July 25, 2006

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx proclaimed Wednesday, July 26^th as “The City of Lawrence, Kansas Celebration of the 16^th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and proclaimed the week of August 1^st-7^th as “Breastfeeding Awareness Week.”

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 11, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of June 5, 2006, and the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of May 25, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 518 vendors in the amount of $2,792,083.27 and payroll from July 9, 2006 to July 22, 2006, in the amount of $1,670,441.39. Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to Henry T’s Bar & Grill, 3520 West 6th and Royal Crest Lanes, 933 Iowa; Retail Liquor License to Cork & Barrel, 2000 West 23rd Street; and Cereal Malt Beverage License to Wal-Mart Supercenter No. 484, 3300 Iowa Street. Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Mike Monroe to the un-expired position held by Ed Brunt on the Community Commission on Homelessness which expires on December 31, 2007; reappoint Derek Felch, David Longhurst, David Johnston, Doug Holiday, and Bob Schumm to the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board to terms that will expire on July 1, 2010 and appoint Perrty Martin to fill an unexpired term that ends July 1, 2007; and appoint Jae Change to the Recycling & Resource Conservation Advisory Board to fill an un-expired term that was held by Shannon Criss which will expire on December 31, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve payment of $17,983.30 to P.H.I. Investigative Consultants, Inc., for fees and expenses incurred for leading the Practical Homicide Investigation Seminar. Motion carried unanimously

(1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8023, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places the structure located at 820 New Jersey Street. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8027, adopting the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code with amendments, as recommended by the plumbing board. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6666, declaring 1401 Monterey Way environmentally blighted, ordering the property owner to remove violations within 20 days. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6667, declaring 1024 New York Street environmentally blighted, ordering the property owner to remove violations within 20 days. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6668, declaring 1321 Massachusetts Street environmentally blighted, ordering the property owner to removed violations in 20 days. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, approve and authorize drafting of an ordinance/resolution for text amendment TA-05-03A-06: Consider revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code concerning planned development conditions and related items to 20-701(f). Motion carried unanimously. (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the submittal of KLINK, Geometric Improvement, and Economic Development applications to KDOT. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to accept the recommendations from KDOT for establishing speed limits on West 6^th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8022, establishing speed limits on 6^th Street as follows: from 430 feet east of Lawrence Avenue to Monterey Way 40 mph, and from Monterey Way to the west City limits 45 mph. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to approve the request to provide an adult crossing guard at the intersection of George Williams Way and Harvard Road. Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Lenny and Kimberly DeFazio, 1602 Irving Court; and Michael and Ginger McHugh, 1029 Home. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Alex and Waldina Sabilion, 1005 Parkview. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive request from Kansas River Expression of Soul Project for a naturalistic sculpture trail along the Kansas River. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, Casey Liebst, Budget Manager, presented a summary of the 2^nd Quarter Financial Report for the City of Lawrence. She said the general fund on the revenue side was 63.3% of their budget which was an increase of approximately 7% over the general fund last year. Factors behind that increase were sales tax numbers which continued to exceed the City’s projections and other factors were the timing of payments the City received including the payment from Douglas County for their share of their planning expenses. Another significant area of increase had been interest earned. Interest rates continued to go back up and that helped generate additional revenue.

On the expenditure side in the general fund was at about 49% of the budget for 2006 which represented a 12% increase over the same period last year. That increase could be explained by encumbrances that had been made for large items including the Development Process Review Project that was underway and the Mill and Overlay Project and Curb and Gutter. There were 6 divisions that had expended more than 50% of their budget, but if the encumbrances were taken out, overall the City was approximately 44% of the 2006 budget being expended at the end of the first half of the year.

The recreation fund on the revenue side, the City had experienced increases in outdoor and indoor pool revenues, which had helped. Overall the expenditures in the recreation fund were about 43% of the 2006 budget.

Transportation fund had experienced increase in fair box revenues. The expenditures in that fund were at about 34% of the budget.

In the enterprise funds, revenues were over 50% of what the City budgeted in all of those funds and the expenditures were below that level.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the Risk Management account, he asked if 69% of budget with encumbrances was a typical first half experience.

Liebst said yes, it was a good example how encumbrances had came into play. All of those different types of paid insurance premiums, the City encumber those funds and pay all those funds at one time, during the year.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the 69% represented an increased expenditure of what had been budgeted, or was that just encumbrances coming in early during the year.

Liebst said she did not believe so, but she would find the answer for Commissioner Schauner.

Frank Reeb, City Clerk, said he thought Liebst summarized the answer well in terms of the premiums and how the funds were encumbered. Risk Management was not experiencing any increases in terms of claims or risk management costs over and above what they expected.

Mayor Amyx asked what percentage of the budget had been spent as of June 30^th in the General Fund.

Liebst said the City had spent 49%, but if taking out those encumbrances, the City had spent approximately 44%.

Corliss said the City was on target for its expenditures. The City would not spend 100%, but it would be in the 97-98% range. The City was still aggressively looking at expenditures, but they were not going to freeze positions and the City needed to go ahead with the positions that were budgeted and get those people working.

Mayor Amyx asked if there were any project Corliss could identify that would not be completed or started in 2006.

Corliss said there might be some projects, but he did not know if they would have any budget impact. They were still going to need to proceed on with those projects and were moving forward on a number of those projects.

Also during the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said staff was moving forward with an interactive voice response system in Neighborhood Resources and look forward to the efficiencies that would provide and the higher level of service that could be provided in the Neighborhood Resources Department.

He said staff had met with a representative from Westar concerning a major tree clearing project on an easement that Westar owned in the western part of Lawrence. Staff was encouraging Westar that good public education and communication was essential for that project.

Also, the Stormwater Division of Public Works installed a new pump at 2^nd and Locust.

Corliss said other items in the City Manager’s Report included the building permit information from Neighborhood Resources and whether the community was growing or not. He said those numbers in the report indicated that the City was issuing a number of building permits.

Finally, during the City Manager’s report, Bob Yoos, Solid Waste Superintendent, said the recycling rate for 2005 was 33% and that rate was higher than the national average of 30.4% and higher than the state average, which the state published at 23% in their last Solid Waste Management Guide, but someone from the state indicated the State was only at 15-16%. Either way, they were way higher or a lot higher than the state. He said they felt good about that number because Wal-Mart was closed for half the year and that closing affected how much was recycled because Wal-Mart recycled quite a bit. Staff expected that number to come up this year. The yard waste totals were raised because plastic bags from the collection procedure were eliminated.

He said Mollie Mangerich, Waste Reduction/Recycling Operations Supervisor, was working on several initiatives to expand existing programs such as bringing the school system in on office paper recycling on a City wide basis.

Commissioner Highberger said many people had asked why the City did not have curbside recycling and he replied by stating the City already had the highest recycling rate of the state. He said staff indicated that if they wanted curbside recycling, the City would have to raise everyone’s utility bills by $8-$11 per month. He asked if Yoos looked at those numbers recently.

Yoos said yes. He said those numbers might be higher because while the City’s disposal cost remained the same over the years, the price of fuel and personnel costs had increased since the data used in that report.

He said he had a two part answer when he was asked about curbside recycling. First, the City had 5 curbside recycling providers in Lawrence, private companies that provided that service to those people who wish to have curbside recycling. Secondly, he said the mix of programs in Lawrence was more effective, more cost efficient, and more sustainable than curb side collection and he thought their numbers showed that.

Mayor Amyx said the savings for landfill in 2005 was $284,000 which was impressive. The revenue from the sale of recycled materials was $182,000 and the private sector recycling efforts, diverted 12,000 tons, and saved the City an additional $241,000, which was $700,000 in total savings. He thought those were incredible numbers that everyone, including staff, was involved with in working to save money from the cost of filling the landfill. He said everyone involved with that effort needed a pat on the back because they worked hard.

Commissioner Rundle said he knew this issue was a topic on the Recycling Advisory Board and he had received e-mails about research that showed how a community could increase their recycling. He said he wanted the Board to fully consider this issue and alternatives to stipulate how they could increase their recycling efforts without causing costs to go up.

Mangerich said the Recycling Advisory Board was currently drafting a memo of recommendations for increasing recycling availability for the citizens and the Board would be asking to look at different models of collection and how that compared across communities and within their particular demographic, economic model. Another area the advisory board was charged to look after was energy conservation. This was a very important field they were putting a lot of effort behind and there was a lot of movement in that toward implementation of the recently signed U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and other initiatives that had come down the pike.

