June 27, 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, Rundle, and Schauner present. Vice Mayor Hack was absent.

The Consent Agenda item regarding authorizing the continued participation in the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing for appropriate City vehicles purchases was deferred until July 11, 2006. (1)

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx presented the Habitat for Humanity Bike and Build program; proclaimed the week of June 25^th to July 1^st as “CASA Week” and “Citizen Review Board Week.”

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 13, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to receive the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 9, 2006 and June 26, 2006; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 10, 2006; Historic Resources Commission meeting of May 18, 2006; Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting of May 10, 2006; the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting of April 25, 2006; and Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting of May 17, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve claims to 417 vendors in the amount of $2,384,616.77 and payroll from June 11, 2006 to June 24, 2006, in the amount of $1,662,059.09. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve the Cereal Malt Beverage License (on-premise) for Imperial Garden Chinese Restaurant, 2907 West 6th Street.  Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Joseph Harkins to the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission to a term which will expire on May 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to award the sole bid for maintenance service, repair, labor and parts for the HVAC system for the Community Health Facility to Chaney, Inc., in the amount of $19,500. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of one sewage pump for the Utilities Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Pump and Power Equipment, Inc. $31,960.00

Douglas Pump Service, Inc. $33,558.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to award the bid from Pump and Power Inc. in the amount of $31,960.00. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the Administrative Services Department to renew coverage provided by Emergency Services Insurance Program (ESIP) for emergency vehicles, general liability, management liability, and portable equipment for the Fire/Medical Department for the period of July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007 for an estimated premium of $68,229; and, renew coverage provided by Affiliated FM for the City’s building/property coverage for the period of July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007 for an estimated annual premium of $124,000. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the replacement of the roof on the excess flow screen building for the Utilities Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Goddard & Sons Roofing Co, Inc $18,850.00

Delta Innovative Services, Inc. $21,529.00

Premier Contracting, Inc. $27,740.00

Boone Brothers Roofing $31,310.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to award the bid to Goddard & Sons Roofing Co., Inc., in the amount of $18,850.00. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7993, rezoning (Z-06-40-05) approximately 37.580 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District), property generally described as being located south of East 23^rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7994, rezoning (Z-06-38-05) 35.211 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District) property generally described as being located south of East 23^rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8010, rezoning (Z-03-07-06] 4.6 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) to O-1 (Office District), property generally described as being located west of Haskell Avenue, and south of East 20^th Street (2001 Haskell Avenue). Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8011, rezoning (Z-04-09-06) .28 acres from RO-1 (Residence-Office District) to RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence District), property generally described as being located at 640 Arkansas. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

Ordinance No. 7880, adopting the codification of ordinances of the City of Lawrence, Kansas as authorized by Ordinance 7879, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.

(10)

Ordinance No. 8013, TA-03-02A-06, a table of clarifying text/corrections to clean up the November 11, 2005 Edition prior to the July 1, 2006 effective date, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)

Ordinance No. 8014, TA-03-02B-06, Section 20-205, proposed revisions to the purpose statement for the new RMG, 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, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

Ordinance No. 8015, TA-03-02C-06, Section 20-403, currently permits the development of Retail Establishments, Large in the CS, Commercial Strip District. Public comment has indicated concerns regarding the potential redevelopment of CS properties with big box stores as permitted use in this district, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

Ordinance No. 8016, TA-03-02E-06, proposed revisions to Article 7, Planned Developments, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

Ordinance No. 8017, TA-03-02F-06, proposed revisions to 20-1304 regarding the criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.(15)

Ordinance No. 8018, TA-03-02H-06, proposed revisions to 20-1304 regarding the criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (16)

Ordinance No. 8019, TA-03-02I-06, amendment to 20-1739 to identify additional uses permitted in the Manufacturing and Production, limited category to address public comment received at the February 22^nd meeting, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6657, declaring 2710 University Drive environmentally blighted and ordering the property owner to remove said violations within 20 days. Failure of the property owner to comply will result in the City, contracting to have the blight removed. Motion carried unanimously. (18)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6658, declaring 2712 University Drive to be environmentally blighted and ordering the property owner to remove said violations within 20 days. Failure of the property owner to comply will result in the City contracting to have the blight removed. Motion carried unanimously. (19)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6659, declaring 214 North 6^th Street to be environmentally blighted and ordering the property owner to remove said violations within 20 days. Failure of the property owner to comply will result in the City, contracting to have the blight removed. Motion carried unanimously. (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-07-06) for Yankee Tank View Addition 2^nd Plat, a replat of approximately 125.189 acres, located at 5200 Clinton Parkway; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street or sidewalk improvements for Clinton Parkway and Olympic Drive;

2. Provision of a revised Master Street Tree Plan with the following changes:

a. List the required number of trees required for the future Olympic Drive extension.

b. Correct name of plat on MSTP to ‘Yankee Tank View Addition 2^nd Plat”

c. Correct the botanical names of the species as follows: Norway Maple—Acer platanoides ‘Summershade’; Sugar Maple—“Acer saccharum ‘Legacy’; and Pacific Sunset Maple is Acer truncatem x platanoides.

3. Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:

a. Standard road right-of-way on the plat for the extension of Olympic Drive to the City park to the north.

b. Show unnecessary easements as vacated or remove from the plan. The utility easements on the rear and west property line of the northern portion of the property previously platted as Lot 2A, The Landing are no longer necessary and should be shown as vacated or deleted from the plan.

c. Utility easement provided along the rear and side perimeter of the property.

d. Minimum area and elevation of existing buildings must be shown.

e. Section, township and range must be corrected on the plat to SW ¼, Sec. 4-T13S-R19E

4. Submission of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office.

5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

b. Provision of a revised master street tree plan. The species list on the master street tree plan must be completed and the legal description changed to: ‘Yankee Tank View Addition 2^nd Plat’.

Motion carried unanimously. (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to receive the staff update on the status of the taxiway project for the Lawrence Municipal Airport. Motion carried unanimously. (22)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report Commissioner Schauner asked about the issue of mail delivery to some of the residents on Kasold Drive because of construction.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said there was a box placed in an area where residents could pull off of Kasold to pick up their mail. He said the difficult area was on the east side of Kasold because traffic was stopped when mail was delivered, but staff was trying to provide a safe area for the residents.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said staff had discussed with the mail service several options to alleviate the problem, however, providing that box was the best resolution, although inconvenient.

Soules said concerning trash pick-up either one of the contractors or staff would handle the issue of trash pick-up so that area residences could keep the trash at their curbs. (23)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive report from Lawrence Memorial Hospital regarding expansion plans. Consider adopting Ordinance No. 8020 to refinance bonds and authorize the issuance of $35 million in new monies.

Joe Flannery, Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees at Lawrence Memorial Hospital, said they were asking the City Commission to authorize the issuance of $35 million dollars in new hospital revenue bonds plus refinancing $15 million dollars in existing bonds for the purpose of constructing and equipping a new energy center, a new patient tower which would allow them to convert patient rooms to all private, a new emergency department, an additional 6 other rooms in the new surgery center.

