February 13, 2007 City Commission meeting minutes

February 13 , 2007

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.

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx proclaimed the week of February 12 – 16 as Piece Week.

The Douglas County SafeKids Coalition presented the annual report on Child Passenger Safety and the Utilities Department presented certification plaques for ISO 14001 (environmental compliance) and OSHAS 18001 (health and safety compliance) to the City Commission.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve City Commission meeting minutes from January 23, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to receive the Recycling & Resources Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of November 8, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve claims to 638 vendors in the amount of $2,026,259.67.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to Shenago Lounge, 2907 West 6^th; On the Border Mexican Grill, 3080 Iowa; Liquid Bar & Nightclub, 804 West 24^th; El Mezcal Restaurant II, 804 Iowa; and Cooders, 925 Iowa, Suite O. 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 Robbie Derritt to the Lawrence Alliance to a term which will expire November 30, 2007; appoint Mark Jarboe to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals to a term which will expire March 31, 2008; and reappoint Marc Epard to the Public Transit Advisory Committee to an additional term which will expire December 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Huxtables L.T. for $26,320, for $26,320, for a climate control system for the Police Department’s Investigation and Training Center located at 4820 Bob Billings Parkway. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Dynatron Elevator, Inc., for $70,640, to design and construct modifications to the Kaw Water Treatment Plant freight elevator and provide one year maintenance services. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for dirt work for small Parks and Recreation jobs. The bids were:

	RD Johnson	LRM Industries	Britz Wrecking	Midland Wrecking	First Management
BID BOND (√)			8 hours minimum
Hourly Rates Backhoe	69.50 67.50	67.50	90.00	110.00	57.00
Hourly Rates Track Loader	115.00	110.00	130.00	159.00	90.00
Hourly Rates Trackhoe	100.00 – 150.00	115.00	130.00	225.00	_____________
Hourly Rates Grader	110.00	110.00	95.00	161.00	_____________
Hourly Rates Dump Truck	Single 67.75 Tandem 52.50 3 Axle 71.75 End dump 79.50	Tandem 65.00 3 Axle 70.00	Tandem 75.00	90.00	Single 45.00 Tandem 60.00 End dump 75.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the hourly rate price bid for dirt work for small Parks and Recreation jobs from LRM Industries not to exceed $75,000. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for contractor services for Parks and Recreation. The bids were:

	Chaney, Inc	O’dell Service	Carrier Commercial	First Management	Kastl Plumbing Inc.
BID BOND (√)
ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL
Hourly Electrician
Hourly Apprentice
Hourly Electrician, after hours
Hourly Apprentice, after hours
HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC
Hourly HVAC Technician	65.00	75.00	89.00
Hourly HVAC Apprentice	55.00	50.00	0
Hourly HVAC Technician, after hours	90.00	112.50	134.00
Hourly HVAC Apprentice, after hours	90.00	75.00	0
PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING
Hourly Plumber	65.00	75.00		60.00	75.00
Hourly Apprentice	55.00	50.00		28.00	60.00
Hourly Plumber, after hours	90.00	112.50		90.00	112.00
Hourly Apprentice, after hours	90.00	75.00		42.00	90.00

	Vito’s Plumbing	Randall Electric	Quality Electric	Lynn Electric
BID BOND (√)
ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL	ELECTRICAL
Hourly Electrician		54.00	55.00	60.00
Hourly Apprentice		32.00	40.00	40.00
Hourly Electrician, after hours		81.00	82.50	90.00
Hourly Apprentice, after hours		48.00	60.00	60.00
HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC	HVAC
Hourly HVAC Technician
Hourly HVAC Apprentice
Hourly HVAC Technician, after hours
Hourly HVAC Apprentice, after hours
PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING	PLUMBING
Hourly Plumber	65.00
Hourly Apprentice	0
Hourly Plumber, after hours	90.00
Hourly Apprentice, after hours

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the electrical jobs to Randall Electric; the plumbing jobs to First Management; and the HVAC jobs to Chaney Inc. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for small concrete jobs for Parks and Recreation. The bids were:

