fast.
Commissioner
Rundle said he was curious whether or not KDOT ever thought of ways to
encourage people to slow down.
Soules
said at times, KDOT had suggested the use of roundabouts at major intersections,
but KDOT did not want to get involved because they were more involved with
highways and getting people from one destination to another.
Commissioner
Rundle said he assumed there was a safe speed in which they would not have
concern for dangerous intersections. He
asked about the contingency KDOT had when they get to that speed and if they would
raise the speed limit again.
Soules
said typically, when streets were designed, sight distance was addressed to
identify when people could react to oncoming traffic. He said as far a contingency plan, if the 85th
percentile increased to an unsafe level, it would be an enforcement issue at
that point.
David
Corliss, Interim City Manager, reported to the City Commission that in July the
City Commission was going to be considering resolutions for benefit districts
for improvements at
Mayor
Amyx asked if the approval would include signalization.
Corliss
said signalization was one of the likely outcomes.
Mayor
Amyx asked if the other intersection included agreements not-to-protest benefit
districts for traffic lights and other improvements.
Corliss
said as properties were being developed, staff had requested those
agreements. As part of the discussions
with Wal-mart at 6th and Congressional there would also be
signalization of that intersection.
There would be urbanization of the corridor and the City Commission
would want to look at signalization.
Mayor
Amyx said if the 85th percentile speed limit was raised and it was deemed
necessary to raise the speed limit, he asked about what the City Commission could
suggest the speed could be inside City limits.
Soules
said staff could request that KDOT conduct more advanced studies. He said in this case it would be difficult to
ask KDOT to raise it anymore because of the sight distance issues. He said if the sight distances were better at
those intersections and the City Commission wanted to increase that speed that
would be a very good argument. He said KDOT
was trying to give local governments more input into the speeds, especially within
the City limits.
Mayor
Amyx said in this particular case, he thought it made good sense. He said one of the goals was to establish
speed limits on a roadway that was designed to carry traffic at a 45 mph speed
limit and make it consistent up and down from
Soules
suggested they get everyone familiar with the 45 mph speed before development.
Corliss
also noted that in the City Manager report, it listed various summer projects
that Public Works and the Utilities Department were involved in. (21)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive presentation of annual report
from the ECO2 Commission.
Roxanne
Miller, ECO2
Commission Chair, presented the annual report.
She said the current members of ECO2 were herself, Sandra Shaw, Jim Roberts,
Rex Buchanan, Mark Gonzales, Larry McElwain, John Pendelton, and Trudy
Rice. The Regional Group was appointed
in the Year 2000 by the Chamber of Commerce and the ECO2 Committee was
appointed in 2003 by the Douglas County Commission. In 2004, the ECO2 Commission was formed by the joint
resolution of the City and
Their work plan or intent was to complete the draft of the long term plan in a concise and comprehensive form, to develop a public education and outreach forum explaining the plan and its benefits to the community, to identify public funding sources to fund the plan, and to continue advancing efforts working with the City and County Commissions in developing a project to serve short term needs for the industrial and business park development as well as open space preservation. She said that work was acting as a resource for the economic development boards, which was their role.
She said their goals primarily were to develop that plan and to cooperate with the City and County on that short-term effort. The plan development was led by all of the ECO2 Commissioners and conducted through several work groups, with a total of 50 participants which represented over 24 entities in that development of each component of the plan. She said there were several components; a process for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing prospective projects for the business industrial parks and the same process for the open space preservation.
An
additional component was a process for implementation of those programs and
funding strategies. She said they also
developed a process for informing or educating, the
They worked with the City/County Commission and the Economic Development Board to support the creation of a short-term proposal for business and industrial park development and open space preservation. They also developed models in identifying, evaluating, prioritizing industrial and open space, and developing a few open space projects for that short-term effort. In essence, they accomplished everything they wanted to accomplish except they did not get into implementing the public education outreach component. She said they really wanted to get started in taking that component out to the public last spring, but did not quite make it that far. She said they developed the process and intended to implement that process in the fall.
