August 22, 2006
The Board of Commissioners of the City of
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Amyx proclaimed Thursday, August 24, 2006, as “The Arc of Douglas County 50th Anniversary.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to
approve the City Commission meeting minutes of August 8, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to
receive the Lawrence Alliance
meeting minutes of March 8, 2006 and May 10, 2006; the Public Health Board
meeting minutes of June 19, 2006; and the Hospital Board meeting minutes of
June 21, 2006. Motion carried
unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve claims to 538 vendors in the amount of $2,287,534.17 and payroll from August 6, 2006 to August 19, 2006, in the amount of $1,645,011.14. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Lawrence Community Theatre, 1501 New Hampshire; Wagon Wheel Café, 507 West 14th; The Bar, 623 Vermont; Johnny’s Tavern, 401 North 2nd; Biggs Bar & Grill, 2429 S Iowa; Crosstown Tavern, 1910 Haskell No. 6; and the Retail Liquor License for Danny’s Retail Liquor. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Travis Atwood to the Aviation Advisory Board to a term which will expire May 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the City Manager to execute
an agreement with Finney & Turnipseed P.A. in the amount of $16,500 for
feasibility study on retaining wall reconstruction on City property adjacent to
the Bowersock Power Plant Facility. Motion
carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the purchase by sole source,
three MSA Thermal Imager Cameras from Conrad Fire Equipment for
$28,687.50. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Powerscreen Midwest, Inc. $114,900
McCloskey International LTD $125,500
Murphy Tractor & Equipment $142,882
CMW Equipment $169,035
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to award the bid to Powerscreen Midwest
Inc., in the amount of $114,900 (the Public Works Department also requested
pricing for a reversible fan for an additional $780 and 2” screen for an
additional $2,800 for a total amount, including the trammel screen of $118,480). Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the City Manager to enter
into an Engineering Agreement with BG Consultants, Inc. in an amount of
$30,100.29 for the engineering design of Stoneridge Drive, from West 6th
Street south approximately 630’, including water main. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the City Manager to amend the engineering services agreement for the construction of North Lawrence Pump Stations No. 1, 2, and 3, for $68,682, bringing the entire contract amount to $382,384.30. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve request to accept bids for two
compact, 4-wheel drive pickup trucks equipped with utility beds and ladder
trucks to be assigned to the Utilities Department Project Inspectors. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the City Manager to approve a
purchase order to Software House International for $16,491.08 for annual
software maintenance fees for Microsoft Software. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Highberger to set the bid date of September 19th,
2006 for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program at 779 Locust Street and 1624
East 18th Street Terrace.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8028, adopting allowing the temporary sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor on the west side of South Park on September 9, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8031, adopting the 2006 Edition of the Standard Traffic Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6674, establishing September 12, 2006 as the date for the temporary note and bond sale. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6673, authorizing
the Mayor to execute Economic Development Project Agreement No 126-06 with the
Kansas Department of Transportation, and authorize the Mayor to execute
Agreement No. 126-06 for the
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to adopt Resolution No. 6675, authorizing $600,000 for Carnegie building, 7th and Vermont project; final design approval and bidding of the project will occur later this year; City temporary notes will be included in the upcoming fall note and bond issuance. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to approve variance to the City Code request regarding fire connection to the waterline main at West Junior High School. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to authorize the
Mayor to sign Mortgage Releases for
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to receive memo from Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, concerning a policy for price adjustments for asphalt materials. This policy would be incorporated in the City of Lawrence Specifications and Contract Documents. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
CITY
MANAGER’S REPORT:
During
the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services
Director, said GIS Coordinator,
He said Information Systems Department updated the Management Team on the City’s efforts to improve e-government activities which were well underway and involved a number of different City departments.
Also, the Public Works Department provided an update on a number of street improvements. He said it was important to highlight more extensive patching work was being done on a number of the projects as part of the City’s mill and overlay which had caused a little longer delay on some of the projects, but staff thought it would be well worth it, in the long term, as far as the maintenance to those streets.
Lastly, he said regarding the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Program that dealt with the Wakarusa Watershed which was important for the Clinton Reservoir and important for the community as a public water supply along with a number of other aspects. He said the Utilities Department was actively involved in those discussions. He said staff anticipated more information, programs and projects regarding that issue in the future.
Commissioner Schauner said on the online billing for the Water Department for water customers, he noticed there was a $3.95 flat charge when using a credit card to pay that fee. He asked if staff had any sense about how much money the City would save if staff could attract additional customers to use the online payment system and was there a way to reduce that fee if the City could offset their operating costs by encouraging customers to use that instead of the traditional stamp or delivery method. He said he would like some sense on whether they might be able to further encourage people to use that system by reducing the $3.95 charge.
Corliss said staff would draft a memorandum on that concern. He said there had been a balance and thought it needed to be a policy direction from the City Commission. He said the City provided automatic bill withdrawal through banking, as a means of a cost free alternative for payment. He said one of the policy issues they had was whether or not the utility enterprise fund should pay for those credit card transactions fees from the credit card companies. He said staff would put together information and would place that issue back on the agenda so the City Commission could give direction.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not interested in having it subsidized necessarily, but to the extent the City saved money with credit card payments, it might be worth something.