	Hick’s Classic Concrete, Inc.		Jayhawk Concrete Finishing, Inc.		Morgan Concrete Services, Inc.
	NEW	REPLACEMENT	NEW	REPLACEMENT	NEW	REPLACEMENT
4” Sidewalk	3.85 / SF	5.35 / SF	4.00 / SF	7.00 / SF	5.30 / SF	7.00 / SF
6” Sidewalk	4.55 / SF	6.00 / SF	4.75 / SF	7.75 / SF	6.20 / SF	8.00 / SF
Curb & Gutter	13.00 / LF	20.00 / LF	NO BID	NO BID	24.80 / LF	33.65 / LF
Curb & Gutter W/Granite Agg.	14.50 / LF	21.50 / LF	NO BID	NO BID	25.80 / LF	34.65 / LF
12” X 30” Frost Footing	21.65 / LF	______________	20.00 / LF	______________	23.00 / LF	______________
Handicap Ramps W/Pavers	740.00 / EA	865.00 / EA	600.00 / EA	800.00 / EA	1150.00 / EA	1525.00 / EA
4” Approaches	4.20 / SF	5.80 / SF	4.50 / SF	9.50 / SF	6.35 / SF	8.65 / SF
6” Approaches	4.85 / SF	6.35 / SF	5.45 / SF	10.45 / SF	6.70 / SF	9.00 / SF
4” Slab on Grade	3.85 / SF	______________	6.50 / SF	______________	5.35 / SF	______________
6” Slab on Grade	4.50 / SF	______________	7.50 / SF	______________	6.00 / SF	______________

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the small concrete jobs to Hick’s Classic Concrete, not to exceed $65,000. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7829, rezoning of (Z-07-31-04), .93 acres from Rs-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to IG (General Industrial) District, located at 724 North Iowa Street. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8062, annexing approximately 1.14 acres of property generally located west of Franklin Road and north of 25^th Street Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8074, granting the Fire Chief or his/her designee certain authority regarding the demolition of unsafe structure that pose an immediate hazard. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

Ordinance No. 8076, amending the franchise fee for AT&T local telephone service, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

Ordinance No. 8073, establishing right-of-way use regulations for investor-owned utilities without right-of-way management requirements in franchise agreements, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt Resolution No. 6703, establishing March 6, 2007 as date for public hearing regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. . Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve and authorize drafting of an ordinance text amendment, TA-12-14-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-07-17-06) for Oregon Trail Addition, located north of U.S. Highway 40 (6^th Street) and east of George Williams Way (extended), a residential subdivision containing 123 single-family and multi-family residential lots; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Revision of the final plat to include the following:

a. A note stating “No building permits will be issued until the completion of George Williams Way, Stoneridge Drive or Overland Drive to serve the subdivision.”

b. A note stating: “Building permits issued within this subdivision shall be limited to a maximum number of dwelling units (based upon an updated revised Traffic Impact Study showing only one access into the subdivision with Level of Service of “C: or better, at the intersection of George Williams Way and W. 6^th Street, or Stoneridge Drive and W. 6^th Street) until such time as a second access to the subdivision is completed.”

c. 10’ landscape easements must be provided on the rear of double frontage lots.

d. Pedestrian easements provided in Block Three between Lots 26 & 27 and along the southern border of Tract ‘A’ and continuing on between Lots 5 & 6, all of Block Three.

2. Provision of the following fees and documentation:

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

b. A completed and revised Master Street Tree Plan with Red Maple deleted and Zelkova (Botanical name: Zelkova serata ‘Green Vase’) added.

c. A Temporary Utility Agreement.

d. Street sign fees.

3. Pinning of lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

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

5. Final Plat can be recorded when an agreement not to protest the creation of a special assessment benefit district or districts for the improvement of George Williams Way from West 6^th Street to the north boundary line of the Final Plat, including intersection improvements at West 6^th Street, has been executed.

Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the Special Use Permit (SUP-07-01-06) for 150’ T-Mobile monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter, located at 2206 East 23^rd Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Completion of an independent review prior to consideration of the request by the City Commission.

2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

3. Facility shall be inspected annually at owner’s expense and inspection report shall be filed with Planning Director per section 20-529 (4).