He said Gene Meyer, Lawrence Memorial CEO, and Simon Schultz, Lawrence Memorial Chief Financial Officer were meeting in New York the next day to determine the credit rating of LMH and they should know those results in early July.

The expansion of the hospital would be necessary to keep pace with the demands of the community and respond with services and staff as appropriate. They remain committed to provide the highest quality health care to the area’s patients.

Commissioner Rundle said if there were any slight changes by the Planning Commission would those changes impact the bond issue.

Flannery said they would not. He said depending on what the Planning Commission decided, this bond request was different.

Mayor Amyx asked if a vacation of a roadway and several other items would not cause the amount to change.

Flannery said that was correct.

Commissioner Schauner said one possible change would be in lieu of vacating that block of Arkansas, if a parking structure was a substitute, it would be an additional expense because it was not anticipated by the $35 million bond letting. He asked if that was a fair statement.

Flannery said it was a fair statement because any changes as far as that parking structure, they would take out of their existing funds.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Commissioner Rundle asked Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, the future action of the Planning Commission.

Stogsdill said at the Planning Commission meeting there were two items related to the hospital on their agenda which was the revision to the master plan and the final plat. The revision to the master plan was deferred to the July meeting so they could try and work further with the hospital representatives. The project had been moving at a rapid pace and they had changed the plan to respond to comments. There were some neighbors who felt they were not fully informed as to what the latest plans were and therefore, they would be working with the hospital staff to schedule a neighborhood meeting to try and resolve any unanswered questions for the July agenda.

The Planning Commission approved the final plat which would permit the vacation of that right-of-way. Staff did not have a problem with the vacation, but whether the circulation path would remain open and that was what they were working on in terms of the design. The Planning Commission felt that having an overall footprint for the hospital staff to work with in terms of how the circulation was redesigned within that footprint would allow things to move along the path that hopefully would still permit some parking to be built later this year so there would be a staging area available when the tower expansion begins in the fall.

Commissioner Rundle said if there were any easements added such as tying down the use of abandoned Arkansas for a driveway, he asked if it had to go back to the Planning Commission.

Stogsdill said the final plat was conditioned and needed to show access easements with a number of other conditions. If there were additional easements needed after the plat was filed, those could be provided through a separate written instrument recorded at the Register of Deeds.

Commissioner Schauner said in part those conditions were designed to assure appropriate ingress and egress to those folks who lived north of the vacated portion of Arkansas.

Stogsdill said she was not certain that point had been fully determined, but there would be ingress and egress through the property and whether it would go straight through was somewhat dependent on the redesign.

Mayor Amyx asked if they were going to turn a parking lot into a city street or vice versa.

Stogsdill said yes. By vacating, it allowed the layout of the parking lot to not be required to have the setbacks that was needed when adjacent to right of way. It provided more flexibility in how the parking area would be laid out and one of the issues to nail down would be exactly what that circulation path should be.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was one of the topics to be addressed with the neighbors at the proposed unscheduled meeting.

Stogsdill said yes. Staff could delay bringing the final plat to City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way until after they had that meeting. Normally, those plats come to the City Commission two weeks after the Planning Commission, but staff could hold the final plat and place it on the City Commission agenda when staff felt they had addressed most of those other issues.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, Legal Services Director, said he wanted to make sure the City Commission understood the nature of debt financing. He said the way the hospital issued debt was with industrial revenue bonds. He said it was not the debt of the City of Lawrence as the city and there was no general obligation of the City in the $56 million. The $56 million was backed by the revenue from the hospital, not from the City. The bond holders’ claims were only on the revenue from the hospital, not from the city.

Commissioner Schauner said the issuance of the bond did not affect the City’s credit worthiness or capacity to borrow money.

Corliss said that was correct.

Mayor Amyx said he knew the hospital had been working toward some plans of expansion to work in today’s market. He said as a community owned hospital, he hoped the hospital board would take it upon themselves to discuss mental health possibilities. He said when it came to health care, not only in Lawrence, but throughout the country, monies were lost in health care everyday. He said one day he hoped the City Commission and the Hospital Board could have that discussion.

Commissioner Rundle said, echoing on that note, it would be a partnership effort. He said the Mayor, Bert Nash, and other interested parties needed to figure out what it would take for the possibility of a mental health facility.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to make sure that not only did the hospital retain its competitive place in the market, but also that they did not at the same time, overlook the fact that people did live in that neighborhood and they were going to be impacted on a regular basis by the growth of that hospital. He said when he lived in another city, the hospitals were in a competitive war to acquire property and the neighbors suffered significantly. He was not suggesting that was the case, but suggested that Flannery carry back his message that the hospital continue to be good neighbors. He said he was particularly concerned about access and ingress and egress to those neighbors north of the proposed new parking lot.

Flannery said mental health was a big concern of the hospital. The Task Force on Mental Health was scheduled to release their report this Friday. The hospital also provided the crisis stabilization service and they hoped with the expansion, they could also enlarge that service. They monitor that usage every month and it was something they were also concerned about and he would take those comments back to the board.

Mayor Amyx said at a meeting that was held with the board in May, he appreciated the update on the number of people LMH had helped and asked Flannery to keep the City Commission updated on information the board received and the committee’s plan. He wanted to make sure they were providing health care to individuals who needed it and to handle situations as they developed.

Flannery said they would continue to work closely with Bert Nash because this was their community and they wanted to make sure this issue was covered because it was important.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8020, authorizing the issuance of not-to-exceed $56,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Hospital Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 (Lawrence Memorial Hospital) to provide funds to refund and redeem certain outstanding City of Lawrence, Kansas Hospital Revenue Bonds issued for the benefit of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, to finance an additional project for Lawrence Memorial Hospital, to fund a debt service reserve fund for the bonds and to pay the cost of issuing the bonds; an authorizing and approving certain documents and actions in connection with the issuance of bonds. Motion carried unanimously. (24)

Receive proposal and request from Lawrence Community Shelter concerning Lakeview Manor, 3015 West 31^st Street.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said Loring Henderson from the Lawrence Community Shelter provided the proposal and indicated that time critical issues were at hand as far as their view of this property and therefore, he placed it on the City Commission agenda for consideration. He said staff had not contacted area property owners, had not engaged in any land use review of this property, and had not done any type of review of the structure of the property itself. Staff was awaiting City Commission direction, but staff had not done anything other than respond to Henderson’s request to speak to the City Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said he knew the City’s boundaries were jagged along 31^st Street and he assumed the property was in the city limits.

Corliss said correct.

Mayor Amyx said if the Lawrence Community Shelter came up with the sale price of property, he asked if it would need to be considered as a use permit.

Corliss said that was correct. It would require a Use Permit Upon Review.

Mayor Amyx said if the City participated, he asked what kind of position it would put the City in as far as conflicts.

Corliss said it would not place the City in legal conflict, but it was somewhat analogous to the last item which they discussed a city hospital that was going through land use reviews as far as the master plan and plat. The City owned the property with the hospital and was being asked to look at the plat of the property as well. Traditionally, they had not tried to separate themselves from making land use decisions on their own property. In this case, a number of those details had not begun to be worked out worked as to whether or not the City would have any property interest in this property or whether Lawrence Community Shelter would continue to function as they do now as a vendor, a provider of services, that received some money from the public through the City. The City traditionally had not tried to separate itself, but to recognize the City had different roles, a role as a service provider and a role of a land use regulator.