Commissioner Rundle said he understood there was a Supreme Court ruling some time ago that when trash was put out, it was no longer owned by that person and the City’s ordinance that restricted dumpster diving might be out of date and he would like staff to look into updating that ordinance. He thought some people in the community relied on food they get out of dumpsters, as unpleasant as that might sound. He knew organizations that took diverted materials from the waste stream and resell them to keep their organizations running all year. He thought the City needed to foster that idea more than restrict it.

Corliss said staff would draft a report.

Commissioner Schauner said he continued to be impressed with the quality and consistency of the entire Solid Waste Division. He said staff did a fabulous job and he asked Yoos to extend the entire City Commission’s thanks on behalf of the community for staff’s good work. (15)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Consider request from Diversified Concepts, LLC, to amend the City of Lawrence sign code to allow the use of perimeter banners on the chain link fencing around the project.

Jes Santaularia, Bella Sera Development, presented the request for Diversified Concepts, LLC. Currently, they were developing a mid-rise condominium on Bob Billings Parkway and the project would extend another 12-15 months. He said a 6 foot chain link fence that completely surrounded their site was gated and locked every night. He said they had approximately 40-50 vehicles parked everyday along with construction equipment and they were proposing to screen that project using a banner in order for vehicles not to be distracted by their site. He said they took their plan to the Sign Board last year and the Board liked the plan, but the sign ordinance prohibited what their plan proposed.

He said the banner would be a 20 foot repeating pattern that would extend about 800 feet along the length of Bob Billings Parkway. He asked the City Commission to direct staff to provide language that allowed projects, like the project they were proposing that were long term, to provide some screening without completely disqualifying their presence under the sign ordinance.

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss what type of language was needed to allow this type of screening in the sign ordinance.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said they would need to draft a code amendment to the existing sign code that would allow this type of screening and signage pursuant to any type of parameters the City Commission might want to establish. In the City Commission’s agenda packet, he provided an update on the sign code project. He said he would like to assemble a group of stakeholders because he knew there were people interested in sign code issues. He said a new staff attorney would have the sign code project as one of his key projects to start with in August and the staff attorney had familiarity with the sign code. He said there were pros and cons in using a banner for screening and he needed some direction from the City Commission as to what they thought about this idea as a possible amendment to the City’s sign code. It was a policy issue once they would get past writing the code language.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the project currently had the ability to erect a large billboard that would identify the project and essentially put this kind of graphic on that billboard under the current code.

Corliss said they had the ability to erect one development sign. A billboard was too generous and it would not be of that size. He said this plan was different in that they were proposing to combine the need for screening with advertising.

Commissioner Schauner asked when the sign code amendment update would be underway or completed.

Corliss said staff had been talking about updating the sign code for a long time and he did not want to be overly optimistic about a process, but he thought the new staff attorney could be largely devoted to this issue in working with Neighborhood Resources. He said the Sign Code Board of Appeals was very familiar with some of the inadequacies of the current code, and he thought it would be a multi-month process, but he would like the City Commission to see a draft of the amended sign code later this year

Commissioner Schauner asked if this applicant would be able to place screening without advertisements on the screening under the City’s current code.

Corliss said correct. As long as it was not a sign, there would be no problem in putting up screening on a fence.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Marilyn Roy, Lawrence, said she thought it was interesting that this issue would come up after there was an article in the paper about looking at aesthetics of signage for businesses in Lawrence. She said there was a picture in the paper that compared the Home Depot sign to the Louisiana Purchase sign and how it had been designed. She said that type of screening was a waste of money and totally unnecessary. They had lived most or all of their adult lives looking at construction sites during at one time or another and she did not find them offensive. She said that type of screening would not fit in with Lawrence’s aesthetic.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Roy meant it was a waste of public money because she did not think it would be funded by the public.

Roy said ultimately it was some private company’s money, but it was still money that did not need to be spent. She said she would rather see a sign that showed a picture of the proposed building than to have advertising on screening.

Mayor Amyx said if that project was allowed to have a 6 foot screening with a white background, he asked if she would be opposed to it.

Roy said she still was opposed to that idea because she did not think screening was necessary. She said the City had been under construction and development for years and what would happen if they decided to screen all of the housing construction. She knew that was an exaggeration, but personally she disagreed.

Commissioner Schauner said if that type of signage was approved, he asked if Santaularia anticipated that signage would stay until the project was fully completed.

Santaularia said yes, and they expected completion in the fall of 2007.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the small, orange mesh fence was for erosion control.

Santaularia said the black fence was erosion control and the orange fence was for screening. He said there was a 32 square foot sign with a picture of the building on it, which was all that was allowed by the sign code at the present time.

Mayor Amyx asked if the only option they had was to allow language to be placed into the current ordinance to allow something like this type of screening.

Corliss said it was the request. In order to put up that type of screening, the City would need an amendment to the sign code that would allow something like this to be built. The City Commission could establish any number of different parameters such as length, certain size, location, whether it would be around the entire proximity of the property or just along the right-of-way or they could also do it by zoning categories such as multi-family projects and larger. He said staff could come back with a recommendation based on this discussion, but staff had not worked out any parameters because they were awaiting direction from the City Commission on whether or not to proceed with the plans.

Mayor Amyx said he did not have a problem with screening around construction sites, although he did have a problem with the advertising, but he understood that was part of the request. He did not understand all the parameters needed for screening a site. He asked what needed to be done and what would be the consequences of having that type of screening throughout the community.

Corliss said some of the variables would be the issue of duration, whether the screening would be around the entire site or just along the site that was visible on the public right-of-way, and the size. He said he assumed it would be for the on-site commercial premises. It could be just for a description of the project and any type of appropriate contact information. He thought that was allowable for something like this. One of the things they knew about sign regulations was that once they started reading into content within certain parameters, they would run into some constitutional problems. He said one of the issues would be that would they want it on a project this size, as far as acreage, or would they want it on something smaller.

Commissioner Schauner said the question was not so much about this project, but did they want to create a philosophical text change in the City’s sign code ordinance. He said he did not know if he had enough information about what that would look like and how it would work to grant this particular application. He thought it was one of those subjects that if they had 50 people in the room, they would have at least 37 different opinions on whether it was a good idea or not. He did not have an opinion about whether it was a good idea or not, but suspected the sign with an attractive young woman on it and brightly colored might be more of an attraction, which he suspected was the point, than a chain link fence with construction equipment behind it. He suspected that they did not want to put the sign up so people would not look at it. He would rather not build the City’s sign ordinance around a particular project and write language that would fit this project, but not necessarily fit any other. He thought they should thank the applicant and move as quickly as possible to update the sign ordinance that might or might not include the ability to have this kind of signage on a construction project.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to hear the report from Steven Chinn before he decided what action to take. He said the screening might promote safety because people were often drawn to watch what was happening. He would be interested to know if there was any data from Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, that would enhance or detract from safety. He also knew that erosion control was a problem and they had to watch it in terms of their discharge to streams, keeping it off of the roads, and keeping property from being damaged during construction by a lot of erosion. The material might be more durable if they were putting more effort for signage use than the typical plastic seen on a lot of sites. He thought there might be a more hidden advantage and be more effective in controlling erosion.

Commissioner Highberger said with all due respect to the applicant this was the type of thing the City’s current sign code was designed to prevent. He thought the site could be screened without advertising and at this point he would not support a change.

Vice Mayor Hack said this was an intersection she had some familiarity with and was one that she went through multiple times a day. She thought there were two things to keep in mind. First, Lawrence was not the only community that has had this kind of request and second they were talking about temporary and not a permanent sign that would be placed in that location. She suggested staff investigate what other communities have done so the City was not asking the Sign Code Board of Appeals to reinvent the wheel. She said she wanted to look at the opportunity for this type of screening along arterials and perhaps there could be a restriction on the number of repeats of the picture.

Mayor Amyx said Vice Mayor Hack’s request to look at screening was fine with him. He said he thought there was benefit to screening with this particular project, but he would entertain the idea of staff investigating language change and what was needed without creating a change into any of the sign codes.

Commissioner Schauner said he happened to attend a session in San Antonio about sign ordinances at the Annual Planning Meeting and did not realize that signage was such a complicated enforcement issue. Signage was anything but straightforward. When mixing the various constitutional issues and various competing commercial interests, he thought the last thing they wanted was to emulate some of the surrounding communities in terms of what was permitted and what was not. He said he really liked the idea of having a more thoughtful, whole cloth look at the process rather than doing a little piece here and there. He thought that did a disservice to people who might have been able to use this in the past, but knew it did not comply with the ordinance and did not make the request. He said he was happy to continue to have discussion about this issue.