The activities for public education and outreach for 2006-2007 were:
• August-September meet
with key stakeholders to explain the ECO2 concept and its benefits to our
community and answer questions about the plan.
• September-November hold public
informational meetings in Baldwin, Eudora, Lawrence
and Lecompton to present the plan and address questions.
• October-December make
the offer to deliver a brief program to service clubs and other organizations
and the benefits to our community.
• January-February complete minor revisions
to plan.
• March present final plan to the
She said they had a lot of support the last several years. There have been tremendous efforts and contributions by individuals who volunteered their help in all those work groups. They had had tremendous in-kind contributions from organizations as well as City and County funding.
She said in addition to the actual plan, there was a plan summary. She said because many people did not care to dig into detail, but would like to know what it was about, inserted in the plan was a plan summary draft that tried to give a quick review of what was inside for those who did not want to get into the details.
Mayor Amyx said the information provided showed the amount of the work done in putting the plan into place and educating the public.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the hard work. He said his preference was to move forward in the short-term recommendations during this budget cycle.
Commissioner Hack said she would like to thank everyone for their efforts.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to
receive the report. Motion carried
unanimously. (22)
Conduct a public hearing on the creation
of a special assessment benefit district for the improvement of
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said concerning the proposed benefit district, a property owner in this benefit district, Ms. Collister, asked the City Commission to address the method of assessment. He said he would discuss why staff typically recommended front footage versus any other method of assessment. The City’s legal staff gathered information and it appeared the City had used several different methods of assessment, in the past, which were all valid methods.
He said
He said the method of assessment was anticipated to be on a front foot basis which was typically recommended for straight streets because it was logically the most equitable. Each side of the street would pay for equal proportion of those costs.
The section
of
Corliss said he wanted to make it clear the City Commission had the option in determining the method of assessment.
Mayor Amyx said as Stoneridge Drive went from the south to the east going toward the southern edge of Collister’s property, he asked if the property owner on the east side of the street paid for that portion.
Soules said yes. The owner of that development paid for that portion, but how he would spread those costs, as he sells those lots, was unknown.
Corliss said that portion was not paid through a benefit district, but was privately funded by the developer.
Mayor Amyx
asked if the discussion was the area at the southern edge of Collister’s
property to
Soules said
that was correct. He said on collector streets,
the City’s policy had typically been that adjacent properties paid or contributed
to the payment, depending on the width of those collector streets. At times, developments would construct and
pay for those collector streets such as
Corliss interrupted saying that Soules misspoke and that the development would pay those costs. Typically, when benefit districts were seen there were multiple property owners and not just one developer, but one developer plus another developer or one developer plus a private property owner or several private property owners that were not interested in developing their property at this time or ever. Benefit districts had been seen where a developer owned the entire development and believed it was more economical or quicker to do their own financing. He said that was a general statement and there were obviously exceptions to that statement.
Mayor Amyx said there were approximately one million square feet in the two parcels of that property. He asked about the difference of the assessment per property owner based on the estimated cost of the project.
Soules said the estimated cost of the project was $725,000. He said if those costs were spread 50/50, the approximately costs would be $362,500 and on a square foot basis, the costs would be 2/3 and 1/3.
Mayor Amyx asked who proposed the benefit district.
Soules said the developer requested the benefit district.
Corliss said the developer requested the benefit district. He said as opposed to petitioning in a benefit district, the City typically did the public hearing method in order to allow for additional public comment and additional public notice. As indicated earlier, staff did not send the appropriate notice, in this case, so the benefit district was proceeding again.
Mayor Amyx said if the method of assessment on a front footage basis was changed, he asked what would stop the property owner on the right from wanting 392,836 square feet assessed.
Corliss said the City Commission’s action was to conduct a public hearing and if the Commission chose to, adopt a resolution establishing the benefit district. The Commission had an option at this point, regardless of how they published the resolution, authorizing the hearing to assess by square footage, front footage, or any other reasonable assessment method. If the Commission chose an assessment method that the developer and his partners disagreed with, they could look at their legal options to see if they wanted to draft a protest petition and present that to the City and might be able to successfully protest out of the benefit district given their square footage of the property. He said the developer probably had a majority of the square footage, in which case the benefit district was killed and the project would not proceed.