Corliss said staff would look at it in those terms. (17)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approving UPR-05-08-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, located at 805 Ohio Street.
Mayor Amyx asked staff what items were missing from the application.
Lynn
Braddock-Zollner, Historic Resources
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx said he appreciated Commissioner Schauner’s check of the Planning Commission minutes to clear up any discrepancy on this issue. He said it was the hope of the applicant and others in the neighborhood, that the property would be returned to a single-family home. The applicant had done a lot of work to bring the property back into a prominent neighborhood in Old West Lawrence and he saw no reason to stop that progress.
He said the rental units at that location would be reduced by one unit and if the City Commission gave the applicant time to complete the work on that property, he thought the property could be maintained as a single-family home in the future.
Commissioner Schauner said he hoped that home would return to a use as a single- family home without rental units. However, he said a 10 year extension made that goal less likely. He said a shorter extension of the UPR was a more significantly measurable motivator toward the property’s return to a single-family home than another 10 year UPR. He said he thought a 5 year extension would be more appropriate and more of an incentive. He said the applicant could always come back to a future Commission and ask for additional extensions. He said a 10 year extension would be almost equivalent to a change in zoning for that location.
He said he recognized the block was in many ways not like some other blocks in Old West Lawrence, but on the other hand, he thought prior Commissions went out of their way to extend the UPR, initially. He said it was lofty goal, but still a good goal and did harm to that goal by making the extension to 10 years. He said he preferred that the UPR be extended for a shorter period of time.
Commissioner Rundle said those were valid concerns. However, he thought the people in the neighborhood who were concerned were satisfied and approved the proposal. He said he wanted to see some effort to assess the progress along the way. He said sooner than later it would be nice to see that home return to single-family. He supported a ten year UPR.
Commissioner Hack said she supported the ten year UPR. She said if there had been any concerns expressed by the neighborhood she would be more apt to change her vote. There had been improvements to that home and it seemed to be moving in the right direction.
Commissioner Highberger said he still had some concerns about the compliance history, but he thought the UPR addressed most of the neighborhood’s concerns. He said this project was a difficult project and he applauded the applicant for taking that project on and preserving the structure. He said he was comfortable with the ten year UPR.
Mayor Amyx asked when the applicant had to apply for the Historic Register.
Zollner said staff asked the applicant to complete that process within one year. She said they had a good application, but the limitations to that application were research to backup folklore and things that had happened in the house which took research. She said 6-8 months would be enough time to get that information together so that the process could be completed within a year’s time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be unreasonable to condition the UPR so that after one year, the applicant would come back having completed the application for the local registry. He said he thought staff indicated 8-9 months would be sufficient time.
Commissioner Hack asked if that was one of the conditions already placed on the UPR.
Zollner said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked what happened to the UPR if the applicant did not complete the application within a one year period for the local registry.
Zollner said at that time, the applicant would be in violation of the UPR and staff would alert the applicant and it would come back to the City Commission for some determination as to what would happen to that UPR, whether it was revoked, amended, or extended. She said the City Commission would see that UPR, in one year, if the application had not been completed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any other milestones set out for the next 10 years, if a 10 year UPR was granted, for achieving single-family resident status.
Zollner said not with the current UPR.
Mayor Amyx said one of the conditions of the UPR could be a five year update on their process of remodeling and the use of their facility, rather than setting milestones.
Mayor Amyx asked if staff
would provide an annual report.
Stogsdill said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked what
an annual inspection entailed and what would staff look for.
Zollner said several inspections on the property had been done. She said staff took the Secretary of Interior Standards and looked at the work the applicant was doing to try to achieve the single-family residence goal. The work the applicant was doing interior and exterior would need to be in compliance with the standards. She said what the inspection was intended to do was to keep additional harm from coming to the property in other words, rehabilitation techniques that would decrease the historic value of the structure. She said the work the applicant had done so far had been in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and therefore, it made it easier for the structure to return back to the single-family home and continued to be a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District. She said other things staff looked for was the applicant removing original material, removing walls or major features that give the structure a historic significance, removing windows, and other aspects of that structure. She said staff went from basement to roof and made an assessment.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the goal was to determine whether the structure was losing its historic character and quality as a result of the remodeling or updating that might be going on.
Zollner said that was correct and there was also a maintenance issue, whether or not the property was being maintained as it should be.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those inspections would address the question of whether the structure had become increasingly viable as a single-family residence as compared with one that had rental units.
Zollner said it addressed the changes that had taken place over the course of that previous year and was the applicant making progress or was the project stagnant. She said she anticipated with the current UPR the rental units would not be removed in that quickly of a succession. She said the report the City Commission might receive next year might be fine as far as maintenance or preservation of historic materials, but they might not be progressing toward a single-family home.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to concur with the Planning
Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR
(UPR-05-08-06) for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units; located at
1.
Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2.