Vice Mayor Hack said Corliss had a comprehensive list concerning parameters for screening and she asked that staff investigate those types of parameters.

Corliss said he wanted to make sure Santaularia knew about the timeframe which would be 2 or 3 months out before staff had something where they could report back to the City Commission.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to investigate sign code language changes as suggested in the report from Steve Chinn. Motion carried unanimously.

(16)

Receive request from Pedestrian Advisory committee to be established as an Advisory Board to the City Commission.

Dietrich Earnhart, member of the Pedestrian Advisory Committee, presented the report. Since May 2005, they felt their committee had begun to address pedestrian issues that were important to Lawrence. They would like to have an increased status as an advisory board so they could better serve the City in that capacity. The request was similar to the Bicycle Safety Advisory Board, which began as a committee within the Traffic Safety Commission and then became its own advisory board. They were open and available to clarifications on their request.

Mayor Amyx asked about what items their advisory board would address.

Earnhart said one of the primary items they were addressing was pedestrian safety, which would be promoting and educating to both pedestrians and people who might be in conflict with pedestrians about the rules, rights and responsibilities they would actually have within the City of Lawrence. They were trying to promote that mostly through their website which they had received funding through the State of Kansas Department of Transportation. They were also trying to identify intersections they felt were more hazardous than others and had provided that information to the City so that they could prioritize their allocation of resources to make those hazardous intersections less hazardous.

They also had been working with Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, on connectivity within the City of Lawrence. There was an article in the “Lawrence Journal-World” that spoke about sidewalks that were dead ended. At present, when his daughter walked to school there were limited paths and they would like to make it so that there was connectivity from people’s homes to schools. They had been promoting a “Walk to School Day” and trying to get feedback from parents about their paths to school and if they felt their paths are well connected and safe.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Earnhart believed there was some on-going connection between the Traffic Safety Commission and the pedestrian work that Earnhart describing.

Earnhart said the committee was born out of two people who were serving on the Traffic Safety Commission and up until a month ago, they had people serving on both entities, so there was good communication between those people. Because of changes in personnel, they no longer had that person-to-person connection, which also spurred them to make that request.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if there were concerns from the pedestrian standpoint that could not be addressed with the Traffic Safety Commission.

Earnhart said in many ways, it could be that all committees flow their information to one advisory board member who then spoke with the City Commission. They felt the pedestrian issues would actually be elevated in their status so they might be better able to impress upon the City Commission, the importance of those issues that might be in conflict with issues the Traffic Safety Commission felt was important. For example, an intersection would allow the traffic to flow better if there were no pedestrians allowed to cross the intersection. He had come to many intersections in other cities where you simply could not cross because all four ways were blocked to pedestrians. He said it was an excellent way to move traffic, but a poor way to allow pedestrians to utilize that space. He anticipated cases where the pedestrian issues would be better served if they were in a stand alone advisory board.

Alan Black, member of the Pedestrian Advisory Committee, said another issue of the Committee was the issue of walkability which was to create an urban environment where it was more attractive for people to walk than to drive their cars. He said that had to do with the design of the subdivisions. They would like the Planning Commission to take walkability into account when planning the subdivisions. Many people think the cul-de-sacs were discouraging to pedestrians because they make people walk a long way out to an arterial street and then back into another cul-de-sac to get to a house that might actually be only 100 feet away.

He said besides being a member of that group, he was a member of the Public Transit Advisory Committee and they were concerned about having sidewalks coordinated with the bus routes. They were now having designated bus stops which in the first few years, the buses stopped when people waved at them. Now, they had designated stops with either signs or shelters, and they would like to make it possible for people to walk to the bus stops on sidewalks rather than in the street.

Lisa Harris, Lawrence, said she supported the idea of re-designating this committee underneath the City Commission. She said they could benefit from some structure and also with a closer alignment with the priorities for pedestrian issues.

Mayor Amyx asked Harris if she would see this committee being an arm of the Planning Commission to review the connectivity and walkability of developments as they would come forward.

Harris said she would not say as an arm, but could certainly help them with that effort. She thought it would be best under the City Commission itself.

Marilyn Roy, Lawrence, said she was on the committee for 3-4 months and she really thought the advantage of having this committee as a stand alone committee, but overseen by the city was that they actually had a group of people who wanted to concentrate solely on pedestrians and on sidewalk conditions as well. She lived in the Pickney Neighborhood where they have a lot of brick sidewalk that was in disrepair. She said it would be really nice if they had a group that could focus on keeping the sidewalks maintained and also possibly participating in the surveys of the neighborhoods that needed sidewalk repair.

Commissioner Rundle said this is a good idea. He said he initially questioned whether or not it might be possible for the Bicycle Advisory Committee to expand its scope and he thought he was convinced there was merit to having a separate board. He said in his first terms as a City Commissioner, there was someone on the Traffic Safety Commission who was a cyclist so that pedestrian and cycling interest might be more likely to be represented. He thought federal funding had changed over the last few decades to recognize there were important needs for pedestrians and cyclists that needed to be recognized. He thought they had expressed interest as a Commission in considering design and walkability and thought this would enable them to help more fully integrate those into the City’s policy process. He knew the Planning Commission tried to encompass all of those things and it was an enormous amount of work. He thought this would help focus some energy outside the Planning Commission on that particular aspect of the policy.

He applauded this effort and it seemed like the primacy of automobiles remained today and became more and more hazardous as driver attitudes seemed to deteriorate for people to be a pedestrian. He thought that was another important aspect this committee could take on as public education to counter that prevailing attitude and make drivers more aware of pedestrians and cyclists when they were out in the road. He said he would support this commission.

Commissioner Highberger said walkability was one of his high priorities on the City Commission and making this body a permanent, separate body could help them achieve those goals. He supported the request.

Vice Mayor Hack said what she was struggling with was how this would differentiate itself from pedestrian issues that came before the Traffic Safety Commission. It was her only concern and in studying new urbanism, the pedestrian was number one, the bicyclist was number two, and the automobile driver was number three. She thought as they worked toward those parallel codes and discussing designing walkable neighborhoods and how they could create that grid in the design of neighborhood streets that was where they were headed. While she looked at the value of concentrated pedestrian issues, she did not put pedestrian issues below anything else, but struggled with how issues come up and what issues they might have in terms of pedestrian that were different from those that would come in front of the Traffic Safety Commission, which was concerned with pedestrian safety. She did not see the Traffic Safety Commission as concerned with how fast cars could go and how few stop lights. The issues they had from Traffic Safety Commission included slowing down and making it a safer place so traffic was not running into pedestrians.

She absolutely applauded the public education and if they could have the magic bullet to educate drivers to be nice to each other that might be a good step. She would like to hear further Commission discussion because she had concerns.

Commissioner Schauner said he had a different take than what he heard so far from other Commissioners. He said clearly, there were automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle issues, but he suggested looking at having a fundamental change on the way they handled transportation issues. He said he wanted to discuss about having a Transportation Commission with three sub-committees, standing committees that operated on their individual issues; walk ability, traffic, and bicycle. One of the things he thought might be missing was talking to one another on those three issues because they hopefully correlate with one another and work together. If there were some way more regularly have them speaking with one another about combinations or issues, one that might affect the other, he would like to have more conversation about how that might work. He said he was not opposed to make this a standing commission with greater standing, he just wondered if this would be a good opportunity to try and look at this issue outside the box and give equal weight to bicycling, cars, and foot traffic. He thought they were all important and suspected they were going to see walking become a more important ingredient of those who work in town who wanted to get some place and not spend $3.00 a gallon for gasoline. He wanted to throw that information out for some discussion or thought.

Mayor Amyx said he did not have an opinion either way on Commissioner Schauner’s idea. He thought there was a lot of need for the walkability issues under the parallel code. He said if it was spelled out as to what the advisory committee would actually be responsible for, he would feel better rather than starting a new committee and not spilling over to Traffic Safety or Planning Commission responsibilities.

Commissioner Highberger said his understanding of the request was if they direct staff to proceed, then staff would come back with a suggested draft of duties and hopefully would not fit with other existing committees.

Vice Mayor Hack said she was intrigued with Commissioner Schauner’s idea about looking at those things in a group because they were all issues the new urbanism parallel code addressed. She said she agreed they should investigate the possibilities for the pedestrian, but with the possibility out there as well of having an umbrella under which they work together. She said one did not exist without the other. Perhaps, staff could look at what other communities did with the Transportation Commission. She said she supported taking this issue to the next step and having staff investigate possibilities and come back with recommendations.