Loring Henderson, Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter (LCS), presented the request. He said they were asking for assistance from the City to support the next step in LCS’s initiative to relocate from 10^th and Kentucky. They had an opportunity to buy the Lakeview Manor. He said they were asking for $50,000 from the City, either as a grant or a loan. A grant would be toward the cost of the building if they proceeded to a purchase agreement or if they did not proceed to purchase and the money was not used, then it would be returned to the City as a loan.

He said it was a special opening for the City and the people working on homelessness to show their commitment in reducing homelessness in Lawrence. The funding would help build a program together that showed the community, in good faith, was tackling a major concern in this community.

The possibility for relocation did several things which were:

1. Responded to the request of neighbors in the Oread Neighborhood and downtown business areas for LCS to move;

2. Took LCS out of downtown; and

3. Overcame limitations of the current building that was small and crowded, not fully accessible, and inadequate for programs.

He said the surreal location would help meet the requirements of the Mayor’s taskforce in human services and planning which was approved by the City Commission about a year ago and had been a guide for helping the issue of homelessness in Lawrence. This plan recommended that the community make available an emergency shelter with separate accommodations for individual males and females, families and teens, as well as individuals who were intoxicated or involved in substance abuse. The plan also recommended that emergency shelter facilities should include beds, showers, daily meals, laundry facilities, day rooms, gender separation, provision of basic clothing, short and long term storage of personal items and that the scope of the shelter to be provided in the community should include additional transitional housing/residential centers.

The relocation opportunity addresses the bond with the community. The Lawrence Community Shelter currently slept 20 plus people per night. The Salvation Army slept 50 plus people per night. The Salvation Army was looking to relocate sometime in the next two years, but at any rate, at the point the Salvation Army relocated, they were not going to do any emergency shelter and were going to be a transitional shelter. The people who were in need of an emergency shelter and all of those members will come to the Lawrence Community Shelter and it was impossible to think about putting any more people in their building. It was an unfortunate position that they were in, but they had to be ready at the same time the Salvation Army was ready, because when they move they would stop.

He said the Lakeview Manor was closed suddenly and they had been discussing, with the owner, the possibility of buying the property. They did not have a contract and were still in discussions. The asking price was $2 million, but that was not necessarily the final negotiated price.

The potential move had support of resolutions passed by the Community Commission on Homelessness and the Coalition for Homeless Concerns. He said they were excited because Lakeview Manor features 100 sleeping spaces. If they bought this building, all of the beds and telephone system would convey with the building, the building was fully sprinkled, and a commercial kitchen and dining room was available that seated 100 people with tables and chairs. Also, the roof was 5 years old, the building was fully handicapped accessible, and there was 7 acres of land. He said the purchase of that property would be a great opportunity because it would be almost a turn key, although he could not say for certain because no inspections had been completed on that property yet. Although, the layout of the building was one that would be immediately suitable to their programs and to the current and future need for the City.

Lakeview Manor allowed for the enhancement of their current programs. It allowed for better collaboration with agencies through better co-location. They currently had DCCCA, Bert Nash, Kansas Legal Services, a chiropractor, a nurse practitioner, an arts therapy program, and AA meetings. All those things were going on at the shelter and there was not enough room. The representatives from Bert Nash and attorneys from Kansas Legal Services did not have privacy, which would be something they could improve with the additional space.

He said the owner of building stated that if he did not sell it to someone like them, the owner would put it on the market. The property was not going to sit there for years waiting for them to be in a better position. He planned to take what they were currently doing and move everything into Lakeview Manor. While the Salvation Army was finishing up its construction and preparation for refocusing its program, they would be evolving, but not instantly from 20 to 100 people and it would not be for new, additional homeless people.

The Director of the Topeka Rescue Mission had agreed to be a program advisor to work with Lawrence Community Shelter as they evolved their programs in the new space. He said the Topeka Rescue Mission had a number of the same agencies, such as Kansas Legal Services. He said that Director had 20 years of experience that he could bring to the discussion.

The new building would give them better control of guests. It would allow them to have tiered programs. Right now they just have an emergency facility. He said the facility would give them a chance to have an emergency space, but as people start to commit to programs, goals, working with case managers, they could then have more privacy and an identity that would give them some goals to work further on. It would give them better segregation of genders and emergency shelter for families with children. There were three wings of the building that could help with the separation of genders and individual adults from children. It would possibly allow for infirmary space because they occasionally had people who had serious illnesses. It was possible that they would also have a detoxification space and possibility of transitional housing.

He said this week they were moving four people from the Lawrence Community Shelter into housing, which was a big achievement for those people and the LCS. If they had a separate wing, it would give them an opportunity to separate and to rent rooms with space to people who were disabled and had Social Security income and establish those habits before moving out into the general market.

He said he knew there were people present from the neighborhood and he knew there were going to be neighborhood complaints. It seemed with the buffer of 7 acres of land and very few immediate houses; it would be very different from the situation they had with Oread Neighborhood. This was about as good a situation they could find in Lawrence. The isolated and useful sight would help to have relatively fewer objections from the surrounding neighbors and businesses than almost any other location in the City of Lawrence. The LCS had also had public forums with its current neighbors and was developing a Good Neighbor Agreement, both of which they would do with their new neighbors if the relocations happened. He said they were trying to be as transparent with everyone, open communications, work with neighbors, and do what they could to address concerns and fears.

He said the case managers were in place and working. Piece by piece, as a community, they were beginning to deal with homelessness. The HMIS system was in place to collect data and most agencies were online with that system and everyone would be receiving better data about the demographics of homelessness in Lawrence. He thought his proposal was a great opportunity.

Mayor Amyx said through the pledges that were made in this budget and previous years, they had made great commitments in helping people who were in a homeless situation. He said as for this facility, he asked how the facility would be paid for, how long would the process take, and how would they pay back a $50,000 loan.

Henderson said he was asking for a loan if the deal did not go through and if they got money back, he would repay that money to the City. He said he was asking for a grant if the deal went forward to help them toward the purchase. He said otherwise, it was going to be paid for by donations. There was a possibility of federal or foundation money. He said those applications took considerably longer. He said he would also go to the County, individuals in Lawrence, foundations, and churches.

The initial proposal they made to the owner was for 7 months of time to sort through the paperwork, which had not been accepted. He said $50,000 was not a figure the owner suggested, but a figure he came up with. He said it was an arbitrary figure, but one that was high enough to make the owner interested and low enough that without embarrassment, he could ask for that kind of help. He said in other situations, people had mentioned that 10% was a typical percentage of earnest money, which was $200,000 which was way out of line.

Mayor Amyx asked what Henderson anticipated the Commission’s role to be in that new facility.

Henderson said everything was exploratory at this point. He said if he was successful at fundraising from the general public or foundations and churches, he would like the City’s involvement to be something like they had with the Arts Center, an on-going involvement where the City would help pay utilities, for instance. He said in the future, when he could tell donors where their contributions were going directly to programs that was much more interesting to those donors than their donations being used to paying heating bills. He said this was a commitment that was not huge, but important to LCS and was not to be overwhelming for him to ask for assistance. He said there seemed to be a precedent with the Arts Center as an example.