A restrictive covenant limiting the use of the
property pursuant to these UPR conditions shall be filed with the Register of
Deeds. The restrictive covenant shall be applied to the benefit of the City and
the City shall have the authority to enforce the restrictive covenant by all
lawful means. The restrictive covenant shall be approved in form and content by
City Staff prior to filing. The restrictive covenant shall not abrogate or
reduce the ability of the City to enforce this UPR through other lawful means.
3.
The owner shall, within 12 months of approval of
the UPR, submit a completed application for individual listing as a Landmark
Structure on the Lawrence and State Historic Registers. A copy of the submitted
application must be provided to the Historic Resource
4.
The UPR is granted solely to and creates property
rights only to the applicants: Daniel T. and Sherri E. Riedemann. The property
shall be occupied by the applicants, or the immediate family for the life of
the UPR. Transfer of ownership, or any part or interest in the property, shall
render the UPR null and void unless approval of the City is obtained prior to
transfer or assignment.
5.
There shall be a limit of one lessee per dwelling
unit. Only lessees of the owner shall occupy any portion of the structure
except the owner’s residence. Minor children, under 18 years of age, may occupy
a dwelling unit with a lessee provided the lessee is a parent or has legal custody.
HRC Conditions:
6.
Any changes to the approved project will be
submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any
related work.
7.
The applicant will allow Staff to access the
property annually to review the project’s compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
8.
The UPR will expire in 10 years, at which point the
applicant must appear before the Historic Resources Commission for review.
9. The applicant completes the Lawrence Register nomination for the property.
Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried (18)
Consider approving TA-03-02G-06, text
amendments to 20-1107, regarding standards for Market Impact Analysis as part
of site plan or zoning process.
She said the proposed changes were developed by an ad hoc committee to the Planning Commission approved at their April 19th Planning Commission meeting by a vote of 7-3. The proposed changes included adding that a market study could be required for any development plan, not just a site plan or zoning application; identifying non retail uses that occupy retail spaces, having the Planning Director choose the independent consultant, and using retail sales figures to calculate retail consumption. In addition, the proposed amendment allowed for the Planning Commission to establish standards for analyzing that data as well as using the information to attract businesses to the community. The proposed language also added language from Horizon 2020, specifically policy 3.11 that stated projects should be denied if they were not fully absorbed within 3 years or create a higher than 8% vacancy rate. The Planning Commission would adhere, a text amendment to the above language at their August 30th meeting changing the word “shall” to “may” with respect to project denial.
She said retail businesses that were identified in the code language included anything classified as retail trade, food services, repair of goods, and personal and laundry services. Examples of non retail businesses included finance, insurance, real estate, educational, and accommodation services. An applicant would be required to submit a market impact analysis as part of the site plan, development plan, or zoning application when there was an addition of 50,000 square feet or more of retail business. The applicant would contact the Planning Office and then in turn, the Planning Office would select an independent consultant from an approved list. The City would provide supply and demand data to the consultant for verification and the consultant would submit the retail market study that contained information on underserved retail sectors determined through the use of sales tax figures, computation of the hypothetical vacancy rate, and a phasing plan. The City would maintain a list of approved consultants and provide training as necessary. The City would also maintain a database of supply information on retail space and a database of demand information using retail sales tax receipts.
Mayor Amyx asked if this analysis would be required if there was an addition to a project of 50,000 square feet, a new project that totaled 50,000 square feet, or if an existing project added square footage to make that area 50,000 square feet.
Miller said any addition to the City of 50,000 square feet of retail business floor area.
Mayor Amyx said if he had an existing business that was 25,000 square feet and he wanted to add 25,000 square feet on to his business, he asked if that would be a total of 50,000 square feet.
Miller said that would just be an additional 25,000 square feet, therefore, under the threshold of 50,000 square feet.
Mayor Amyx asked if it would be an additional 50,000 square feet.
Miller said correct.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the model was based on a model used anywhere else or was it common practice in other jurisdictions.
Miller said she did not have any information.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the proposed changes was to change the word “shall” to “may” and he asked if that had been accomplished or was it a future action either by the City Commission or the Planning Commission.
Miller said it was a text amendment the Planning Commission would hear at their next Wednesday, August 30th meeting. She said the text amendment was previously initiated by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Amyx asked if the language would change this amendment to the development code.
Miller said yes.
Mayor Amyx asked why that was not done first.
Miller said the Planning Commission initiated it after the study session for the City Commission in June, but when the Planning Commission initiated it wanted her to inform the City Commission they would be hearing it.
Mayor Amyx said the difference between “shall” and “may” if there was going to be an action, would be a very important action in considering the amendment to the development code.
Miller said that particular language from Horizon 2020 was only in the proposed text amendment. She said it was not in the original language that was currently adopted.
Commissioner Schauner said the “shall” language appeared in the proposed text amendments. He said the Planning Commission in their next meeting intended to take up the question of changing the “shall” to “may” as well as another change or two.
Miller said correct.
Mayor Amyx said the text amendment of changing “shall” to “may” in Horizon 2020 would force the City Commission to reconsider this same item again.
Miller said the current version, which had already been adopted, did not contain that section and therefore, the proposed change, which the Planning Commission would hear next week, had not been adopted by this body, the language they would be changing to the development code.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Planning Commission’s text amendment was in considered on August 30th, essentially assuming those changes the Planning Commission was recommending for the City Commission’s consideration except one of the changes was the mandatory change from the “shall” to “may.”