Commissioner Rundle said it sounded like an excellent idea and regardless of what the outcome of this issue was, it seemed like a good idea for the Transit Advisory Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Committee to have an initial meeting and talk about areas of common interest, coordination, and effectiveness in working together.

When he was on his first term for the City Commission, he remembered one of the conferences where he ran into someone from Florida where they had, at that time, a state liaison to each county for pedestrian transportation issues. He said that idea was very striking and at least there was recognition in one state where pedestrian transportation issues deserved some consistent energy focus and he held that out as a model. He said it might address Commissioner Hack’s concern on whether or not they need to have a separate board. It seemed there was recognition out there in some places and he thought that was what this committee was trying to bring to the Lawrence community.

Commissioner Schauner suggested the City Commission look at whether there was a way to create a Transportation Commission that would be an umbrella for the three of four advisory groups that provided advice and input on Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Traffic. He said a coordinated approach was impressive in getting a synergy that might provide a better product than what they had currently and he did not mean that as a criticism of any of the work of the advice that had been given.

Commissioner Rundle said that could be a charge for a committee of all of those different boards to come together with staff.

Corliss said staff could send out a matrix of responsibilities. He said all those committees and interested parties could get together and work out rules and responsibilities and staff could come back with a draft report.

Alan Black said they already had a transportation committee and that was the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said the plan that fell into the transportation body that Black was speaking of had some regulatory authority that he was not proposing this body should have, but he was proposing they take current advisory groups and, arrange them in a way they could work more effectively together to make recommendations to the City Commission.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to report back on possible changes to current Committees related to general transportation issues (Bicycle, Pedestrian, Traffic, etc.) to consider whether there were opportunities for a more coordinated approach to transportation issues. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

Consider adopting the Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines.

Dan Warner, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this process began in December of 2003 when the Planning Commission appointed a Commercial Design Standards Committee. That Committee consisted of three Planning Commissioners and four ad hoc members that represented design developers and neighborhood interests. Among the ad hoc members of that group were Mike Treanor, Phil Struble and Bob Johnson. The Committee took a year and a half to get to the current document that was presented.

The Planning Commission approved the document on March 16, 2005 and the City Commission received the recommendation and document on April 5, 2005. That document has been in a holding pattern since that time. The Standards and Guidelines addressed two general areas of concerns, site planning/site design and aesthetic character. In building design, when talking about site planning, they discussed issues such as landscaping, layout of the parking lot, pedestrian circulation, storm water issues, integrating, and the natural features of the site in the development, which were in the Standards and Guidelines.

The aesthetic character and building design was the structure, facades, exterior walls, entry ways and rooflines, architectural details and the types of material used on the building.

He said a memo in the City Commission’s packet discussed changes that were made and the bulk of those changes came as a result of Steve Chinn’s review. The main issue was to remove the signage issues. The signage standards and guidelines were best amended into the sign code.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said that document was one of the first reports that he presented to the City Commission on the status of a number of different items, and the City Commission made those guidelines a priority. It dovetailed with the new development code which referred to the City Commission’s authority to adopt those guidelines. The sign issues needed to be in the regulatory body of the sign code. He said staff would take the sign elements from the design guidelines as one of their steps in looking at amendments to the sign code.

Mayor Amyx asked if he had a project with a site plan how much more detail would staff be requesting on a development.

Warner said any new commercial development that required a site plan would require review for those guidelines. The one new thing staff would be asking for, on a regular basis, was building elevations and details about materials. The idea was to catch those issues well before staff received submittals for site plans and staff wanted to catch those issues at pre-application levels so they had time to take those into consideration before the project was designed.

Mayor Amyx asked how Planning staff was going to be involved in making recommendations and changes to those elevations and materials that were going to be used.

Warner said staff would use a review process and comment on site plans as they did now, without that level of review. If staff recommended changes, staff would shoot comments back to the applicant as they typically did with site plans today. There was a checklist that was not part of this document, but staff would be using a checklist that would help both staff and the applicant to make sure the standards and guidelines were being addressed in their proposals.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked if it would increase, decrease or simplify the time of the construction project. He said according to some articles that he read from the “Lawrence Journal-World” and “Topeka Capitol-Journal” they were already losing businesses and projects to Topeka. He asked if it was going to make them a more unfriendly city.

Corliss said he did not think that was the case. He said it would make it a more attractive community in a community that had consistent guidelines that would be applied for projects that had to be reviewed. There would be some additional steps for the review, but staff thought the guidelines were good articulations of what staff’s expectations were for commercial buildings. The checklist would need to be modified to reflect some of the changes that Steve Chinn added to the document. He said there would be some additional review, but it was not something they were already requiring on some projects. He thought there was a good ability to apply that process in a very consistent way.

Commissioner Rundle said this process was not unique and major developers were familiar with this kind of process in other communities.

Don Zimmer, Lawrence, retail developer in the Midwest, said Lawrence was a unique and diverse community, and dictating case by any organization, especially by a governmental organization that removed that uniqueness would go back to the flavor of the decade, whether it was brick, contemporary, or stucco. He did not see, under that standard, the Arts Center building would have been approved. There were some very controversial architects in Lawrence that build unconventional buildings and housing, which is what made Lawrence the great community it is in accepting and creating different ideas and opinions.

One of the problems with those guidelines was the parking. Parking would be moved from the front of the buildings and would cause seen and unforeseen problems. He said they should ask the downtown merchants how much their business had suffered since they removed one lane of traffic in front of their buildings and reduced the parking and traffic in half. He said if they take a business like The Mercantile, what person would want to park in the back of that building, especially someone elderly or handicapped and walk all the way around that building to go into the front door. In today’s heat, no one would want to carry any perishables around that building. If the City was going to dictate the side to the street looked like the front, where would a service road go? The reason a business would want a service road was because that business did not want their inventory coming in through the front door for safety reasons and shrinkage reasons and they would need to reinvent how they did business.

He said Lawrence did have a reputation in the retail community as a difficult place to do business with, and this would add one more step or burden that anyone looking at in Lawrence would need.

He said the main problem was that he wanted to keep Lawrence unique, which was what made Lawrence what it was. When they start dictating personal taste, aesthetics and things like that, they were taking away the individual spirit, which was not acceptable.

Mayor Amyx said he might not disagree with some of the things that Zimmer stated, but he had to say something about this City’s reputation. He said he would never apologize for having standards and expectations that might be a little bit higher than others. He said he would do everything he could to attract doing business in Lawrence, but everyone on the City Commission had requirements. He said they were not business unfriendly and he could not think of the last time the City Commission turned something down.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the Planning Commission already asked, as a condition, that some of the design would adhere to the guidelines.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said yes. The last two planned commercial developments that the Planning Commission recommended approval of, which were the Northgate Development on the southeast corner of 6^th Street and K-10 Highway and the Lake Pointe Development that was on the northeast corner of Clinton Parkway and K-10. Both developers were conditioned to comply as much possible with the draft design guidelines and staff did that review as part of the regular review and report for the Planning Commission.

Vice Mayor Hack said the City Commission did not want to do anything that made projects cost prohibitive and did not want to do things that extended the amount of time it took to get projects completed. She thought Warner was indicating that a lot of this conversation would happen at the pre-submittal stage where it was a discussion of a project prior to the time that an enormous amount of money had been spent presenting a site plan or presenting what the building was going to look like. She said she hoped they always recognized creativity in this community and thought it was what made Lawrence a great place. Some people might not think that the Post Office was the most intriguing looking building or the Carnegie was not a beautiful building, which was what made Lawrence so interesting was that the community did have appreciation for all of those varieties. She thought they were working hard with the matrix group in looking at the whole development process in terms of it being fair, consistent, and predictable. She thought it allowed the opportunity to recognize creativity and to plan some things that were going to be more aesthetically pleasing.