Commissioner Rundle said he assumed with this type of facility, programs would change so the LCS would not turn people out into the streets everyday and this would be actually housing.

Henderson said the Task Force plan stated the 24 hour shelter envisioned by the Task Force, at that time, would close during the day except for people who were working. He said he saw it different because there would be spaces for classrooms and for people to stay at that location. He said because of the way the building was situated, it faced away from the street and faced the pond to the south, and people could be on the grounds and not seen. It would be one of the consequences they would deal with as they developed the program for that sight.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the $50,000 was intended to be used as escrow money against an agreed upon purchase price.

Henderson said he supposed that was the correct terminology, but he wanted to give the owner some money to hold and not sell that property to someone else as they were scheduling inspections, going through the UPR process, and fundraising.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Henderson’s expectation, if unable to raise sufficient money to make a down payment, the $50,000 would be returned.

Henderson said that was the proposal to the owner that they would have a trigger point saying the fundraising was not going well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the owner was willing to hold the property for an agreed upon period of time with $50,000 earnest money that would be returned to him after that period of time and there had been no ability to raise sufficient funds.

Henderson said they actually proposed two trigger points. One was the sense of the fundraising was going well or not and the UPR site plan process if it looked like that was not going to happen and they could still get their money back.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at Henderson’s correspondence to the City Commission about this issue, Henderson indicated utilities were approximately $70,000 a year, the property taxes, unless exempted, were about $14,000, and there were no insurance or maintenance costs for the building. He asked if Henderson had gotten far enough in the process to think about what the total operational cost of this facility. He said one of his concerns was that it would be an expensive building because of the amount of square footage to heat, cool, insure, and pay taxes. He asked if it was Henderson’s expectation the City would pick up those operational cost or at least some significant part of those costs.

Henderson said that was his general level of thinking. He did not have specific figures that were based on inspections of that building.

Mayor Amyx asked if the $50,000 of earnest money that would be held up to hold the property for the agreed upon period of time would go to the owner if the obligation was not met.

Henderson said it was the other way around. If they did proceed, the owner would not get the money.

Commissioner Schauner said he heard that if the LCS was unable to raise sufficient funds to make a final purchase, the initial proposal to the owner had been that the $50,000 escrow fee would be returned to Henderson and then returned to the City.

Henderson said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said his lack of understanding was why the owner would need any escrow money if he was going to return that money after some period of time. He said every time he had tried to complete a real estate transaction, it had been his expectation that if he did not close on the purchase, the escrow money was lost.

Commissioner Rundle said Henderson indicated there was no agreement at this time.

Henderson said he did not have an agreement. He said it made it harder to go forward until they received an agreement.

Commissioner Schauner asked Henderson if his request was premature.

Henderson said he felt the request was not premature because he felt he had to do something. When negotiating with the seller, he had to be able to say he had a certain sum of money to put forward otherwise the negotiations would drift. He said he was present to ask for a commitment from the City to help him with that money so he could be clear with the seller. When the seller would gave him a price, then he could be clearer with other negotiations and clearer with the owners on how much he was trying to raise.

Commissioner Highberger asked Henderson if he was to the point in the planning process for relocation where they would look at criteria for that new site.

Henderson said the number of 100 sleeping spaces had been in his mind for some time. He had not done a criteria sheet, but the programs they had worked out and his knowledge and experience of other shelters would fit. He said if this proposal did not happen, there would be another building. He wanted to show the Commission that this was an opportunity and if this was not done, sometime in the near future when the Salvation Army relocated, they would be having another discussion and it might cost more. He said in talking with architects in town, this was on a replacement cost and it was a good price.

Mayor Amyx said their question was whether or not the City Commission asked LCS, as a private vendor, to give the City a site or this facility to take care of what might be a responsibility of the City and whether it was the responsibility of the City to come up with a plan for the location of the facility, level of service, and the number of individuals they might possibly afford. He said they could not allow the building size available today or six months from now to dictate what the programs were going to be. He thought that was the City Commission’s responsibility along with the Community Commission on Homelessness.

Henderson said that was correct. He said the building size was a secondary benefit because the Task Force, in looking at the building sizes and making a plan last year, put together numbers for a 15,000 square foot building. He said 15,000 square feet was not extensive or large, particularly for those people in the programs. He said the current building was over 7,000 square feet so 15,000 square feet more than doubled what they currently have. In looking at those numbers, a year and a half ago, the cost of a 15,000 square foot building was $2.5 to $2.7 million dollars. They did two examples in the plan, one was new construction, the other was renovation, and there were separate number for furnishings. He said those costs came out almost the same and the building now was a larger building with a lower price.

Commissioner Highberger asked Stogsdill to summarize the zoning and the surrounding land uses.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said the majority of the property was zoned RS-1, which was the typical zoning assigned when properties were annexed into the City until the mid 1980’s. There was actually a sliver of property, which included the driveway and the frontage along 31^st Street that was still zoned A (Agriculture District) and would become UR, (Urban Reserve District) with the new development code.

There was a small portion of flood plain along the southeast corner of the property. The buildings and parking lot did not appear to be in the flood plain. The property to the east was also zoned RS-1. The property directly to the north was a home in the City and also zoned A. The property to the west was not in the City limits, and also zoned A. Across 31^st Street, the majority of the properties were zoned RS-2.

Mayor Amyx said the item before the City Commission was whether or not the Commission would participate in the request of $50,000 for earnest money or loan. He said they needed to be very careful on whether they were to consider this as a use permit or special zoning. He wanted to caution the City Commission in that the only item they were considering was whether or not they, as a body, were going to participate financially in this facility.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Bruce Levine, Lawrence, said it was hard to disagree or not to feel the compassion of the speaker. He said he and his wife had a series of questions, but they would like the audience to hear those questions as well.

Ann Marshall-Levine, Lawrence, said she was a retired psychologist who spent most of her professional life working with the developmentally disabled. She said she had a lot of sympathy and concern with Henderson’s desire to find better housing for the homeless in Lawrence.

She said they lived on the corner of 29^th Street Terrace and Lawrence Avenue, which would put them two blocks from the old nursing home. She was speaking out of two sets of concerns. Before they made up their minds about what they thought about this proposed facility, they did have some questions that should be addressed.

1. How many homeless people, on average, were in Lawrence;

2. Was it a good idea to place such a large number as 100 people in one facility in one part of the City.

3. Would this be a place to sleep only or would the facility be closed during the day, or would there be daytime treatment and training programs or even the opportunity to stay inside if it was raining or cold.

4. Among homeless people, she had read as many as one third were probably mentally ill and asked if they would be mixed in with the drug and/or alcohol addicted and the merely indigent. She said it seemed like a step backward to the old county homes in the past in which the mental health community worked very hard to change in the 1950’s.

5. If a residential drug rehabilitation program was to be part of this facility.

6. How much preplanning, if any, on how this building would be used or was it a leap to purchase a building that suddenly became available due to the closing of a nursing home.

7. Has there been an attempt to study the impact of such a facility housing 100 or so clients, on local property values, crime rates, and the general safety of residents in the neighborhood and their children.