Mayor Amyx
said when looking at
Corliss said the developer proposed the square footage they wanted to include in the benefit district. It was not uncommon for a property developer to want to spread those costs over a larger tract as opposed to a smaller tract, which was his hunch. How the developer acquired the property and how they paid for earlier road improvements, the staff was not privy to those details.
Mayor Amyx
called a public hearing on the creation of a special assessment benefit
district for the improvement of
Chris Collister said she was the owner of Tract 1 in the proposed benefit district. She said she was now more or less being forced to be in two benefit districts, neither of which she needed or wanted, but was forced to be in those benefit districts because of where her property was located. She said the reason she was present at the meeting was because she was opposed to the method of allocating the costs of the benefit district.
As it was proposed, 50% of the costs of the road in question would be assessed against her property and 50% would be assessed against the other tract. Obviously, by looking at the map, the other section was significantly larger than her section and the numbers supported that fact. She had 39% of the total land in the entire benefit district, yet the proposal suggested that she pay 50% of the costs.
In staff’s memo, it was suggested that the front footage basis method that the City had typically used was logically the most equitable, but she strongly disagreed. She asked what was equitable about the fact she had 39% of the ground, yet she was asked to pay 50% of the cost which was clearly not equitable. If looking at a per square foot basis, the cost to the smaller piece of property was about 92¢ per square foot. The cost to tract 2, the larger piece of property, was 60¢ per square foot. Her cost was 50% higher than the cost for the other half and she asked what was fair about that. She said the developer, Mr. Stultz, was the one that created the benefit district, set it up the way he wanted it, organized it, and all the decisions that were made were the developers as well as his decision to pay for himself the bottom part of Stoneridge Drive, which to her way thinking, was totally irrelevant to what they were talking about. She said it would be much fairer to allocate those costs on the square footage basis, something which the City Commission could do and had been done in the past.
Also, staff’s memo, suggested that including more of Collister’s property in the total benefit district, since the west half of her property was already in a benefit district, would double assess part of her property or if they reduced the amount of property in Tract 2 so that the square footage equals the same square footage in her portion of the benefit district, then allowed portions of that property to get the benefit of the Stoneridge Drive section they were talking about without contributing to the cost. Both of those ideas seemed like a ridiculous answer to this problem. She said it was like a game they played with numbers; they knew the result they wanted, which in this case was to divide the cost of the road 50/50 and whatever they had to do with the numbers to get there, that was what they did. She said to her, that was “results oriented gamesmanship.” In her line of work, that was something she would expect a utility to do when they came before the IOU Utilities Board with some kind of proposal. She said the gamesmanship was purely arbitrary, unfair, and inequitable.
She said
staff’s memo also suggested that because they used front footage for the cost
of allocation for
If the point of a benefit district was those who benefited should pay for the improvements, as it was in her job where her main job was to take all of the costs of the utility; decide why those costs were incurred and allocate the cost to customer classes; and decide how consumers were going to pay for them; then she suggested looking back at the map and who was going to benefit. She said in Tract 1 there was going to be some benefit and she had never suggested that she would not contribute at all. She was suggesting that 50% of the cost of that was more than her fair share. Tract 2 was going to benefit to a slightly greater degree because there was more ground. There was going to be more people getting benefits from that area. She said every house that was to the south was going to benefit from having that street. That area was going to be a main street and provided a way in and out of the neighborhoods and made perfect sense that some of those costs be borne by those neighbors. It was explained to her those people had paid for the streets in front of their houses which was a benefit, but she did not benefit because she would not go that way. When she went to town, she was going to go out another way, but yet those people would benefit from her investment. They were going to use that way to get in and out. She said it seemed to her that fairness dictated that they should pay some of the costs.
She also thought, in her opinion, that road should have been in long before all of those houses were put in and before she was faced last summer with the letter from the State of Kansas stating they were closing her access to the highway and that she had to access via Stoneridge Drive, which they all knew, did not even exist today and she had to arrange her own access to her property.