Concerning the parking, 6^th and Wakarusa and the Bauer Farm Project had the bulk of their parking behind their buildings so the first thing you did not see was a mass of asphalt which was much more pleasing. She thought there was still some confusion about parking and how it would be applied, but there were already examples of that type of parking. She supported the Standards and Guidelines and appreciated Warner’s work on this.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Zimmer in that all buildings should not look the same. He said the guidelines provided an incentive to be creative and to build different things to be laid out differently. He said in the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s, they saw the strip mall of various lengths and sizes. He thought they had seen an increasing interest in a different way of laying buildings out that provided diversity of entrances and a different focus rather than just parking lots. He said the report really encouraged creativity in a different way of looking at developing commercial property. He was very encouraged by the work of the group that put those guidelines together. He thought it was a strong step forward and they would ultimately be pleased with those guidelines even though he suspected they would need to make some changes as they go along like most major changes. He was sure it was not a perfect product, but he looked forward to see how it did work and if they needed to make changes, he was confident this Commission or others would give it that interest of strong hearing. He said he very much supported it and thought it was exciting to see that they were moving forward in design criteria.

Commissioner Rundle said he certainly did not want to sacrifice uniqueness or make it difficult for creativity expressed through architecture. He was excited about those guidelines because they would be avoiding cookie cutter buildings being built by big box stores and they would having something that would be more appealing and aesthetically desirable. He said those guidelines should enhance the character and the quality of commercial construction.

Commissioner Highberger said anytime there were design guidelines they ran that risk of turning things into Disneyland in trying to recreate something from the past. He knew there was enough flexibility in those guidelines where that was not going to happen. With respect to the concern about parking in the back with an entrance to the front, he thought a creative designer could address those in any design phase. He said other communities had those types of guidelines such as Overland Park. He thought Lawrence had a reputation nationally with retailers that they could do anything they wanted and the City would not say no, but it was time for that to change. He was really excited about the guidelines and thought they would make their streetscapes better and it had his full support.

Commissioner Rundle asked Corliss if it was a conscious decision that this would be a resolution instead of an ordinance.

Corliss said that was correct.

Mayor Amyx said he appreciated the amount of work that Warner, members of Planning Staff, and the Commission had spent on bringing forward these commercial design guidelines. He said in looking at those guidelines in order for the Commission to understand, they would probably be requesting changes from this day forward such as the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. If there was conflict, he was sure this Commission was going to have to consider appeals to the Standards and Guidelines. He thought the Commission should prepare for that because there was going to be some properties that would not be adaptive to any kind of Standards and Guidelines. He thought it was a place to start and did not think they were going to look at commercial buildings over the next several years as being the same.

It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6669, adopting the Commercial Design Manual – Commercial Development, July 2006 Edition. Motion carried unanimously. (18)

Receive draft letter concerning the City’s position on the proposed relocation of the Post Office distribution facility at 7^th and Vermont.

Bob Schulte said they had reviewed the draft letter prepared by the Interim City Manager, approved of the wording, and asked the City Commission to direct the Mayor to sign the letter.

Commissioner Schauner said he was generally fine with the letter, but the only change he asked the City Commission to consider would be in the second paragraph where it talked about continued operation of full service retail postal facility. Somewhere in that letter he thought they needed to say it was a “seamless operation” because he thought the word “continued” permits the opportunity for there to be one, not be one, and have some period of time in which there was no such facility downtown. He said he would like to see impressed upon the postal service the need to continuously and seamlessly have that sort of service.

Corliss said if that was the goal of the City Commission he would make that change. He said they would find a grammatical way to insert without interruption in that sentence.

Commissioner Rundle suggested that where it said “City Commission” to say “majority of the City Commission” directed or supported.

Rick Marquez, Director, Downtown Lawrence, said they submitted a letter a little bit late to get onto the agenda. The letter stated, “Downtown Lawrence Inc., would like to state its support for the letter to be sent to the United States Postal Service by the City of Lawrence regarding the possible relocation of the distribution portion of the post office located at 7^th Street and Vermont. It was vital to maintain a full service retail post office, both for the uses of the downtown businesses and residents, and as a draw for the rest of the City’s population. We also appreciated the USPS employees that patronize the downtown businesses. With that said, they were excited to offer potential for added parking, residential development, and tax generating retail. The gradual redevelopment of current industrial and warehouse speaks for this purpose and would be of value to all. We trust that any developer interested in pursuing this would work closely with the City and with the downtown community to ensure a project that was not incongruent with what our wonderful, historic downtown, the envy of many communities, has to offer. We thank you for this opportunity to voice our support and are appreciative of the continued efforts to help maintain diplomacy and viability of downtown Lawrence.”

Marilyn Roy, Lawrence, asked if this letter was going to be made public and if they were going to know the contents of the letter. She came that night hoping that she would hear more about the City’s position on the relocation.

Mayor Amyx said there was a request that asked the City Commission to not oppose a move of the distribution portion of the post office, but it was very important to the Commission and neighbors that the post office remain, in the retail sense, downtown.

As far as the big trucks and the distribution coming in and out, if it fit the need of the Post Office to move to another location, basically what the letter said was the City Commission did not have a problem with the post office moving to another location as long as the retail portion of that facility remained downtown.

Roy asked if it was clear that the Post Office wanted to place that portion of their services elsewhere.

Mayor Amyx said he did not believe so. He thought there were people who were talking with the Postal Service about that possibility.

Roy said she wanted to urge the City Commission to not allow a developer to convince the Post Office to do anything at all, whether it was to move their delivery or retail service elsewhere. She said in the newspaper it appeared that a particular developer would very much like to have that property. The first story that came out stated that a certain developer was urging the City Commission to convince the Post Office to move to Tanger Mall. She said that might have been an error on the Journal World’s part, but she thought the Post Office was a public service and no private developer should be asking for the property until it was actually up for sale on the market.

Commissioner Hack said she thought the concern Roy expressed was a concern they had heard from a number of folks. She thought there was a misunderstanding with the purpose of the letter. She said the letter allowed for conversation between people that were interested in redeveloping spending money in the downtown to enhance the retail residential component of downtown and working with the possibility of locating the library on a different site. She said what the City Commission had asked everyone who had presented library proposals was to do the best they could to find out everything they could about their potential locations and what the potential implications were for the whole community. One of the possible locations was at the current site of the Post Office. She said that was the genesis of that letter and the developer did not come to the Commission asking the Commission to write a letter because they were going to get on the Post Office’s back and beat them out of downtown.

Roy said she did not think they would do that.

Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the opportunity to clarify that letter because the Mayor had been very concerned that the Post Office should maintain an employee base downtown. She said this allowed for more employees be downtown should some larger development occur at that location, but they would always maintain the retail portion of the Post Office and the Post Office boxes, which had been the huge concern for folks.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought this was more about a system and real estate speculation, which he did not think was useful. He said they should expect to welcome redevelopment. He said meeting the vibrancy and vitality of downtown was a common goal. He thought they had not analyzed some of the effect in town. He said it was either 6^th and Kentucky or 6^th and Tennessee was the busiest intersection in town. He thought some of those projects would have impact on those intersections. He thought there were more aggressive techniques in trying to get real estate downtown, which was why he was voting against this.

Commissioner Schauner said he would not want Schulte or anyone else to believe that this letter represented a commitment, decision, direction, compliance, or cooperation with any particular project. He said the jury was literally still out on where or whether a new library would be built In his mind, this letter served as nothing other than that limited message that they were willing to at least not stand in the way of the Post Office having discussions with whomever about moving the distribution portion of that downtown facility. He said he did not live in Lawrence when the mall was a big issue and there was significant discussion about trying to change the character of downtown. He thought this Commission had a strong interest in moving cautiously to make sure they did no harm to downtown, but on the other hand, he did not think that it was reasonable to not entertain a way to improve some of the parking issues on the north end of town which were clearly understood by people who shop downtown or want to go downtown. He also thought the Commission had a strong interest in looking at a way to improve the Library facility. He thought there had been a unanimous agreement that they want to keep the library downtown and keep it viable. He said this was a very small piece of a very much larger puzzle. He did not think it was an indication for a vote to sanction any particular project at any particular location for the Library; it was just what it said it was. He did not use the downtown facility much, but he did not ever want to see the retail part of the Post Office anywhere except downtown to the extent that they, as a City government, had the ability to influence that decision.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought if they intended for downtown to continue to be the primary, central business district, it would need to grow as Lawrence grew. He did not think there was any interest, at all, to allow any further encouragement of downtown in existing residential neighborhoods, which meant they grew up or utilize existing spaces. He thought ultimately they would see non-retail use as they moved out of downtown. He thought the letter strongly stated the City Commission’s strong desire to keep the retail, Lawrence’s main post office, downtown, but they would not want to stand in the way of the Post Office moving their distribution facility if they felt it was appropriate. He said he was comfortable in sending the letter with changes.