Commissioner Highberger said City Commission could make that change with a supermajority vote which was four votes.
Corliss said correct.
Commissioner Hack said on Wednesday the Planning Commission, in a sense, overruled their previous document.
Corliss said the City Commission would consider the final outcome.
Commissioner Hack said she would share the same question the Mayor had in terms of the order of events. She said it seemed the City Commission should be looking at a document that had gone through the Planning Commission with that amendment because that was a substantial change.
Corliss said staff was in a holding pattern for a number of months because of budget considerations and other things.
Mayor Amyx said he preferred items, as they came to the City Commission, to be in complete form. He said he appreciated the fact that everyone had this go through the budget process. He said the step in changing language from “shall” to “may” was a key to that entire change.
Commissioner Schauner said he sensed there was some interest in deferring this item until the City Commission received a final version from the Planning Commission. He asked what other questions or concerns would this body have for the Planning Commission to hear in the City Commission minutes, before the Planning Commission took this matter up again so the City Commission could have an advanced discussion.
Mayor Amyx said he liked Commissioner Schauner’s idea of receiving as much information as they could, before this item came to back to the agenda.
Commission Highberger said if the City Commission deferred this item, until after the next Planning Commission action, he asked how soon this item could be place back on the City Commissions agenda.
Stogsdill said September 19th at the earliest.
Commissioner Hack said concerning the criteria for the independent market impact analysis, it seemed to that if Planning Staff maintained a list of approved consultants and staff required constant training of those consultants, why would the Planning Director end up selecting the consultant and why was that not up to the applicant because it seemed redundant.
She said her second question was the assumption that retail space would be entirely vacant, but that could not determine the shift of the empty space objectively and how could an assumption be made when perhaps a tenant had already been secured. She said she thought they had some issues about the type of space that was vacant.
She said she was glad to see the change from “shall” to “may” because she did not believe that was something the Planning Commission or staff should have the authority to disapprove or deny, but the “shall” gave flexibility.
She said one of the proposed text amendment stated “Additionally, the market impact analysis is not intended to regulate the specific types of businesses proposed,” but it seemed that was precisely what was happening. Further, it went on to say this could be used to attract retail businesses to satisfy the market demand if they found an areas that was underserved, but that was in complete opposite of what it said it was suppose to be doing.
She said she had some other comments about the study, the amount of time, and costs, but she wanted to see if other people had other issues to discuss.
Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to be clear they did not have the ability to predict. He said when getting into a development plan, they would see what type of businesses was going to be in the retail space, but they could not predict how long it was going to stay and try to regulate a proposal based on a proposed specific retail use, because it did not make any sense.
He said collecting data and having data available for the purpose described, did make sense and he was in support.
He said he was generally supportive of the concept even though there were some details he still had some questions about. He said he was still struggling with the idea of assuming all the space would be vacant or would create vacancies. He said generally, people at that stage of a project had letters of commitment from some retailers and all those were not necessarily displace someone if there was a little bit more flexibility of the consultant. He said he would still generally support the proposal.
Commissioner Schauner said he assumed typically if someone was going to build 50,000 square feet more, they were going to have some commitment from somebody to occupy part of that space. He did not think whether that space was considered to be vacant when opened, during the analysis or assumed to be partially filled, would necessarily change the outcome of the recommendation to a governing body with the Planning Staff. He said Planning Staff would still make a recommendation. He said if “shall” went away, then the applicant could make additional information available like 47% of the new space was already committed to a single retailer or whatever.
He
said he thought the amendments needed some tweaking, but he had one word that
best described why he supported this concept and that word was “
Commissioner Rundle said he did not have much more to add, but to say this item was so overdue. He said this kind of analysis and the strengthening of the commercial center and regional shopping market share had been part of comprehensive plans. He said this kind of analysis had either been done as part of the creation of the plan and it was time to complete this process. He said he thought it would help the City make good decisions and not leave the health, vitality and the lives of the community to chance.
Commissioner Hack said her concern was comments that those who opposed this analysis somehow did not support downtown which she thought was grossly unfair and was without any factual basis. She said she thought support of downtown had been a City Commission priority, the entire time she had been on the Commission.
She said she did believe they did need the data to make sure they were the kind of community they wanted to be.
She
said she agreed they needed to discuss the leakage of this City’s dollars to
She said putting it bluntly; she thought this whole process was Horizon 2020 and the City’s development code on steroids. She said this process was complicated, unwieldy, cumbersome, and could make it almost impossible to use in terms of the formulas and data collection. She thought they could do a better job of analysis and could talk about the City’s vacancy rate. For example, the Food 4 Less building was mentioned at their study session and the fact that new companies coming in did not want that kind of a building because the building itself did not serve the needs of the newer types of retail. A number of potential businesses used a precise square footage, and if that square footage was off by 3 or 4 feet, they could forget about it because that store model would not be fit. She said she was concerned this process would take 400 hours of staff time or 10 weeks for a staff person to work through that process when the City already had an incredibly overloaded staff. She said there had to be a way to provide the data and deal with the leakage outside of this community without putting this monster in place.