She encouraged the City Commission to think outside the box. Each situation was unique. Doing something one way because that was what they traditionally did or because they were trying to be consistent was completely arbitrary. She said it did not consider the unique facts of each case. She said it was taking all kinds of pegs, whether they were round or square or triangles, or any other shape and forcing them all in the same round hole. It was not fair, not equitable, and purely arbitrary.
She said she also had a few comments about the process they had gone through. She said Corliss assured her they followed the law in creating this benefit district, and she had no reason to doubt that, but it seemed there had to be a better way to go about those sorts of things. Long time residents had not asked for this progress and did not have the resources to investigate, come before the Commission to express themselves, or the knowledge about the rules of the game. They had that group of folks versus the developers or other interests, newcomers to the area, who had vast resources, knew all the rules of the game, and probably helped write the rules. She said the playing field was not level. She said she was a consumer advocate at heart and felt the rules of the game needed to protect affected people. She said she was fortunate enough to have the resources to discuss this issue, was not intimidated by the process, and did not have a problem standing up and speaking her position, but there were tons of people who did not have that luxury. She envisioned a 70 or 80 year old couple who lived in the same house for 50 years and finding themselves in her position, and what would they do? They would be bulled over by the process. She thought there needed to be some changes in the process so that did not happen.
She did not understand why submissions were made to the City Commission, such as this, that there was no requirement to notify people affected. No one notified her that this resolution had been filed with the City. She said it seemed to her that was simple common courtesy regardless of what the law stated.
She said she did not understand when dates were set for public hearing there was no requirement to immediately notify affected people. In this case, the City Commission decided, according to the website, on January 3 to conduct the public hearing on April 14th. No one contacted her until that week in April. She asked why didn’t someone contact her the week after January 3rd and let her know the public hearing on this proposal that was filed two weeks ago was going to be April 14th. It seemed that things like common courtesy made the process much more human, caring, and much easier to swallow than being pushed and shoved and feeling like being manipulated. In the last three years that was the way she felt on numerous occasions. One issue she was particularly concerned about was access because of what she had gone through last year.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor
Amyx said the special assessment financing on
Corliss
said staff looked back at other benefit districts and saw that some benefit
districts were assessed by square footage and some by front footage. He thought the reason why, as Collister
indicated, was benefit districts were looked at on a case by case basis and a
number of the situation were different. Staff
thought on a front footage basis, they did have some equity issues as far as
how much property the property owner desired to include in the benefit
district. One thing to keep in mind was staff
was proposing to defer the assessments on Collister’s property. He said it was in the citizen’s interest to
have her assessment as low as possible because they were going to hold that
cost and in order for that successor property to able to develop, they would need
to pay the assessments for
Commissioner
Rundle said this issue had been an ongoing topic of confusion and
discussion. The last time this type of
issue was discussed was when the Commission discussed
On Tract 2, by dividing those assessments through the larger pieces of property, each lot was going to have a smaller assessment than it would have on the property on the west side. He thought the developer was having their cake and eating it, too. If they included the property, it obviously had a benefit, which was the principle of law they had been taught over the years. It was the benefit that went to the property, and since they were going to be able to divide it up into smaller pieces and each lot sold was going to have a smaller assessment; he thought it was fair to assess on a square footage basis. The common thing about which method was chosen was that some party preferred it that way. He said it might not be fair and staff might need to conduct additional research further back in the history on benefit districts. Unless someone could demonstrate the logic or fairness in some other way, he preferred square footage
Commissioner Highberger said he disagreed. If he had to choose between disproportionately charging the developer versus disproportionately charging the land owner who did not want to be included in the development, his tendency would be to stick it to the developer. In this case, Tract 2 had already paid for the costs of the section of the road that was as long as the road they were presently looking at now. The tracts division was somewhat arbitrary. In this case, providing the assessments were going to be deferred to tract 1, he thought the front footage was more reasonable.
Commissioner Hack said if the Commission passed the resolution it meant they would be establishing a benefit district. She asked if the Mayor wanted further discussion about costs.