4. Provision of a fee “sufficient to cover the cost of an independent study and provision of a form authorizing the city to use those funds to hire consulting engineers to review the application and advise the city on the extent to which the applicant has or has not met the Burden of Proof, required by subsection 20-529 (7)”. (Such fee shall be established by the City Commission) per section 20-529 (6);

5. Parking lot shall be restriped around tower, per staff approval to maintain access circulation and parking.

6. Future parking lot lighting shall require provision of a photometric plan per staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

7. Show and note any lighting for the equipment within the base compound area per staff approval. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.

8. Provision of a revised site plan to show and note the utility easement including the deed book and page reference.

Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve Special Use Permit (SUP-07-02-06) for a 150’ T-Mobile monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter located at 3420 Bob Billings Parkway, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

2. Provision of a revised site plan providing:

a. The dimension of the tower from the property line;

b. The location and deed book and page reference for the utility easement;

c. A note to indicate that disturbed vegetation shall be replatted or new materials; planted to maintain a continuous screening per staff approval; and

d. Note material of extended access drive.

3. Facility shall be inspected annually at owner’s expense and inspection report shall be filed with Planning Director per section 20-529 (4).

4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:

a. No commercial advertising shall be allowed on a tower per 20-529 (2)(i);

b. Lighting for accessory buildings or structures shall be subject to staff approval prior to addition and shall be shielded and directed downward;

c. Structure shall be removed if facility is not in use for a period of three full years at the owner’s expense per section 20-529 (3)(i);

d. Facility owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Director by July 1 of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the facility;

e. Owner/operator shall at all times employ at least ordinary care and shall install, maintain and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injuries or nuisances to the public per section 20-529 (3)(iv);

f. Provision of a fee “sufficient to cover the cost of an independent study and provision of a form authorizing the city to use those funds to hire consulting engineers to review the application and advise the city on the extent to which the applicant has or has not met the Burden of Proof, required by subsection 20-529 (7). (Such fee shall be established by the City Commission) per section 20-529 (6);

g. All telecommunication towers or telecommunications antennas shall conform to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 20-529 (9) (vii);

h. Mobile or immobile equipment not used in direct support of a Telecommunication Tower facility shall not be stored or parked on the site, unless repairs to the Telecommunications Tower or Telecommunications Antenna are being made. 20-529 (9) (xii);

i. Applicant shall provide the City Clerk a written indemnification of the City and proof of liability insurance sufficient to respond to claims up to $1,000,000 in the aggregate which may arise from operation of Telecommunications Facilities within the City , both subject to the approval of the Director of Legal Services prior to issuance of a building permit. 20-529 (13) (i); and

j. Applicant shall present a bond to the Director of Legal Services in the amount of $20,000 which shall be available for use by the City for the removal of the Telecommunications Facility should said Telecommunications Tower ever be abandoned. The bond shall contain the following endorsement: “It is hereby understood and agreed that this instrument may not be canceled nor any intension not to renew be exercised until 60 days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, of written notice of such intent.” Per section 20-529 (13) (ii).

Motion carried unanimously. (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve request from Grob Engineering for a variance from Section19-214B of the City Code which prohibits certain locations for private sanitary sewer service lines. Motion carried unanimously. (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a License Agreement with VanGo Mobile Arts, Inc. to allow for the installation and maintenance of a drop-off lane and solar-powered bollards within the right-of-way at 715 New Jersey Street. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive request from API Foils, Inc., for fifty-five percent (55%) property tax abatement and refer the request to the Public Incentive Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously. (18)

The Mayor pulled for deferral for one week the adoption of Resolution No. 6690, amending the policy of the City of Lawrence with regard to employee organizations. Motion carried unanimously.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said the annual preparation of a capital improvement budget started off with the development of a capital improvement plan that would be underway in coming weeks. He said staff would take a look at that plan and provide a recommendation to the City Commission for a capital budget, a debt budget, for 2008. As they did last year, they were encouraging any number of different members of the community, whether they were individual citizens, representatives of neighborhoods, representatives of the development community, to submit projects for the capital improvement plan and advise staff about the preference for scheduling. He said it was very important that in order for staff to maintain their fiscal stability in their bond and interest fund, they accurately project when they were going to be spending money for debt service. He said they would recall for example their discussions about the improvement of George Williams Way and how in the 2007 Budget they have allocated a certain dollar amount for that project. He said similarly, if there were other requests for debt projects, staff needed to know about those projects so staff could guide their efforts to maintain that bond interest mil levy at a stable rate.