Commissioner
Schauner said he thought Vice Mayor Hack made a good point about retailers
wanting a box or design that was their logo and he did not think this plan
stopped that. He said his additional
concern was that downtown might focus on this discussion too much. He said in looking at the Food 4 Less
building that was empty on
Mayor
Amyx said when looking at the information from Retail Market Analysis Study, he
suggested looking at methods for use of that information. He asked if the City Commission was going to
be using the analysis as a planning guide to help make decisions. He said one issue the City Commission had
discussed with the residents in
Commissioner
Schauner said this instrument was another tool to help develop public policy
questions. He said if the vacancy rates
were too high and did not match the market impact study numbers, and someone
came to the City and wanted to build a 50,001 square foot grocery store in
Commissioner
Rundle said he did not think there was anything in that language that would
stop the City Commission from approving that grocery store. Even if the general market could not sustain
the additional space or if a new subdivision or an older part of town like
Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission was using the study as a guide or a tool in assisting the City Commission in making decisions that was one thing, but if they were using the study as an ultimate tool and deciding factor in comprehensive planning that was where it would get them into a lot of trouble.
Commissioner Schauner said the issue that struck him as the most telling in their discussions was that unlike three years ago when he first sat on the Commission, they were not talking to the audience or television, they were talking with one another and he thought that sort of discussion indicated the common commitment in making good decisions and sound planning decisions that serve the whole community. He said he did not have any reason to believe that future commissions would be different. He said consequently, the more guidance he could get as a Commissioner, the more rational things to help him make decisions, the better. He said in his mind that additional tool was worth having and if it needed to be improved after it had been around for a while, he would expect that it would need to be tweaked after it had been in play for 6 months to a year.
Mayor Amyx said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner’s comments about the Commission talking with one another. He said it might be a good idea to discuss these things more in a study session format so that at the City Commission meeting they could get right to the primary discussion of the matter.
Commissioner Hack said the problem would be that study sessions tended to be information presentation sessions and sometimes it took awhile to process and discuss. She said some of the best information the City Commission received was from staff, Planning Commissioners, and the development community and that might be an opportunity for that kind of a conversation to take place before that analysis information was brought back to the City Commission. She said she wondered if they could blend that information together to have a document that would be more user friendly.
Commissioner Schauner said he sensed those who would become familiar with whatever tool was adopted would have a continued interest in informing the Planning Commission and/or the City Commission in making changes that made their life easier or satisfy their clients in a more effective way. He said ultimately, all they were doing was developing a tool that would help guide decision making, whether it was the Planning Commission recommendation or this group. He said in a way it reminded him that Horizon 2020 was also just a guide and they had seen how Horizon 2020 was not a spiritual guide, but did not have some of the strictures in it that might be helpful from time to time.
Mayor Amyx said staff was given a lot of information for the Planning Commission to consider next week as they made those language changes to the comprehensive plan. He said if there was additional information the public would like to provide to Planning staff for consideration, to send those comments to Stogsdill.
Stogsdill said the Planning Commission extended their written communication deadline for the items that were on the August 30th agenda to 10 a.m. next Monday, August 28th. She said any written communications should come to staff before 10 a.m. Monday, but sooner would be appreciated. She said they would e-mail them to the Planning Commission late that day so they had a couple days to read through them before the Wednesday meeting.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to defer, until September 19th, consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02G-06, text amendment to 20-1107, regarding standards for Market Impact Analysis as part of site plan or zoning processes. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Receive staff report on proposed new
charter ordinance (Charter Ordinance no. 38) concerning bidding procedures.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said Charter Ordinance No. 3 was one of the first Charter Ordinances adopted in the early 1960’s which exempted the City from K.S.A. 13-1017 which established the bidding proceedings in certain caps for cities of the first class. In 1984, the City Commission enacted Charter Ordinance No. 19, which was the current procedures by which the City bid capital projects. He said it established a dollar threshold for bidding projects. He said that dollar threshold could be amended by an ordinary ordinance which the City Commission had done in the early 1990’s, and was currently a $15,000 threshold.
He said City staff had been reviewing Charter Ordinance No. 19, particularly in response to questions raised when they bid the Kasold Reconstruction Project. He said staff believed it was appropriate to recommend for their favorable consideration, Charter Ordinance No. 38, which would replace Charter Ordinance No. 19. He said it did not, in staff’s opinion, substantively change procedures as far as whether the City Commission could waive an engineer’s estimate when the Commission received bids that were in excess of the engineer’s estimate. He said the Charter Ordinance would speak with more clarity as to what could happen in those types of situations. He said Jerry Cooley, Staff Attorney, along with Bond Counsel reviewed the Charter Ordinance because most of those projects were debt financed.
He said they did receive correspondence from Steve Glass, LRM Industries, regarding what Glass would like to see in the charter ordinance. He said Glass advocated the estimate would only be waived if the lowest bid did not exceed 7% above the estimate.