Mayor Amyx said he wanted to meet with staff this week to make sure this assessment would be as fair as possible. He said in looking at the properties, Tract 2 held 2/3 of the entire property which made it appear the greater amount of assessment would be on the east side of the street. He said he wanted to make sure he had not left anything unturned.
Commissioner Hack said the Mayor’s idea made sense to her as well.
Corliss
said it would be fair to Collister to indicate when this item would be placed
back on the City Commission’s agenda.
The next meeting, with a full City Commission, would be July 11th. He said the benefit district at 6th
and
Mayor Amyx asked if it was imperative that action be taken on this issue on July 11th.
Corliss said no, the Commission had 6 months after the date of the hearing in order to act on the resolution.
Mayor
Amyx said because of the other scheduled items on the July 11th City
Commission, he suggested this item be placed on the July 18th City
Commission’s meeting agenda. He said at
that meeting, the Commission would discuss how the assessment would be placed
on the
Collister asked if that would be strictly a discussion between the Commission and staff.
Corliss said it would be an open public meeting.
Mayor Amyx said he would prefer that Collister was present so that she understood.
Commissioner Rundle said if Collister’s family situation made it impossible for her to be present at that meeting, to notify staff.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to address the concerns about notice and access. He said if giving notice was not practice, staff needed to make it practice.
Corliss said they made a mistake when they initially notified Collister about the hearing and it was not done properly. In establishing tonight’s hearing, staff contacted her to determine whether or not that evening would work.
Commissioner Highberger suggested that staff made sure Collister had the property access she needed.
Corliss
said one concern about the access was that he understood that Collister was
compensated by the State and the City for access rights for
Mayor
Amyx said staff would work with Collister to make sure that access was provided
during the construction of Stoneridge.
He said he also wanted to make sure that Collister had something in writing
concerning the deferral of the assessment for
Corliss
said once staff finalized the
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle,
to defer action on Resolution No. 6656, ordering the improvement of
Receive briefing from Barbara Huppee,
Executive Director, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority, concerning
Barbara
Huppee, Executive Director, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority,
presented the report. She said as the
Commission was aware,
She said for most of spring, HUD had been stalled in their process awaiting new regulations telling them how they were going to value that property differently to what they used to do, and they received those instructions last week and notified the Housing Authority they expected to give the Housing Authority offer letter by mid July. The offer letter included the price they were going to offer, HUD’s companies had mainly inserted other stipulations that they were going to place on the Housing Authority if they purchased that property. Those stipulations were not fully known to the Housing Authority nor were the components of that comprehensive maintenance survey fully unknown.
In their conversations with HUD which revealed very little, it was agreed they expected the offer price to be in the range of the balance of the mortgage, about $1.1 million. There was going to be an additional $500,000 worth of needed repairs. The Housing Authority desired to purchase that property and to do the maintenance improvements on that property if it was proved to be a reasonable undertaking and for them given the value of the property. The Housing Authority Board was prepared to spend a million dollars on the venture and might be in a position to spend more money depending on the details of the offer, the stipulations that would deal with fixing the rent and fixing subsidy, and occupancy restrictions that could be made in place in terms of who could occupy that unit, concerning what portion of elderly and what portion of non elderly adults. They could also have a restriction to rent at least 10% of the units to the homeless. If the cost and restrictions were greater than the Housing Authority could fund, they might need to ask the City for support, which might be equal to as much as $500,000. They would propose the support be in the form of a loan that would be used for maintenance improvements. The Housing Authority could not acquire any real property, so any property they might acquire, must have City Commission approval and would be deeded to the City.
The HUD foreclosure process was a very complicated one that favored the owner. At any time in this process, the owner could bring that mortgage current and the foreclosure proceedings would stop. HUD had no authority to sell this property until it was foreclosed upon, so even if there was an offer made to the Housing Authority, which they accepted, this property was still going to go to auction. Anyone could purchase the property at auction for debt plus one dollar. If the Housing Authority declined the offer, they could still go to auction and bid through the auction process. She would need to approve the bidder and high bid as well.