She said in this particular area where she lived, it was very common for individuals to walk alone or in couples either very early in the morning or quite late into the evening. She said they might find people out walking before dawn or after dark. She asked if there was a safety concern when the facility opened and if that practice would need to change.

She said the City had the walking/bike trail that went right behind that building on the other side of the pond and the City needed to post signs warning people not to walk alone. Having lived in Topeka for a while, she knew there were signs for their walking trails behind the VA, where there were a number of mentally ill people, stating not to walk alone. If they were asked not to walk alone that would be a change in their lifestyle and for the people who used the trail.

She restated in closing that they were not opposed to the development of residential treatment facilities for the homeless, but they were leaning towards smaller facilities scattered around the city designed to meet the needs of the various subgroups that the homeless represent. She said they would accept a small facility in their area if they could be assured that it would be beneficial to the homeless and meet concerns of the residents in the neighborhood.

Jane Fabian, Chair Community Commission on Homelessness, said the Commmunity Commission grew out of the original Task Force on Homelessness initiated by Mayor Dunfield, and as most of them knew there were a body of recommendations that came out of three years of work, done by the task force, the Representative Plan on Homelessness as well as recommendations that took into account the number of gaps in their services currently.

The Task Force created the Community Commission on Homelessness, (CCH) and was tasked with implementing that plan and with trying to coordinate the multiple services that were currently available to the homeless that might not be looked upon as particularly coordinated at the present time. She wanted to go on record to say that the CCH absolutely supported the LCS’s initiative to raise money to look further into finding a new location.

One of the cornerstones of any homeless plan had to be safe, decent housing, emergency shelter for anyone in need, and she challenged anyone to go down and spend any time at the current shelter and come away feeling it was safe, humane, decent, or therapeutic at all, with individuals having to sleep shoulder to shoulder on mats at night. She was very happy to hear concerns brought up about the mentally ill and those needing detoxification from substance abuse. The way it stood, the only shelter in town, with 21 beds, did not segregate any of those individuals.

The opportunity that fell into their laps would offer an amazing opportunity for expansion of programs, etc. There were a lot of details to be worked out, but it was important for them to know that this was very consistent with the emergency shelter domain of the task force recommendations.

Wesley Dahlberg, Lawrence Salvation Army Administrator, said he did not want to tell the City how to spend its money nor where it was going to come from. He wanted to say that if one were to read the newspapers, they would come to the conclusion perhaps by reading this week the Salvation Army and Lawrence Community Shelter did not work together or talk to each other and nothing could be further from the truth. They were planning for this expansion of services both from the LCS and the Salvation Army. When the Salvation Army opened its new facility, the program will completely change from what they were currently offering. They would no longer be providing temporary emergency sheltering. They would be providing a homeless intervention program to help people move on from homelessness and into transitional and permanent housing.

It was important that LCS have a facility that would allow them to house sufficient numbers of people in such a way that would allow them to have a clean, wholesome place to live rather than sleeping on a two inch mat on the floor. He did not think anyone wanted to see that continue. He supported LCS and the idea and opportunity that had come before the City Commission and hoped they would assist the LCS to take the next step to better serve the homeless population.

Susan Cardin, Lawrence, said she thought they were all probably in agreement that they wanted Lawrence to remain a progressive community in helping the homeless. She said she lived across the street from the nursing home and bought her house in Prairie Meadows because she felt it was a stable, safe environment to raise her children. She still had a 15 year old at home and had some concerns about the location being close to her neighborhood. She said she could have bought a house on the east side and it would have been closer to where she worked, but she felt Prairie Meadows was a more stable and less transient neighborhood and houses retain their value better in the neighborhood she chose to live in. She expected the City of Lawrence would want to keep her feeling safe in her neighborhood. She was a single mom, one child left at home and one child in college, so it was a concern for her that they had people who were drug addicts and alcoholics and people who chose that type of lifestyle and might not be able to change that type of lifestyle living close to her home. She felt she had worked hard for what she had and did not want to feel threatened in her neighborhood. Their neighborhood had family centered activities, including the bike trail and a local church that planned to open a preschool and moving the homeless shelter raises concern about the safety for the entire 31^st Street corridor neighborhoods. They had young people who were working shifts until 10:00 at night, coming home alone, using public transportation which might be shared with some of those people. She asked if loitering and trespassing were issues for the downtown neighbors, and asked how they expected that to change off of 31^st Street. She said it was shifting this problem from one area to another.

She was interested in knowing how many police calls there were to the homeless shelter at 10^th and Kentucky during the last year. She asked if they expanded the programs for those people, were the programs voluntary and did the people have to take part in the programs or could they choose not to, come and go as they please, and use the facility in whatever way they chose.

Nancy Turner, Lawrence, said she would like them to consider demographics of this area as they were looking at the possibilities of assisting and financing the shelter. She lived in a very unique neighborhood and directly behind her home was Cottonwood. They had unique, wonderful neighbors that were impaired, that often use the public transportation, and might not be considered as they were considering this issue. That area was also expanding and they were fortunate to have those unique individuals walking their neighborhoods in the evening when it is cool, walking the bike trail, and she wanted to make sure that they were safe as well.

The growth of that area had brought a tremendous opportunity for the young adults. There are many retail stores, fast food restaurants, and many of those teenagers are going back and forth on public transportation and walking back and forth as those were their first jobs. She would hate for them to encounter a situation that was beyond their expertise or control.

Bill Sims, a member of the homeless community, said he felt he would bring a different perspective to this issue. He had lived previously in an inner eastern city where they had a halfway house for people from prison. He said they caused no grief. The problems were with the thugs. He could tell the people of East Lawrence, South Lawrence, North Lawrence, and West Lawrence where friends of his had been kind enough to give him a place to live for this month. They had neighbors who were drunk, had mental issues, and could easily be living next to a mass murderer. He said to ask the people in Wichita. He was sorry if some folks were worried about their children, but they should consider the children who lived on New Hampshire, Kentucky, or Vermont. If they were worried about the drunks, he told them to come down Ohio Street, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or any of the frat houses for that matter or GSP/Corbin. He said they should come during a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night and look at the litter on Sunday, Saturday, or Friday morning. He was not allowed to use four letter words, but the words fornication, defecation, and urination came to mind. He said it was a city of many poor people and many wealthy people. He lived in an inner city in a house of 2200 square feet, four bedrooms that was valued at less than $20,000. He said in this city, that house would be a quarter of a million. He took in refugees from El Salvador, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Somalia, Vietnam, and he was sure he left someone out. They did not cause problems with the neighbors because he did not allow them to. He thought a well run homeless shelter would work well in a former nursing home, but at the recent CHC, the Coalition for Homeless Concerns, not to be confused with the CCH, he cast a lone vote saying he was not in favor of the Lawrence Community Shelter going into that location. His reason was not the neighborhood’s concerns. He felt that a homeless shelter had to stabilize the people within that homeless shelter. He gets 12 hours a day and a two inch mat. He did not know where he was sleeping because they had a first come, first served policy. If he was not to the door first, someone else could take his spot. If someone helped him put down a mat, they could be banned and have been yelled at. They were not allowed to cooperate or communicate and it had been a year since the LCS had a meeting with the inmates. He said he was not a drunk or drug addict, but was homeless.