He said when taking a look at what the other Kansas communities had done, the larger Kansas cities had all exempted themselves from this statute primarily because of the dollar threshold and they had established different proceedings for what would happen if the bid was over the engineer’s estimate. He said most of those cities allowed for the estimate to be waived, but there were some cities that had a dollar amount capped. He said staff modeled the ordinance after an ordinance that was clear and had good policy rationale behind it with the City of Overland Park where there would be a requirement that if the bid was in excess of the engineer’s estimate, there would need to be a justification from staff as to why staff thought it was appropriate to proceed. He said they provided that anyway, but it would be an ordinance requirement as well.
He said with Charter Ordinances a super majority vote was required, which equated to four affirmative votes that would be required in order to proceed with this ordinance. He said the Charter Ordinance needed to be published twice and subject to a protest petition for 60 days after its second publication.
Mayor Amyx asked if the words “lowest and best responsible bidder” could be put together.
Corliss said those words could be put together. The challenge staff had was in many cases staff did not know what the market place would indicate on a particular project until the project was bid. He said engineers were hopefully very attuned to the marketplace in giving good estimates, and an estimate that was within the City’s budget and financial ability to participate with that bid. He said as staff learned this year and every year, staff did not know, with a great deal of precision, what the dollar amount would be until staff received competitive bids.
Mayor Amyx asked if the Charter Ordinance would give staff the opportunity, if the bids were too high, to pick the lowest and best responsible bidder, renegotiate an item with that individual, and not end up with the same project that two people bid on in the first place.
Corliss said this Charter Ordinance allowed the estimate to be waived and the low bid to be taken, even if it was in excess of the estimate, regardless of how high it was above the estimate. He said he thought the Mayor had a question with staff as to whether or not they wanted to start negotiating with bidders.
Mayor Amyx said he never wanted to get into a situation where several people would bid on an item or staff renegotiated or negotiated with the lowest, best bidder and then not end up having sent to bid, the original piece of work. He said the wastewater reclamation facility was coming up to bid and he guaranteed if the lowest bid exceeded 7% above the engineer’s estimate, then he would suggest re-bidding. He said there would be no way the bidder could go above the engineer’s estimate if talking about 7 to10 million dollars more.
Corliss said he agreed. He said if staff had bids come back exceeding the estimate and it was very clear, in looking at the unit prices, why those numbers were off, then they had the question as to whether or not they wanted to negotiate with the contractor and use a different material. He said that thinking was subject to criticism which was what he thought the Mayor was indicating in not letting all the participants know what the project was initially. He said they would be essentially changing the scope of the project by talking to one contractor. He said staff had avoided that practice and would recommend against that type of practice.
Mayor Highberger asked if that type of practice was done with one of the fire stations.
Corliss said staff had changed some of the dollar items where they thought they could save on some of the materials, but he did not think they significantly changed the scope of the $5 million project. He said for example, staff did not take off the administrative wing.
Amyx said he understood that if two companies bid on an item and the City was trying to save money, he asked did the other company have the opportunity to re-bid, and obviously the company could not re-bid. He said he thought that was a concern to the City Commission and every taxpayer.
Corliss said he thought those were important decisions that this body needed to make. This ordinance would give them the maximum discretion. He said the City Commission could waive the engineer’s estimate and take the bid they wanted. He said if the Commission wanted to reduce their discretion in this ordinance, somehow, staff could find ways to do reduce their discretion. He said he was giving the governing body, the maximum authority.
Mayor Amyx said this Charter Ordinance change gave the Commission the opportunity to make that decision. He said staff would send that bid item to the City Commission and the Commission could ask the item be re-bid or waive the engineer’s estimate, so that everything was on a level playing field. He said all he was concerned about was that everyone had the opportunity to bid on a project and if any changes were made, then they would talk to everyone who bid on that project.
Corliss said the City Commission would also benefit by staff’s discussion and consultant’s recommendations on how to proceed. He said in some circumstances re-bidding a project for a minor scope change, might not make sense. He said if the time period was several weeks out, if the effort by the contractor to prepare another bid was still going to be substantial, and if the scope change was relatively transparent and of a minor nature, staff might do what they did with Fire Station No. 5 which was to take off certain items to lower the cost. He said staff could also do what was done on Kasold which was significantly change some of those items on that project and successfully re-bid that project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss was aware of any communities or any best practices that did not, as a general rule, accept the low bid, but accept the second lowest bid.
Corliss asked as a general practice.
Commissioner Schauner said yes, with the idea being there had historically been some criticism of it being low bid work and being the second lowest bidder did change the paradigm of how contractors bid projects. He said he was not proposing that process be looked at, but just asking whether Corliss was familiar with it.
Corliss said he was not familiar with that process. He said he was familiar there was an increased use and had been the case with some of the City’s projects where they had moved toward design/build and were trying to obtain efficiencies by having the engineer and the contractor work together and the City had to aggressively review their bids for their specific line items to determine whether or not they were within the market in being able to proceed. He said the design/build business seemed advantageous by some because of the efficiencies because there would not be that contractor/engineer friction where having them teamed together to get the most cost effective product. He said the downside was there was no open public bidding process, but you could find ways to get quotes that would be as similar to bidding process as possible.