Last week, the owner notified HUD that he desired to bring this mortgage current. However, HUD was going to continue with their foreclosure procedures until the owner brought the mortgage current, should that be done. If the owner brought the mortgage current, he was going to need to operate this property as low income housing until the property was paid. If the Housing Authority or private entity bought the property, neither one of them was going to need to operate the property for twenty years as low income housing. If the Housing Authority bought the property, it would become part of the City’s permanent low income housing stock. If the owner paid the mortgage in full, he could dispose of the property any way he saw fit after giving one year notice to the residents. The residents then would be given a voucher and could rent a unit anywhere in the private sector.
She said it was a really a situation that was full of unknowns. What they knew was that the letter would arrive by mid July and if they wanted to act on this letter, the Housing Authority needed City Commission’s approval and they might make a request to the City Commission for a loan up to $500,000. If after the Housing Authority did their due diligence and they felt the property was not worth the offer, she was sure the City Commission would ask for a report. The Housing Authority staff had been in that building twice, as recently as the afternoon with City Staff, both Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Resources, they had engaged a company to conduct a market analysis of that property. She said the Housing Authority would have good numbers regarding a market appraisal, but she thought they had some good numbers already regarding the conditions in that building that needed to be repaired. Most of this property would be a permanent loss of 58 units.
HUD was not building this type of property anymore because there was not that kind of funding. The only way to build affordable housing anymore was through the same conventions that private developers go through, with the most obvious one being tax credit property. She said this was a viable property to consider maintaining for the City for the permanent use of the residents. There were a lot of unknowns and the owner could stop the process right up to the closing. If they enter into an agreement with HUD, they would have two weeks to respond, close within thirty days, and right up to the closing, the owner could bring that mortgage current and they would be out of the game. She said it was a process that favored the owner. She said it was the owner’s first indication of an interest since he instructed the management company to default on the mortgage last September.
She said her purpose was to brief the City Commission on this issue, to answer any questions, and to give the City Commission a heads up the Housing Authority might be coming before the Commission in a very short turn around time to seek permission to purchase the property and seek a loan from the City to make improvements on the property.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the purchase price ended up being in the neighborhood of $1.1 million with a half million in repairs, was it a doable project for low income housing.
Huppee said depending on what the appraisal was going to be, they very well might be able to do that. One of the things the Housing Authority needed to know was what the subsidy level that HUD would set. This was supposed to be a market to market property, meaning that that property was supposed to be set at the market rate. The rent rate now, which determined what the subsidy was to the owner, was $485.00, which was based on the current market conditions in its current condition. She said that was going to be the rent, or subsidy, that HUD would set for the property. Once they set that subsidy, they were going to fix that rate for five years. Even if they invest $500,000 worth of repairs, it was going to be five years before HUD would let them increase the rents. HUD also would not let them increase the rents unless the costs in the budget indicated the expenses on the property demonstrated there needed to be an increase in the rent. The market rent would be the maximum subsidy that HUD would permit. Residents would pay 30% of the adjusted gross income toward that and then HUD would pay the balance. One of their concerns was that subsidy on this property was tied to federal budget, so that was going to be an uncertain situation in itself. The Housing Authority wanted to make sure the numbers HUD was going to offer were numbers that were going to work. If they had debt on this property, the debt would become part of the routine operating expenses. She said it was in the Housing Authority’s best interest to have debt on the property because they could then be funded in the amount necessary to pay that debt off.
Mayor Amyx said the Commission needed to know what would be in the best interest of the City and the exposure in getting involved in this particular piece of property. One of the issues of concern was stated in the memo that discussed the City bearing the responsibility in the event the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority failed to do so. He said he would like to know everything the City Commission would be buying into.
Corliss
said Huppee could respond to those questions.
He said Huppee appropriately criticized those comments because the City
had a technical exposure, but the City also had a great track record with the Housing
Authority. He said it could not be said
enough about the good work the Housing Authority did and the awards they won as
far as being able to show HUD that the Housing Authority was in compliance and other
things. The City owned the property where
Mayor Amyx said it was important to know where that money might come from, which account that money would come from, and the ability of the Lawrence/Douglas County Housing Authority to make payments on that outstanding debt. He asked if it was better for the City to become involved when that first letter came out or should the City wait and go to the auction.