Mayor Amyx said he did have concern about employee base remaining high in downtown Lawrence. He thought they were very fortunate in downtown being business owners that they did have a neighborhood that had a lot of people who lived and worked in downtown Lawrence and were fortunate to have as customers in the various businesses they owned. He said he did not let Schulte’s company off the hook regarding this issue, but business decisions were made all the time with or without the City Commission, but in this particular case, the City Commission had to be involved because at the request of the Post Office, the Post Office wanted to know if the City would be willing to allow the distribution portion of the facility to move out of the downtown area or would the City complicate the matters. The letter in no way supported any particular individual or business and he thought it was important to the members of the City Commission to allow the Postal Service to make a decision about their particular business.

He said at this point, he had no problem signing the letter with the changes mentioned in that the City Commission wanted to make sure the Post Office always had a strong presence downtown, but if a business decision was made by the Post Office to move to another location for the distribution portion, truck traffic portion only, the City did not have a problem and would not get in the way.

It was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter as amended. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (19)

Receive information from Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, regarding the impacts to the budget and street conditions if the street maintenance program for 2006-2008 is spread over a four year period (2006-2009).

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said in April he presented to the City Commission the proposed contract and street maintenance program. Staff’s main goal was keeping the good pavements in good condition. Staff’s goal outlines included slowing the deterioration rates of the city streets and extending the life cycles of the City streets. He said in 2006 they started with an aggressive crack sealing program of $500,000 and completed half of that program before summer and would continue that project later this fall. Staff wanted to continue the crack sealing program and felt that $300,000 would finish up the City streets that staff felt would be most beneficial to repair.

He said the proposal included patching and micro surfacing a significant amount street surfacing. Micro surfacing was a less expensive maintenance option and could be done earlier before they got to the more expensive treatment options of mill and overlay, which they had a substantial amount of mill and overlay and curb and gutter repair in their projected program.

He said they also proposed this program would continue in 2007 and 2008, and as 2009 approached, staff hoped pavement conditions would be improved and they could start working on the streets that were in an unacceptable condition.

He said based on their analysis, staff found that if they reduced this program by approximately $1 million, they would add another 35 blocks of street that would end up in that unacceptable condition. Staff also looked at potential impacts of cost and asphalt costs had sky rocketed. It was $35 a ton for asphalt in 2005 and $44 for a ton of asphalt in 2006, which was about a 20% increase. If they assumed a 10% increase next year and reduced the budget by $1 million that would be an additional $100,000, and they would need to come up with $1.1 million to make up that $1 million loss.

He said as the pavement ages, its condition rating would decrease and as it moved into the later stages in life, the condition decreased more rapidly. Staff’s plan was to try and get pavements up into the less costly maintenance area by doing their surface sealing, crack sealing, mill and overlay, and major rehabilitation. The streets that staff looked at surface sealing, if those streets fell into an area where micro surfacing or surface sealing was not going to bring those street back up to an acceptable level, the City would pay 4-6 times the cost to do mill and overlay. He said if the streets were bad enough for major rehabilitation or reconstruction, they might be paying up to 10 times the cost of mill and overlay to reconstruct those streets.

He said whatever the City Commission decided, staff would do their best to keep pavements in the best condition they could.

Mayor Amyx asked Soules to redefine the term “unacceptable.”

Soules said when Steve Lashley, Assistant City Engineer, did a survey he established thresholds or levels for each arterial/collector and residential streets at which time a simple mill overlay or micro surfacing could not fix. He said they established those thresholds based on traffic volumes and conditions.

Lashley said it was a critical point in which they leave maintenance methods they applied from minor rehabilitation such as mill and overlay, to determine deterioration. He said those were the various levels they established for arterials, collectors, and residential.

Mayor Amyx said if they only placed $5 million into streets for 2007, would 35 blocks need to be rebuilt in 2008.

Lashley said those streets probably needed major rehab, but there were a lot of factors involved such as a harsh winter. He said a street that was sealed, would have more damaged to that pavement. He said as far as maintenance and trying to pick it up in the following year, it might be hard to play catch up.

Soules said when they established deterioration rates Lashley looked at the history of those streets. He said if they had an exceptional year, it might be the actual deterioration of the street might not be as bad as they predicted. He said it was not an aggressive or conservative deterioration rate, but what they actually experienced. He said they imagined the condition of the streets would decrease.

Mayor Amyx asked if a paved roadway was completed in late September, how much deterioration would there be from September until May when they started the process over again.

Lashley said the period of time between overlay was 10 to 20 years, this would be an average over the course of this time.

Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to make sure he understood the numbers that staff was estimating for increased cost. He asked if that was just the cost of the materials, not the cost of construction.

Soules said that was correct. He said depending on how the streets deteriorate, in staff’s opinion the streets described earlier before would fall into needed repair.

Commissioner Hack asked how far along was the replacement of those brick streets on Ohio Street.

Soules said it was staff’s intention to wait until fall so they could have discussions with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Hack Soules if the cost was $400,000-500,000 per block to replace brick streets.

Soules said they were buying $300,000 worth of brick. If staff could get those bricks from other streets, they might be able to save those costs. They could build a block of street for $300,000.

Commissioner Hack asked if this issue would come back to the City Commission at a later date.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Hack said she thought brick streets were gorgeous, but wondered if they were at the point where they could not afford it. She thought other communities were doing those types of reconstruction efforts through benefit districts.

Commissioner Schauner said he was looking at the long list of streets that started with Alabama from west 4^th to west 5^th and ended with west 4^th Street and Maine Street. He asked if it was a list of streets that was intended to be worked on either with mill and overlay or curb and gutter, or both in 2007 if they approve the full $6 million.

Soules said both.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the City wide street graph that showed the streets that would not be worked on if they reduced the budget to $5 million, he asked if the graph represented the 35 blocks that would not be milled and overlaid in 2007 if there was a reduction.

Soules said the micro surfacing was additional and there was no list.

Commissioner Schauner said he understood the best way to prolong the life of a street from the beginning would be to keep the water out of or out from under the street. He said they get at least initially, the best value out of the street maintenance budget through a crack sealing program that attempted to accomplish that goal at stage one. At some point, the crack sealing would not be enough and the street would deteriorate irrespective of the fact that the street was sealed. He asked if there were a reduction in the street maintenance budget for 2007, would the first thing they would want to stop would be the crack sealing dollars because they get greater value for that in terms from keeping streets from going past the tipping point.

Soules said they were maintaining the crack sealing program.

Commissioner Schauner said that $300,000 would crack seal all the streets that could benefit from crack sealing. He said what would not get done would be mill and overlay work.

Soules said micro surfacing work would not get done and a small portion of mill and overlay and curb and gutter. The majority of it was the surface seal. The surface seal streets were typically in a little bit better condition, if they would lose a few of the surface seal streets, they might pay $10-20 a square yard versus the $2-5, but they were not losing those streets to the major rehab where it could be significant roadwork. He said those numbers were reconstructed numbers. There were a lot of areas where they might not have to do the entire curb.

Commissioner Schauner said west 15^th Street off of Iowa was milled and overlaid two years ago, and that street, at joints, had been failing for months.

Soules said they were trying to bridge the gap and without a base, and he did not think 15^th Street had a base, they tended to see settlement a little bit more.

Commissioner Hack asked if they were saying it was not the mill and overlay that was the problem, it was the base and trying to fix the base.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said if they would just mill and overlay streets without doing significant joint repair where they had seen those reflective failures, he asked if they were getting the kind of value out of that expense that they ought to or, in the long term, was it wiser to spend a little bit more money at the moment the street had failed to the point of needing to be milled and overlaid and repaired joints, like what was done on East 23^rd Street.

Soules said when Lashley put together the mill and overlay program for this year, there was a significant amount of money in hatching. They were not just ignoring the base problems.

Lashley said there were streets at a point of where they needed to be reconstructed.

Commissioner Schauner said they had some conversation in the past about their specifications and standards for street construction, both with respect to base work and concrete specifications. He asked if their specifications were as at least as good as KDOT’s specifications for concrete curb and gutter work and base.

Soules said staff referred to KDOT’s specifications if they did not have tighter specifications.

Commissioner Schauner asked if KDOT’s specification was at least the minimum that they would use.

Soules said yes, unless they had some sidewalk specification that might be a little bit under that specification. He said with pavement specifications staff referred to KDOT’s specifications. Staff was going to review the asphalt specification as well because they had a fairly high recycling.