Commissioner Schauner said he read recently there was some increasing interest in second lowest bid practices because of change in the paradigm between the idea of trying to be the low bidder and being the second bidder.
Corliss said he had heard comment from staff regarding low bids, but his response was that staff needed to make sure of the specifications in the contract so staff had recourse with the contractor if they were not performing correctly and building things to specification.
Commission Schauner said clearly, elevated specifications were a good protection for public dollars.
Corliss said staff had on their work list, the desire to look at those general conditions on the City’s contract. He said this was, in staff’s view, a clarification of the City Commission’s current authority.
Mayor Amyx said if they had a project that bid higher, as long as there was no substantial change, he did not want to renegotiate, therefore, placing themselves in a position of saying they gave someone an advantage because they worked out a deal. He said he never wanted that type of process to happen and wanted the item to automatically go back for re-bid.
He said there seemed to be safeguards placed in the ordinance that gave the City Commission the opportunity to make decisions especially during a time of change in increased costs. He said the City Commission needed flexibility.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After
receiving no public comment, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to place the new charter
ordinance (Charter Ordinance No. 38) concerning bidding procedures on a future
agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Receive staff report on implementation of
2007 budget.
David
Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff
report. He said he wanted to point out
that staff already contacted the
Mayor
Amyx said he had attended some open houses a week ago and realized those homes
had been on the market for a number of months and the asking prices for those
houses was less than the County’s current value in 2006. He said he had concern that if they were just
adding a replacing factor from the
Corliss
said staff was going to continue to monitor that issue. He said Marion Johnson,
He said regarding sidewalk and traffic calming devices, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, had the sidewalk inventory data gathering completed. Staff would be engaging the public and a number of people as far as letting the City Commission know what sidewalk projects to bid next year. He said the final report from Matrix Consultants on the City’s Development Process was due this week which the City Commission should see in the coming weeks. He said Commissioner Hack was participating in the interviews for the Traditional Neighborhood Development code project. The project would be underway in the fall of 2006 with a portion of the project budgeted for 2007.He said concerning the Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program, he wanted to work on criteria and encourage the project to proceed so they could finish the next waterline project downtown along with the mill and overlay and not have the issue they had this year on the asphalt issue for the waterline.
Commissioner Schauner said if he agreed to sprinkle his property and met the criteria, did he have any sense about what that would do to the property’s appraised value.
Corliss
said his discussion with the
Commissioner
Schauner asked if that was the standard the
Corliss said that was his understanding.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if the
Corliss said yes.
Corliss said staff was working with Management Partners on their information concerning the Performance Measurement and Management System. It was important that it was not simply a performance measurement system, but a management system. He said that system had requirements for discussions throughout the whole organization to hold managers and supervisors accountable for certain indicators. He said he thought it was a really exciting system to get underway and staff was looking forward to implementation.
He
said staff was asking for City Commission direction as to whether or not the
Commission wanted to pursue a lobbying trip to
He said there had been discussions about the importance of relationship building and knew that consistency and presence was important with relationships. He said this was an election year and they would probably want to schedule it for October. He said he believed Congress was likely to recess in October in order to get out among the electorate.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission concern as they discussed the National League of Cities meetings, while those meetings were interesting to attend, it was truly a revolving door in the legislator’s offices. She said she was sure no particular City stood out particularly in terms of what that City would like to see. She suggested courting that relationship a little bit better and meeting with staff a couple of times a year outside the NLC cycle might be advantageous down the road. She said maybe they could just find out some available times, but if Congress was going to be gone the entire month of October, that put them in a bit of a time crunch to get it done.
Corliss said after the election they could discuss those issues. He said if the City Commission wanted him to pursue if there was interest this calendar year, he could do that.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought Congress was only in session Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays so they fly home on Fridays and fly back on Mondays. He said it was a very narrow window at least from when the Congressmen were present. He said it made it difficult, but he thought they should schedule after the election because it made more sense from the scheduling perspective and not at the same time as the NLC meeting.
Also,
Corliss said staff was implementing plans for the Climate Agreement. He said he saw a lot of parallel type items
when attended the
Staff would also plan to improve contracts and accountability with outside agencies. He said in addition to incorporating by reference their actual proposals, staff would try and set out some outcome or performance measurements that would indicate those agencies were following through on what the City Commission wanted. He said that was an issue with economic development funding and staff would have that set out as well.
Mayor Amyx said he thought that was step one, in making sure those agreements were in place and appreciated Corliss stepping forward to make sure those agreements were in place.
Corliss said staff would do some additional research on the auditor position and give the City Commission a background paper as to the best practices. He said staff would bring back a report on that issue to the City Commission and the Commission could make those decisions about reporting responsibilities and that job description. He said the holiday period was not the best time to hire individuals, but if they had those things in place at the beginning of the year, staff would be in good shape to advertise for position.
The Economic Development Coordinator would be another position that he would like some help with the job description to make sure that position was on focus as to what the City Commission wanted that position to realize.