Huppee said they would not know that until they were made the offer, which was why they were going through the due diligence process right now. Depending on what price HUD offered that property, it might be in the Housing Authority’s best interest to reject that offer and go to auction. Until they see that price, they would now know. If HUD stated the value of the property was one million and offer that amount to them, and the Housing Authority’s numbers indicate the property was only worth $800,000, they could go to auction and bid that. She said one of the differences that would happen between being offered the letter to accept and declining it and going to auction. Part of their process was that if the Housing Authority entered into a contract to purchase the property, HUD would not advertise the auction. HUD would need to place a Legal Notice in the Journal World, but that was the only place it was going to be. If it would go to public auction, they would advertise it on their website, in the Wall Street Journal, and all the publications in the major cities in the country, so it would be very well publicized. However, if they made an offer to the Housing Authority in a private contract it would not be publicized. There were people who read the Legal Notices and anyone could show up to bid. If they bid less than what HUD stated the value was, they were going to need to approve that bid.
Commissioner Rundle said they would need to approve that bid as long as it was the high bid.
Huppee said they would need to approve the high bid as long as it was less than what they stated what the value of the property was.
Commissioner Rundle asked if it was possible that this would unfold in this calendar year and the Commission might be asked to make that loan.
Huppee said she thought it was going to unfold in the next four weeks.
Commissioner Rundle said he understood that there were some units that were not being used because of their conditions.
Huppee said there were 11 units that were in turnover. She said they did not know the degree of the condition of all of those units. When they were there in January, there were 16 units, now there were 11 units. They stated there was a waiting list of four people.
She said she wanted to address exposure to put this in context. The City had far more exposure to the public housing program that they run. One of the main differences between this development and public housing was that they get very little HUD subsidy at all. Some of their income came from their rents and they could not set rents in the public housing program. Here, there was going to be a guaranteed rent up to whatever the subsidy level that HUD sets, as long as every unit was under lease. She said that was a much better deal than had ever existed in the public housing sites. The City had much more exposure on the public housing side than they would ever have on this.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the subsidy was until they changed the program or if it was a contractual agreement.
Huppee said it was a contractual agreement. She said it was a 20 year contract.
Commissioner Highberger asked if a private buyer bought the property at the auction, would they be under the same restrictions.
Huppee said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the new buyer paid the whole mortgage off, would they be able to do whatever they wanted with that property.
Huppee said no. The new owner would have the 20 year use restriction. They could petition HUD to be released from that restriction, and she was told that would be a very transparent process because she had informed HUD the City had a great need for affordable housing in this community. She was told that would be a very transparent process and the Housing Authority would have an opportunity to input into that process. She said the property owner would have that option to be released from that restriction. If the present owner paid the mortgage off, then they could do with that property whatever they so chose. The present owner believed that all of the value of that property was in the land.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the City would be able to make a loan in four weeks.
Corliss said if that was the City Commission’s direction, staff would come back with different options on what that meant. One of the things he wanted to discuss with Huppee was what the payback would be and what kind of time frame the City would have. One of the good things about getting an appraisal and getting a chance to look at the property, they were getting a better grasp on what the actual dollar amounts were going to be, whether it was going to be $500,000 or $100,000 more. He said staff would find a way to make it work. He said he thought it was an important asset for the community and if it worked out as Huppee discussed, it would be a loan where the public taxpayer was paid back and was providing a service to the community. He said they had to be flexible enough to make this work.
Huppee said the offer letter would contain the immediate repairs that would need to be made on that property within 90 days and they had some information that it might be upwards of $120,000 of repairs. The downside of that was there would be no subsidy on that property until the repairs were made. She said there would be a period of time where that property would operate without subsidy and would only have tenant rent. She said that was something that was necessary to look at.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated Huppee for keeping the Commission in the loop and looked forward to continued conversation.