Receive staff recommendation to publish 2007 Budget Summary and set August 8, 2006 as public hearing date. Publication of the Proposed Budget 2007 Expenditures will establish the maximum limits of the 2007 budget.

Mayor Amyx said at the present time, the City was trying to figure out if they would have a mill levy increase. He said they were at a point where the City was looking at a tax increase or another stream of money to be able to take care of this problem. He said the question was if they should put more burden on property tax to take care of building new streets or would they look at potentially that other stream.

He said he thought they had time to look at a program that might make some sense over the long term. He said he wanted to work with staff concerning the possibility of an election for a new one cent city sales tax. A one cent sales tax was approximately 12 million dollars a year. He said he was looking at a sales tax that would essentially sunset in ten years creating120 million dollars. He said as the City looked for money in this budget year, they needed a long term plan to take care of failing infrastructure. He said he looked at the sale tax to be used three different ways which were to repair streets, sidewalks, and take care of flooding problems in North Lawrence. He said he looked at using the sales tax money for potentially a large reduction in the mill levy on property tax and creating an endowment to help take care of long term needs for this community.

He said they could take all street repairs out the General Operating Budget. He suggested splitting the money in half and 60 million dollars would repair streets, sidewalks, and repair the Maple Street pump system in North Lawrence. He said sidewalk connectability needed to be addressed because drainage was very important.

The second part would be the creation of an endowment. If they were to take that money and place 60 million dollars into an account, they would actually take it through City staff’s investment of that money through interest bearing accounts and they would actually have monies that would offset increases and the mill levy rate for years to come.

He said next, was infusion of the new money and removing the street maintenance that Soules needed to take care of street repair and to give the public the opportunity to say they helped contribute to the paving of those streets.

There were many vehicles that were not registered in Lawrence and the City did not receive the benefit of that tax money. They did get the buying power the individuals who owned those cars and if they could help and use new monies through sales tax, he thought they could see a major reduction in the mill levy requirements.

He also suggested discussing a cap on the 2008 mill levy if they were to fund from 2007 to 2008. He said they could rely on new monies coming from three different places under that plan, assessed valuation, new development, and the earnings of the endowment. He said there should be enough money to go around for a long time if the City managed their spending.

He said they should not bind the hands of future Commissions, but they were binding future Commission’s hands now by borrowing money and leaving it up to those Commissions to pay for it. He suggested there be a requirement the money placed in the endowment would not be touched unless there was an emergency and it had to be approved by a super majority of the City Commission at that time. The money would be able to stay there for long periods of time.

He said they had an opportunity to enact a “pay as you go system” because there were increased revenues and they did not need to dip into reserve accounts. They were actually doing something positive that would outlast for years to come.

He said they could reduce the mill levy, ask voters to approve a sales tax for a 10 year period, maintain streets, construct and repair sidewalk, fix the North Lawrence drainage problem, and manage the City’s budget.

He said they had to reduce the street maintenance and street repair funds that were recommended from $6 million to $5 million and they had to get a sales tax increase passed. He said the City was in a dilemma of either looking at a sales tax increase or property tax increase in a year.

Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the Mayor taking a bold look at what the City needed to do to provide for the future, but he had concerns and wanted to see some numbers before he took a hard look at those ideas.

Commissioner Hack asked if it was the Mayor’s recommendation to approve the recommended $6 million dollars in Public Works, publish that amount, and then have the discussion with the opportunity to reduce those monies if the sales tax issue would not go through. They could lower that amount, but not raise that amount.

Corliss said from a pure logistical standpoint, the Commission needed to let staff know tonight what they were going to tell the Journal-World tomorrow to publish for the August 8^th public hearing. That would set the maximum budget and mill levy staff would publish for that hearing. The City Commission could work their will on August 8^th on any number of different budget items, but the Commission could not, on August 8^th, increase the mill levy over what was published.

He said staff’s memo indicated they wanted to have a flat mill levy and no change in franchise fees and the City would need to come up with $1.5 million in adjustments. He wanted to make sure everyone had the right information they needed to continue discussions.

Commissioner Hack asked if the sales tax required public vote.

Corliss said sales tax did require a public vote. The State gave the cities additional sales tax authority on July 1^st. He said the City could have a 1% sales tax without specifying a purpose and in addition to that, they could have a one percent sales tax approved by the voters for a specific purpose, but on that sales tax that sunset would happen in a maximum of 10 years. There was a pledging statute in the sales tax law that allowed passing an ordinance that pledges the revenue for certain purposes. He said he would have to go research the issues of an endowment and a super majority requirement. He asked for more time to research the issues regarding an endowment and a super majority vote.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to congratulate the Mayor on his willingness to do what he thought people were elected to do which was to lead the discussion and lead issues for the betterment of the public good. Nobody liked to raise taxes. The issue he had trouble with was how to figure out not what they should not spend money on, but what they should spend money on. He thought that should be the discussion. He said there was great support for making infrastructure sounder, adding value to the City by having a sound, reliable infrastructure. He was more than intrigued by the Mayor’s suggestion and he thought it deserved some very serious discussion and public debate. If there were an election, there would be a lot of public debate about that as an issue. He said as Corliss indicated some time ago, a sales tax discussion would automatically guarantee a meeting with certain groups and businesses in town.

The question, as he understood it, was did they want to publish a budget based on a $5 million expenditure rather than a $6 million expenditure on street maintenance leaving intact all the other pieces of the budget they discussed up through a week ago. He said he would like to publish for the August 8^th discussion, the budget with the mill levy increase in it, understanding they would need to have more discussion about the mill levy increase on the evening of August 8^th because the City Commission could reduce that mill levy, at that time. He said that discussion did not mean to suggest what his vote would ultimately be or what he wanted to say on August 8^th about the mill levy increase. He said it would give them the opportunity to have that discussion again.

Commissioner Hack said she thought it made perfect sense. She said she hoped they could come up with some strategies to back it off without hurting what they truly believed and have articulated in so many of their study sessions that infrastructure improvements, specifically street improvements, were extremely important. She thought those were the things the City Commission heard a lot from citizens and people wanted their money to be spent wisely. If they were driving on a road that was not doing well, they were going to ask what the City was doing with all the money. She did believe that was a credibility gap in improving infrastructure.

She said it took the Mayor great courage to do what he did and she thought it was creative thinking and provided the opportunity for things they otherwise might not be able to do and perhaps places them at a better fiscal position than where they had been before. She said the City Commission had been extremely conservative and asked to be conservative because it was important. They did make it through some troubled times without mill levy increases, but what they found was that some of the infrastructure had suffered because of that. She had some minor adjustments she would like to see in the budget, and they could have that discussion on August 8^th to finalize those kinds of issues. She said she would rather see them publish with the mill levy increase recommended by Corliss and clarify on August 8^th what they would do with that money.

Mayor Amyx said the key points were that as he looked at the potential sales tax issue, was to reduce the 2007 recommendation essentially by $1 million on the street repair, giving a level mill levy and they would not have an increase. He was asking the public to become involved in participation and sales tax which was going to lead to things he outlined and also in reduction of mill levy for the following years.

He said last Monday Commissioner Schauner talked about a possible shift of money for economic development. He would like for the purpose of publication, to include the two planners that were recommended. He said before August 8^th, he wanted himself, Corliss, Craig Weinaug, and Bob Johnson to have a discussion about bringing specifics to the City and County Commissions as to what the cost split should be.

Corliss said staff’s recommendation was to place $112,000 in each general fund that would appear in 2007’s budget for positions in the Neighborhood Resources Department and for the Planning Department based upon the City Commission’s discussion and direction in response to the matrix report.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the publication and direction would not affect Corliss’ recommendation on who paid what on additional planners.

Corliss said they would place $112,000 in the General Fund and designate those monies for Neighborhood Resources and Planning Department positions.

Mayor Amyx asked if there were adequate funding if the City Commission chose to proceed with the planners that covered 5/6 of the costs, assuming there was no change in the agreement between the City and the County.

Corliss said that was correct. The City Commission would need to decide how to spend that $112,000 that included one Planner position and one Inspector position. He said the City Commission might want staff to find other funding sources if more money was needed, but staff would work to find that source. He said he did not know how they were going to divide that money up and wanted to discuss it with the City Commission. He said he would assume that would be one the County would continue to follow the ordinance and agreement.

Commissioner Hack said she had received several e-mails and phone calls about funding for ECO² asking for $20,000; $10,000 from the County and $10,000 from the City. She thought the concern was they really had supported the endeavors of ECO² and it had been a long term process to get to this point and ECO² was at the education stage so people do have a clear understanding of what the mission was of that group. As they looked at the necessity to convert to more industrial land, certainly with the kind of things with the Two Rivers project and Rails to Trails, she would like to find a way to fund those projects at the level they had asked which would be an additional $5,000.