He said it was indicated when the City Commission adopted the budget, the Commission would also receive additional fee ordinances and resolutions on franchise fees for the telecommunications industry. He said those fees would be phased in at 4% later this year and 5% next year. He said when staff received the report from Matrix Consultant staff would take that information and develop a recommendation on development review fees. The phrase staff liked to use was a “cost recovery model” and that did not indicate staff would try to recover 100% of their costs on those different items, but at least see that as a potential and decide how the City Commission wanted to scale back.
He said he planned on following through on a number of those other items, but did not want to go through all of those items. He said if there were issues in the budget the City Commission wanted particular focus on, he asked that those items be communicated because he planned on using the list as a task list.
He said the Director of Parks and Recreation was available to discuss the recommendation to proceed with the $900,000 on Parks and Recreation Facilities and wanted the City Commission, if appropriate, to authorize setting the bid date for the Clinton Park Project which would be paid with sales tax dollars. Staff also wanted to send out a RFP for a consultant to help design the Burrough’s Creek Trail with the Commission’s commitment, as indicated in the budget, to proceed.
He
said a public meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 20th, 7:00
p.m. - 9:00 p.m. at Langston Hughes to discuss with the neighborhood about the
unnamed park at Harvard and
Commissioner
Schauner said he wanted to express a concern about the Transit Replacement Program. He said as he read
Corliss staff would give early warning to the City Commission. He said there was money in the City’s reserve fund where they had transferred transit funds for bus replacement. One the purposes of Galante’s memorandum was to set out a strategy for maximizing federal dollars that were already earmarked and for future earmarks to make sure they were on target to replace the busses. He said he was still mindful of the fact staff did not want to look at the chronological age of the vehicles, but to look at their functional and operational capabilities before those buses were replaced.
Mayor Rundle said on a positive note, he had a conversation with Carl Burns a couple days ago who reported some landmark had been successfully crossed in terms of the earmark for alternative fuel busses. He said the earmark was achieved and he said it seemed that Burns’ statement to him was that might it result in them receiving alternative fuel busses to replace existing ones.
Commissioner
Schauner said he would suggest some conversation about evening Friday and
Saturday night bus service and increasing the fare box. He said at fifty cents, the City was as cheap
a bus ride that could be found and maybe anywhere in the continental
Corliss said the City had a consultant on contract and he would be sure to have those items as part of that review and he would forward those items on to Galante. He said he could get additional information because he knew the Commission was interested in alternative fuels and sustainability with vehicles.
Commissioner Hack said one interesting issue was that often times, as Mayor, a Mayor was often asked to speak to civic groups about what was going on City Hall. The Mayor usually would have 15 minutes to cover everything and asked if staff could pare that issue down to something the Mayor could use in 15 minutes because the issue was a four hour conversation. She said the City was on the verge of finding out great things with the auditor, performance measures and the Matrix Report. She said she appreciated the comprehensive look of what was going on and the direction they were headed. She said budget was the glue that held it all together and what made it work or not work.
Corliss said it was an ambitious budget, but staff was excited to get those things accomplished. He said he had a conversation with a family member and there was a discussion about a full service city and he had to explain what that term meant. He said the City did a number of things and tried to do those things well, but the City always looked at opportunities to make improvements. (21)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
08/29/06 |
Discussion of next steps on
consideration of library proposal Receive recommendation on Wakarusa
Water Reclamation Facility site |
(22)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED _____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1.
Agreement – Feasibility study on retaining wall
reconstruction from Finney & Turnipseed P.A for $16,500.00.
2.
Purchase (sole source) 3 MSA Thermal Imager Cameras
from Conrad Fire Equipment for $28,687.50.
3.
Bid-Powerscreen Midwest Inc for 1 trammel screen,
fan, & screen totaling $118,480.
4.
Engineering Agreement - Engineering design of
5.
Amend engineering services agreement - N
6.
Request to accept bids for two compact 4-wheel
drive pickup trucks.
7.
Purchase order - Software House Int’l for annual
software maintenance fees for $16,491.08.
8.
Bid date-Sept. 19, 2006 for Comprehensive
Rehabilitation Program,
9.
Ordinance No. 8028-1st Read, alcohol consumption,
W side of S Park on Sept 9, 2006.
10.
Ordinance No. 8031- 1st Read, adopt 2006
Edition of Standard Traffic Ordinance.
11.
Resolution No. 6674- Temp note & bond sale,
Sept 12, 2006.
12.
Resolution No. 6673- KDOT,
13.
Resolution No. 6675- Carnegie Bldg, 7th
&
14.
Variance – Waterline main, W Jr. H.S.
15.
Mortgage Releases - First City, L.C., 727 New York;
Harold & Caroline Shephard, 1025 Connecticut; Ronald & Linda Wright,
724 New York; & Kimberly Johnson, 2705 Traildust Court.
16.
Memo from Chuck Soules; policy for price adjustment
for asphalt materials.
17.
City Manager’s Report.
18.
UPR-05-08-06:
Use Permitted upon Review, Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, 805
19.
TA-03-02G-06:
Text amendments to 20-1107, Standards for Market Impact Analysis, part
of site plan zoning process.
20.
Charter Ordinance No. 38 concerning bidding
procedures.
21.
2007 budget.
22.
Future Agenda Items.