He said there was a need for a homeless facility and the facility should give people a room, privacy, should be run 24 hours with support services following the Housing First model in Kansas City where many people with mental health problems, drug addictions, alcoholism, etc needed support to make it in transitional housing. He agreed with LCS running that facility, if they could come up with a proper attitude towards the homeless people. The City needed to understand that not all of them were drunks or had severe mental issues. He was concerned about the gender issue. They had married couples that were split and not allowed to sleep in the same room and he did not want anyone to ask what it was like for the gay and lesbian community at either Salvation Army or LCS. They needed privacy and respect. They were citizens of Lawrence, but happen to be poorer than most of the people in Lawrence. He thought they deserved respect and support not only from the communities, but also from the service providers.

Joe Patterson, Lawrence, said he had been a resident of Lawrence for almost 60 years and did not live close to the existing facility or the proposed new facility. People that knew him could say that he would be willing to help someone if they needed help. He had noticed a person in front of the local shelter that he had seen there for 30 years and apparently, she made the shelter her home. He said an emergency shelter should be looked at as an emergency. It seemed as though the City was making a long term commitment to people and he would like to see a breakdown of local people versus people from out state. He thought they should keep the shelter for the community. There were too many people who had made homelessness a way of life in Lawrence. He thought they needed to give this issue a lot of consideration before $50,000 was committed.

Katie Mason-Carruth, Lawrence, said just as the current neighbors would be happy to see the homeless shelter move to the suburbs of Lawrence, homeowners along the 31^st Street of Lawrence Avenue area were concerned about the possibility their homes could lose their values. The property values would decline because of the proposed Lawrence Community Homeless Shelter being located in their neighborhood. She contacted 10 different realtors and asked if the realtor could give her estimates of how they thought this shelter would affect the property values in the area. On a condition of anonymity, the realtor told her their property values could be lowered from $30,000-$50,000 if the shelter would come into this area. Not only would the property values decline, but the length of time their homes would be on the market would be much longer, if they sold at all.

She chose two houses in her block to see exactly what the impact of what $30,000 to $50,000 decrease in value would actually mean in actual numbers. She took information from the Douglas County Treasurer’s website, which was public information. One house, for 2006, was valued at $167,300, with a $30,000 devaluation it would be worth $117,110, and a 50% devaluation would be worth half, or $83,650. Another house for 2006 was valued at $210,700, and with a $30,000 devaluation, it would be worth $148,890 and a 50% devaluation would be worth half or $106,350. The economic impact of such a dramatic loss in property values because of this shelter being located in their neighborhood could have devastating results for many families and could also cause hardships for many different reasons. She asked if it was fair to put this burden on the homeowners in this area, when they wanted nothing more than to have a safe environment to raise their families when they chose this location to live. The whole point to buy a home would be to increase the value. She asked if they wanted to sell off the voting public to house 100 people who did not pay taxes and did not vote.

Dianna Swatsenbarg, Lawrence, said she and her husband were homeowners who lived on 31^st Street Court. She said she was in the process of selling her house and was surprised when they realized this issue was happening and coming before the City Commission tonight. It had directly impacted the sale of their home. She was a nurse in Lawrence and was not opposed, in any way, to the work that had been done with the homeless. Those that knew her and her work knew she had been directly related with the homeless shelter through donations and other in kind work that she had done. She also cared for individuals who were suffering from a variety of illnesses related to their homelessness and addictions. She believed she had a perspective on what they needed to do for this population, but thought it was the wrong place to put that facility, not only because it impacted her and her husband personally as it related to their home, but also because she viewed that particular site as an isolated site. When looking at health care, it was completely across town. LMH did have a site at 23^rd Street and had regular business hours, was not an ER, and was not set up to care for people in the hours they would probably be needing care often times in that particular environment. Most of the services were geared toward the opposite side of town.

She also had concerns about the bike path. Her family and many friends she exercised with and socialized with use the bike path. The bike path was a somewhat isolated area back in the woods by the pond even without a known population in that area that could certainly raise additional safety concerns. If they were a person on the bike path and encountered a dangerous situation and that person was in need, no one would hear that person and it would be a long time before anyone could get help. Even if calling on a cell phone, the police have to get to that location and find you on the path and that would take time. She wanted to paint that picture because there were some real safety concerns in that area. There were lots of families and women who used that bike path. A lot of men use the bike path too, but often times they were not the people who were targeted for trouble. She encouraged the City Commission to consider another site that spoke to immediate medical assistance, if needed, and also in areas where it would not have such a huge impact on the homeowners that had worked their lives to invest into that particular development area and to serve the residents that would be cared for in this setting in a better manner.

Nancy Huckeba, Lawrence, said she was a little bit familiar with the homeless population because she served as the coordinator for the Harvest Kitchen and Meals site in Madison, Wisconsin many years ago. She knew there was a need, but was not convinced that this was the proper site for this facility. She said she agreed with Patterson’s comments concerning the $50,000. She knew the person who wrote the original grant for the Drop-In Center and her idea was that it would be a drop in center and would be a place for people to hang out when they did not have a place to go for the evening. The original intent was it never was to be a shelter for the homeless, yet they were considering a place to house 100 people or more.

This facility would impact their community in many ways. There would be an increased need for police officers. A member of her family who served as a police officer knew for a fact there were many additional calls for problems at the shelter. It did not mean that everyone housed in the shelter was a problem person or mentally ill, it was just the nature of that facility. Some of the neighbors had pointed out that it was a family neighborhood and known as a good neighborhood because it had good schools. The area was a safe neighborhood and the properties held their value. Everyone knew this facility would directly impact the neighborhood. All of the services for the homeless were located downtown which was the way it was in most major cities. People in larger cities than Lawrence were grappling with how to solve this problem. She said from an earlier comment it was indicated that some of the homeless were not necessarily from Lawrence or Kansas. If anyone knew much about the homeless community, there was a group of people who were professionally homeless.

She asked how would this issue would impact the community in the long run and asked the City Commission to consider that not only for the budget, but also for the safety. She said originally the shelter was supposed to be a Drop-In Shelter for people to come out of the hot or cold during the day, but not supposed to be an overnight shelter.

Hilda Enoch, Coalition of Homeless Concerns, said she had been connected to the coalition for approximately 30 years. She knew there were not professional homeless around the area because they had not had a shelter for more than several years. When the shelter first came into existence she rejoiced because people were simply wandering the streets. This program that had just opened up was going to make a decent facility possible for the many people who were not being housed at this time and have no place to go. When discussing low income housing, there would be a possibility for transitional housing in this facility so that people could transition out of homelessness into some place. If this was done right, there would be a detoxification center and would not have people with no place to go. They had so many success stories of people who were given an opportunity. She thanked the case workers who had come out to the scene and offered the kind of support that if they had a facility and could build in a number of supports, they could truly address the question of homelessness that for so long had festered in this community. She begged the City Commission to give that program the opportunity. She said to her $50,000 was a real bargain. She knew Manhattan, years ago, dedicated ¼ of the mill to homelessness that built transitional housing and a shelter and Lawrence was only beginning. She appreciated that it was one of the first few Commissions that had at least acknowledged they have a major problem. She felt that as with the Arts Center and Library, this was something a community did for its citizens. She wanted to give an adequate and accurate picture if they had a facility that served those people. She thought they would blend into the neighborhood and not cause problems if they had the funds dedicated to provide the services and support they needed. They could do this job and do it well because it was long overdue.