She said Commissioner Schauner indicated the City Commission had to find a way and perhaps if they were able to work towards the sales tax, it was one source when they transfer funds from one to another. She said maybe some of the dollars that Liebst was discussing at the beginning of the meeting were coming in higher in some areas and spending less, that there would be money to increase funding for economic development. She thought they were at the point in the community where they had to decide if they were in it, or not. She thought if they were players in the economic development and job creation, they had to give people the tools to do that, which might be tools working with their partners or keep in a tool box as Corliss discussed in that they were able to offer some additional incentives. She thought they had to step up. She thought they were on the edge of whether they were going to be a community of retirees or a community that was able to say they had jobs available that would pay you to survive in this community. It really concerned her that they were moving in the wrong direction. She said they had to create jobs and it was going to take money to create jobs. She said they also had what the new provost was talking about where they created this critical mass and people come because jobs were in this community. She said she would like to make a plug to at least fund the project at the level they requested, which was $175,000, which did match with the County agreement in their budget. She said she would hate to lag behind the County on their economic development funding.

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission was fine with the Health Care Access issue that was brought up last week.

Commissioner Hack said yes.

Corliss said with the outside agencies they had the Arts Center, not the scholarship money, but the other funding for the Arts Center. He said Art Center staffing was funded at $85,000 which was what they had budgeted and requested $130,000.

Mayor Amyx said there was a request for a janitor’s position.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought staff currently provided maintenance.

Corliss said staff provided major maintenance, not the custodial maintenance. The building was new enough, it had not had major maintenance, but it had some maintenance.

Mayor Amyx said in the published budget there were two positions between Planning and Neighborhood Resources.

Corliss said he allocated $112,000, for two positions between a Planner and an Inspector. He said that might not be the end of the recommendations and they might need to phase in the recommendations or the City Commission might come back and tell staff to find additional revenue sources or additional ways to fund if it was that critical of an item.

Mayor Amyx said he wanted to make sure they were there for at least the publication and then the City Commission would have discussions with the County as to what the new arrangement might be or at least what they were going to look at. He thought this was the time they needed to visit about this issue before everybody’s feathers get ruffled.

Corliss said his recommendation was not to fund the subdivision plan.

Mayor Amyx said staff did a remarkable job in taking all of the information they provided throughout the year and trying to make recommendations on a budget based on infrastructure and improvements, being able to go through current funding levels. He thanked staff for their hard work to date. He said there had been some decisions that were not easy to make, but being able to make sure that departments were given the things they needed to do their job better for our citizens and that was all they could hope for out of the City Manager’s Office.

Commissioner Highberger said he was in support publishing the budget at the recommended mill levy increase. He did not like tax increases any more than anyone else. A lot of people were going to see tax increases anyway, so they were talking about how much of a tax increase. He said he was really intrigued by the plan and shared respect for the Mayor’s thought and courage in presenting it. He did have some concern about how sales tax impacted incomes and he and wanted to make sure they ran through the numbers to see how it affected different families.

He said in terms of this or a street maintenance program, it had taken them a long time to get to their $6 million recommendation. He was not willing to pull back from that this year. It was really clear that every last million they spend this year, the more it would cost them in the future. He supposed that was alright in a sense, but said a lot of thought went into the plan that was presented to the City Commission the first time and if there was any way to stick with it, he would like to stick with that plan. He said he would support publishing the budget with the increase.

Commissioner Hack asked Commissioner Highberger if he had a thought on ECO².

Commissioner Highberger said he was reluctant with the recommendations that came out of that committee and recommended finding an additional $5,000 in funding.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to find $10,000 to match the County with an additional $5,000. He thought they were moving into a critical phase, which was the public education, and they really needed to fully fund that. He also appreciated the intent to come up with some viable alternative to remove the mill levy increase. He still wanted to publish at the higher rate if only to give time to get comfortable with such a proposal. He was also holding out the opportunity they might be able to find some other way to avoid that increase. He thought they needed to push out the higher amounts so that they could accomplish all the goals they were projecting they were going to accomplish with this budget and reserve the right to back down if they could do that within their means.

Mayor Amyx said he appreciated all of the comments received on his ideas. The only reason he brought up those ideas was because he thought it was an important part of the budget, but also important for future budgets.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked if the state authorized sales tax increase would be 1% or a total of 2% for two separate projects.

Corliss said the new state law that governed City and County sales taxes, effective July 1, the City already had a 1% sales tax and the County had 1% sales tax and they get a portion of that County sales tax. The new law that became effective allowed cities to place before voters the ability to have a 1% sales tax for any purpose and in addition to that, cities could place before voters a 1% sales tax that could be for a specific purpose and it would be sunsetted or expire after 10 years. He said it was new authority for a city sales tax, but either one of those 1% sales tax increases would need to be approved by the voters in an election.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the publication of the 2007 Budget Summary and set August 8, 2006 as the public hearing date. Motion carried unanimously. (21)

Commissioner Schauner said with a lot more money a different level of expectation would come and needed serious consideration. He suggested the City Commission needed a plan and what would be different with more money to spend. He said if he had a big money target such as $200,000 for biosciences, he would feel a lot better if there was a plan since there had been progress made in this cramped fiscal year. He said he did not feel informed about what was happening and when it was going to happen.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

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; approval of budget and ordinances establishing water, sewer and sanitation charges and franchise fees 800 Block Pennsylvania Redevelopment Project Charter Ordinance on bidding procedures
08/15/06	LMH plat and master plan
08/22/06	Consider approving and authorizing drafting of an ordinance/resolution for TA-03-02G-06: Text amendments to 20-1107 of the Development Code regarding Standards for Market Impact Analysis as part of site plan or zoning process.  (Item No. 19G; PC approved 7-3 on 4/19/06.)
09/05/06	Commissioner Rundle absent.
TBD	Recommend establishing an ordinance prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices by drivers during the operation of motor vehicles.  The motion failed 4-5. Recommend establishing an ordinance establishing an additional fine for a person who commits an act of inattentive driving while using a wireless communication device.  The motion carried 6-3.

(23)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Commissioner Schauner said they had talked some time ago about changing the Charter Ordinance on the impasse date for the negotiations with the fire and police. He asked if that was on some future agenda for discussion.

Corliss said once they completed the budget, staff could catch up with other items. He said that Charter Ordinance was on his calendar for September 1. They had written the ordinance and would sit down at a staff level to talk about changing the resolution that sets out that procedure. Then, more importantly, they wanted to sit down with those groups and talk with them about how to make improvements in that time frame.

It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (24)

APPROVED _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 25, 2006

1. Practical Homicide Investigation Seminar – to P.H.I. Investigative Consultants for $17,983.30

2. Ordinance No. 8023- 1^st Read, designate 820 New Jersey Street on Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

3. Ordinance No. 8027- 1^st Read, adopt 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code with amendments.

4. Resolution No. 6666- blight, 1401 Monterey Way.

5. Resolution No. 6667- blight, 1024 New York.

6. Resolution No. 6668- blight, 1321 Massachusetts.

7. Text Amendment – (TA-05-03A-06) Development Code, planned development conditions, 20-701(f).

8. KLINK – Geometric Improvement & Economic Development apps to KDOT.

9. TSC – Speed Limits on W 6^th.

10. Ordinance No. 8022 – 1^st Read, 40 mph on 6^th from 430’ E of Lawrence Ave to Monterey Way & 45 mph from Monterey Way to W City Limits.7

11. TSC – Adult crossing guard, intersection of George Williams Way & Harvard.

12. Mortgage Release – DeFazioi, 1602 Irving Ct & McHugh, 2029 Home.

13. Subordination Agreement for Alex and Waldina Sabilion, 1005 Parkview.

14. Naturalistic Sculpture along KS River from KS River Expression of Soul Project.

15. City Manager’s Report.

16. Sign Code Amendment- from Diversified Concepts, LLC, for perimeter banners.

17. Pedestrian Advisory Committee - Advisory Board.

18. Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines.

19. Relocation of Post Office distribution facility at 7^th and Vermont.

20. Impact of street maintenance program 2006-2008 if spread over four years instead of three.

21. 2007 Budget Summary - August 8, 2006 as public hearing date.

22. Public Comment.

23. Future Agenda Items.