Mayor Amyx said once the offer was made, that would be the next time the Commission would have contact with Huppee about how to proceed.
Huppee said that was accurate unless the Commission wanted the Housing Authority to inform the Commission when they received the numbers. She said they could keep the Commission informed by memo of the information they received about the value of the property.
Mayor Amyx said that would be great.
Huppee said they could continue to keep Corliss informed as they learned information about this process. She said she asked HUD to inform her if the owner was making a serious venture at bringing the mortgage current.
Mayor Amyx said if the mortgage was brought up-to-date, all of this issue was done.
Huppee said yes, that could happen all the way down to the closing.
Mayor Amyx said redemption periods were set up for that reason.
Commissioner Rundle said he was interested if there were going to be more inspections or if it was possible for the Commissioners to have an option of seeing the facility to give them notice.
Huppee said they did not have any inspections scheduled now, but if the Commission would like to inspect the property, they could call the manager and make arrangements.
Corliss asked Commissioner Rundle if he would like staff to arrange that inspection or would he like to work directly with Huppee.
Commissioner Rundle asked if it would be easier to work with Huppee.
Huppee said they were the ones in contact with the manager, so it would probably be the right protocol to go through.
Commissioner Amyx thanked Huppee and asked that she keep the Commission up-to-date.
Corliss asked Huppee if the Commission should go ahead and authorize the Mayor to execute any documents that might be necessary if it did not involve any public subsidy. He asked if this was not coming back and there was no request for any public funds, they would just need to be authorized to execute any appropriate title documents to take the property in the name of the City if that worked out. He said that might be something they could take action on now and would not need a special meeting or any of those kinds of things.
Commissioner Highberger asked if they could put it on the Consent Agenda for next week.
Corliss said yes. (24)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
LMH bonds for refunding and expansion
Salvation Army
site plan (continued from
2007 City Budget
Discussion
COMMISSION
ITEMS:
During Commission Items,
Commissioner Highberger said he would be happy to volunteer.
Amyx appointed Commissioner Highberger.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to
adjourn at
APPROVED _____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1.
Bid- Service Order, Permanent Flow Monitoring
System to Marsh McBirney for $282,000.
2.
Wakarusa WRF Supplement #2- pre-design services, Black
and Veatch for $1,332,000.
3.
Purchase- Firehouse Software off state contract ACS,
for $45,145.
4.
Contract - Professional Engineering for preliminary
field investigative services for $290,800.
5.
Bid Date Set –
6.
Ordinance No 7880- 1st Read,
codification of ordinances.
7.
Ordinance No. 8013- 1st Read,
TA-03-02A-06, clean up
8.
Ordinance No. 8014- 1st Read,
TA-03-02B-06, revisions purpose statement new RMG
9.
Ordinance No. 8015- 1st Read,
TA-03-02C-06, 20-403, development of Retail Establishments
10.
Ordinance No. 8017- 1st Read,
TA-03-02F-06, 20-908 driveway standards, residential districts.
11.
Ordinance No. 8018- 1st Read,
TA-03-02A-06, 20-1739, final development plans
12.
Ordinance No. 8019- 1st Read,
TA-03-02A-06, 20-1739, additional uses permitted, Mfgt & Production.
13.
Ordinance No. 7949- 2nd read,
TA-07-04-05, gov’t takings, street or public purposes to cause setback or
required off-street parking violation
14.
Ordinance No. 8004- 2nd read, TA-01-01-6,
repeal of 50’ setback on 6th, Monterey Way & Wakarusa.
15.
Ordinance No. 7990- 2nd read, overweight
vehicles
16.
Ordinance No. 7991- 2nd read, vehicle
safety requirements.
17.
Confidentiality Agreement and Entry Agreement with
FI Remediation Trust.
18.
Request from Downtown Lawrence, Inc. to place
banners on construction fencing.
19.
Encroachment Agreement with USD 497 for
installation of
20.
Ordinance No. 8016- 1st Read,
TA-03-02D-06, Article 7, Planned Developments.
21.
City Manager’s Report
22.
ECO2 Commission – annual report.
23.
Resolution
24.