Don Huggins, Chair of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said Henderson did a good job in summarizing the advantages of this site as a potential new home. It had a very small interface with the existing communities. He shared the local neighborhood’s concern with the shelter. The fact of the matter was that the physical location was fully isolated, which could be a good thing. It meant they did have a small interface with the existing community and did have more control because it was self contained. What they were asking the City for would be to make a minor investment to allow them to investigate it more fully to see if it really did meet their purpose and the community’s purpose. They did not have all the answers and did not know where all the money was going to come from. They did not know if this facility would provide all the kinds of physical environment that they would need for programs. They were honestly making an attempt to provide a better physical location for the shelter.

People had spoken to the inadequacies of the shelter as it stood now, but the future would not improve those inadequacies. As the Salvation Army refocused its programs, it had been pointed out they would have more guests, but they could not accommodate more guests. They wanted to be proactive in trying to provide for some growth to accommodate the shifting roles of the two shelters. This was an initial and scary step, but they needed partnerships and they were looking to the City to investigate this plan.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to see the exploration go forward on this issue. He said he did not want to shift problems from one area of town to the other. He said if that was clearly what they were doing, he would not support any necessary funding. His sense of urgency came from the people of Oread Neighborhood who had patiently been waiting for them to come up with a concrete, comprehensive solution and to resolve some of the concerns that had been on going.

He envisioned a facility where people that were homeless were taken off the street, would have a permanent place, and if they left the facility they could go about the various tasks they needed to pursue whether it be health issues, going to work or finding work. The Topeka Rescue Mission’s plan was no different than in Lawrence. There were individuals who were not in shelter and who were in empty buildings. Topeka essentially dealt with the same issues as Lawrence, even though they might not be as visible. Topeka offered or referred people to drug treatment, detoxification, and mental health facilities. He said those service providers would come to the site and he saw that as service as a possibility with this location. He thought the primary question was if they were going to make some serious effort at meeting this problem head on, the neighbors who did not want this facility in their neighborhood needed to put a serious effort in finding an alternative. They could not just say that they dodged that bullet and it was out of their yard. They had to find a solution.

He also thought there was a mischaracterization of both individuals who were homeless and the kind of facility this would be. Homeless individuals did pay taxes and did vote and many were working poor. When they had money and purchased items they paid sales tax. He said there was simply no research to prove the idea that there was a preponderance of people coming from the outside. He thought it was unfortunate that individuals and community leaders had put that idea out there. He said he attended a conference on homelessness and heard the director state that it was a myth. He said people come to Lawrence thinking they would find a better job.

Commissioner Highberger said for the most part he agreed with Commissioner Rundle. He said he was not convinced that the clients at the Lawrence Community Shelter were on average more of a danger to the general population than any of the rest of us, especially college students. He lived three blocks from the shelter and had not perceived any problems. He lived with a family of three children and they did not have to hide them.

If the Salvation Army changed its model as they were proposing, the City would have a crisis on their hands. He thought they would need to start acting now and the plan they adopted should be moving toward a shelter facility which would require significantly more resources then allocated right now.

He was not sure this was the best location for the shelter. He would rather go through a process where they would look at the criteria for a location such as access to services and how people would get to commercial areas. He said it was important that if they did move forward with this, it needed to be a process. If they moved forward on this location, there would be a chance to impose conditions.

It was his understanding they were moving to a treatment model where there were no new facilities provided. People would be given even more than what they are now to move forward to make their lives better or transition into housing, which was an important piece of this issue. He said he wanted to move forward in this plan and if the funding could be found to make something happen, he thought there would be a way to do it that would not make property values go down 30-50%.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with some of what his fellow Commissioners said, but not all of it. He said he did not think there had been a sufficient level of due diligence before the Lawrence Community Shelter came to the City to ask for assistance. He said he did believe the shelter did work and obviously there was a population that needed that attention. He recently received a tour of the Community Shelter and he thought it was not a place anyone present would want to spend a lot of time. It was not comfortable, private, or a place that spoke well for the community other than the fact there was a place for some people. He did not think anyone who was there for whatever reason was less a person or citizen than anyone else in this community. He thought they should be treated with respect and the community had an obligation to provide some level of service to those individuals. He had much more support of a program that moved people through an output model and one that did not count the number of meals served, but actually produced a situation in which people could better themselves.

He said he was very familiar with the Topeka model. The Topeka Rescue Mission model seemed to have a fair amount of success, but he thought the one difference between what Henderson was proposing and what the Topeka model offered was the Topeka model had been around quite a long time and had a very strong network of fundraising on a regular basis. They raise in the neighborhood of $2 million a year for their operation, almost exclusively from private resources. They did not rely on federal or state grant or city tax money for their program. The Lawrence Community Shelter had not been around long enough to develop that track record or that kind of support basis. If this proposal came forward asking for City participation to look at purchasing a property, not speaking specifically of Lakeview, he would be supportive of looking at it and giving it a fair hearing. He could not support this request because he thought they did not know enough about what it meant.

As he looked at the numbers Henderson provided, there were so many unknowns if they were able to purchase the property with 10% down with a $1.8 million mortgage, it was a huge amount to pay every month in addition to their utility bills and what their current rent was. He questioned whether the Lawrence Community Shelter could raise that sort of money or pledges in the period of time the owner of this property would be willing to accept to hold it off on the market. With his experience, when escrow money was offered, it was with the expectation you might not see it returned if you did not complete or close on the transaction.

He was also concerned about the lack of what he saw as a substantial plan how this building would be used. He heard Henderson discuss renting part of the building to offset the operational costs. He could not support the request because he did not feel comfortable with a level of due diligence for the tax payers and the citizens of the community to offer $50,000 or any amount of money until they knew more about what they were being asked to do.

He also was a little uncomfortable they were not a full Commission and that Commissioner Hack was not present. He did not know what position Commissioner Hack would take, but should be offered the opportunity to participate and offer an opinion.

Mayor Amyx said this agenda was to receive a request for City participation of $50,000 from the Lawrence Community Shelter concerning Lakeview Manor. He said concerning the budget process, in the past two years, he and Commissioner Schauner considered requests from outside agencies and the funding levels that would be considered. He addressed Enoch saying that if the City Commission could get away with a quarter of a million in participation with outside agencies, it would be done. He said the City spent a lot of money participating in funding programs and the City Commission did a good job in participating in the best way they could. They had asked the Community Commission on Homelessness to become involved and it was understood, this year, what funding levels could be considered in dealing with problems of people in need.

He said this year he looked at programs versus housing. The requests were up approximately 1/3 from what the funding levels were a year ago and he and Commissioner Schauner recommended starting funding level deliberations in two weeks. He said the City Commission had a commitment to programs on a yearly basis and almost on a daily basis as request were received. He never wanted it to be said that Lawrence, Kansas did not assist in helping people of need because the City did help. He said they needed to specifically define the direction of the Community Commission on Homelessness because they were the individuals who would hear requests in the future. He said they needed to be specific in their point of view in whether they were going to get into the housing or bolster programs, but he did not think they could afford to do both. They needed to make a decision on whether they were going to be in the housing business or in the program business, because if not, they did not have any idea what were the affects on the budget.

He said Henderson’s request was a solid request. He said the City was involved in helping people who found themselves homeless, but the question was at what level. He said he did not feel secure in placing public tax money in a position that it could be lost because he saw it needed in other places. There had been a request for huge programs, such as the WRAP Program through Bert Nash that were needed, but were expensive. He said at this time he could not support the request.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to put some real numbers with the Mayor’s comments. The City’s 2005 budget for outside agency requests was $375,000 in fiscal 2005 and in fiscal 2006, $787,000. The request of fiscal 2007, the request the Commission was considering at this time was $1.2 million. He said that was a 53.57% increase for fiscal 2007 as compared with fiscal 2006. He did not know if the general public had a complete understanding of the amount of money the City of Lawrence contributed to those outside agency. He said this was not just a caring community, but a caring Commission as evidenced by the kind of commitment made over the past number of years. The question of going forward without knowing more about what this might ultimately mean was not a good way to make public policy on whether they were going to be in the housing business or program business. He thought they needed to take a much more complete look at what direction they were going to head.

Commissioner Rundle said he did not know if there was serious consideration to bring this issue back when they had a full Commission, but his task, at this point, would be to change a vote, if possible. He said Henderson spoke to him about this opportunity and it was clear this was not a “be all” or “end all” opportunity if this proposal did not come to fruition because he knew somewhere in the future they would receive another opportunity to bring this shelter to reality. He did not think by making the decision to loan or lend the money that they were foregoing the due diligence to what that meant. The only reason he wanted to urge the City Commission to make some effort to facilitate this investigation was so they did not lose an opportunity.

Commissioner Highberger said he had some concerns about location and did not need to do much arm twisting. He thought they needed to aim this budget process for 2007 to start a location for a new shelter facility.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to acknowledge what people stated about this funding request was a drop in the bucket. He said they had a report from the task force that outlined the services, programs, staffing, and facilities needed to address this problem in a comprehensive way. He said they attempted to put a price tag on this proposal so they had a sense of what they were looking at. He knew that it was going to be a public private venture.

He said he did not like to lose an opportunity to beat up the legislature for foregoing their responsibility over the years regarding mental health reform and creating a very progressive model on health services and then not providing any funding. It was something the Commission needed to work on at the state level to address. He thought the idea of the using the Topeka Rescue Model was not a mistake. There were three housing agencies that provided housing in Topeka and they had the constellation of support services just like Lawrence. He thought they could look at the Topeka model in terms of the money they spent through their neighborhood resources to prevent homelessness. He was planning to attend a meeting on the Commission on Homelessness so he could get a better sense of what the Topeka reality was.

Mayor Amyx said they could either take an action to proceed, ask Vice Mayor Hack be afforded the idea to review comments and to offer her opinion or any other possibilities that could happen.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought if Vice Mayor Hack thought this issue was worth bringing back, maybe she could initiate that process.

Mayor Amyx said it was obvious there would be a split decision on the recommendation of funding and suggested soliciting Vice Mayor Hack’s opinion and she could ask that this issue be placed on the agenda.

Commissioner Highberger asked if this issue would be indefinitely deferred.

Commissioner Schauner said no matter what her vote or opinion would be on this matter, it would not answer the underlying question. It was clear no matter where this issue might go there would be people upset on the location, which he understood. The issue he remained concerned about was what did that funding really mean to them in the long run. To him, it was not $50,000, but what that rule represented. He thought until they resolved that issue it would be hard to support signing off on future funding they could not accurately predict.

Commissioner Rundle said there were some general questions raised for studying criteria for a site. He would like to have the people from the Community Commission on Homelessness, take those issues back and come back to the City Commission with some kind of process for resolving those questions and keep them on task.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to indefinitely defer the proposal and request from the Lawrence Community Shelter on Lakeview Manor. Motion carried unanimously. (25)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

There was no public comment.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

07/11/06	Starting time of the meeting to be 5:00 Salvation Army Site Plan (continued from 06/06/06); 1313 Haskell Avenue dangerous structure (house moving) issue
07/18/06	800 Pennsylvania Redevelopment Project 2007 City Budget Discussion (continued from 06/20/06)
07/25/06	Commission authorizes publication of proposed 2007 Budget
08/01/06	City Commission Meeting cancelled (the first meeting of the month was cancelled to allow for vacations, etc., before school starts.  There will be a meeting on the 5^th Tuesday, 08/29/06)
08/08/06	Final public hearing on 2007 Budget

(26)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Mayor Amyx thanked the Commissioners for the discussion they had about the possibilities of Lakeview Manor. He also appreciated the work that members of City staff in putting together the budget.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2006

1. Bid- Cont. participation in Mid America Council of Public Purchasing.

2. Bid- Maintenance service for the HVAC system for Community Health Facility.

3. Bid- Purchase of one sewer pump for Utilities Department.

4. Bid- Renew insurance coverage for Fire/Medical Department and City’s building/property.

5. Bid- Roof replacement on excess flow screen building for Utilities Department.

6. Ordinance No 7993- 1^st Read, rezone 37.580 acres from A District to RS-2 District.

7. Ordinance No. 7994- 1^st Read, rezone 35.211 acres from A District to RM-D District.

8. Ordinance No. 8010- 1^st Read, rezone 4.6 acres from M-2 to O-1, 2001 Haskell Ave.

9. Ordinance No. 8011- 1^st Read, rezone .28 acres from RO-1 to RM-3, 640 Arkansas

10. Ordinance No. 7880- 2^nd and Final Read, codification of ordinances.

11. Ordinance No. 8013- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02A-06, table clarifying text/corrections.

12. Ordinance No. 8014- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02B-06: Section 20-205.

13. Ordinance No. 8015- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02C-06: Section 20-403.

14. Ordinance No. 8016- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02E-06, revisions to Article 7.

15. Ordinance No. 8017- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02F-06, revisions to 20-908 regarding driveway standards in various residential districts.

16. Ordinance No. 8018- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02H-06, revisions to 20-1304, criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans.

17. Ordinance No. 8019- 2^nd and Final Read, TA-03-02I-06: amendments to 20-1739, identify additional uses permitted in the Manufacturing & Production.

18. Resolution No. 6657- declaring 2710 University Drive as environmentally blighted.

19. Resolution No. 6658- declaring 2712 University Drive as environmentally blighted.

20. Resolution No. 6659- declaring 214 North 6^th Street as environmentally blighted.

21. PF-04-07-06- Final Plat request for Yankee Tank View Addition

22. Staff update on status of taxiway project for Lawrence Municipal Airport.

23. City Manager’s Report.

24. Lawrence Memorial Hospital expansion plans.

25. Proposal and request from Lawrence Community Shelter concerning Lakeview Manor.

26. Future Agenda Items.

27. Commission Items.