Also, he said, Casey Liebst, Budget Manager, outlined the historic staffing of the City’s Police Department over the past several years. He said they had civilianized a number of positions, for example, the Management Analyst that was responsible for the budget at one time was a sworn officer. He said they replaced that position with a civilian allowing a sworn officer to be more involved in traditional law enforcement activities. He said he and the Police Chief would be working on maintaining budgeted staffing levels at a desired number. He said there were few times they were at full staff strength. He said the police department waited for enough vacancies to hold an academy training session and they wanted to see if there was a better way to maintain budgeted staffing levels. He said from a pure budget standpoint, having vacancies could be desirable because they were not having that payroll on their bi-weekly payroll amounts, but from a community safety standpoint, it was probably desirable that they maintain those staffing levels. He said staff would be looking at better methods to see if they could not maintain those levels.

He said some communities over hire with the understanding they generally know when some police officers would retire. In some cases they did not know a specific date, but in many cases they confide to the police chief a likely year and would be able to maintain a closer approximation to the budgeted staffing levels. He said that had a fiscal impact and needed to understand a little bit about that as well. In addition, he wanted to provide them with the data and wanted to make sure the Commission knew staff was looking at means of trying to maintain those budgeted staffing levels.

He said staff was working with the development community which was a good example of cooperation and a good example of staff trying to respond to the community’s needs which was the sanitary sewer stub out. The goal was to minimize excavation and utility conflicts for plumbers at the time the service connection was made, to reduce the amount of inflow/infiltration from substandard sanitary sewer service taps into the sanitary sewer system.

(19)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive request Z-11-28-06, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential) located at 523-543 Rockledge.

Mary Miller, Planner, presented the staff report. She said this rezoning request was presented to the Planning Commission on December 20, 2006. At that meeting, the Planning Commission considered rezoning to RS-7 rather than RS-5 using the lesser change table. The applicant asked the Planning Commission to consider the request to rezone to RS-5. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of the rezoning request and the applicant was requesting the City Commission return this item back to the Planning Commission. She said the applicant had changed the proposal and had a different concept plan and the applicant would like to present that plan to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner asked what would happen if the City Commission did not send the plan back to the Planning Commission.

Miller said it would have to be heard by the City Commission if the proposal was not returned back to the Planning Commission and if the City Commission denied the plan, the applicant would probably submit another application for a different rezoning.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Paul Werner, Architect for the applicant, said that was correct in that if the City Commission did not send it back, the applicant would need to make a new application with probably the exact same plan the applicant was going to propose going back to the Planning Commission. He said the City Commission could save the applicant a little time and probably would save the City Commission from arguing at this meeting for an hour about what went wrong at the Planning Commission and thought Mary’s comments proved that. He said the applicant never agreed to discuss the RS-7 and part of the lesser change table was the applicant agreed to that being an option. He said there were other plans and thought if they read the Planning Commission minutes the City Commission might see where things went a bit awry.

He said there was a neighborhood meeting and they continuing to work with the neighborhood and would like to take this plan back to the Planning Commission and bring something back to the City Commission with a positive recommendation. He said there were a couple of things that went wrong at the meeting and they would like another shot.

A member of the public said he lived at the adjoining property where this development was going to take place and he had gone to this meeting to see what was proposed and did not believe the plan was substantially different than what was initially proposed. He said he was opposed to the development, but obviously he could not stop the applicant from building three houses on that property. Technically, the amount of property did not amount to an acre. He said those houses would be packed together and believed if the City Commission allowed this plan to take place, it would essentially ghettoize the neighborhood and present a model which was completely inconsistent with how the other plots of land had been developed. He said the applicant could tell the City Commission whatever they wanted about who would be placed at that location, but even with what the applicant proposed, he believed it was going to end up becoming rental properties that would have a transient population because no middle class family of any means other than commuters were going to want to live on property that essentially had no area to walk or no area for kids to play. He said it was a tightly condensed area and they would have a bunch of people. He said he was definitely opposed to this plan and preferred that there would be no zoning. He said the construction itself was enormously disruptive. He said he was at home during the day and worked nights. He said having to listen to the construction was enormously distracting and inconvenient and in that sense, he had a personal interest as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the person who just spoke, had seen the revised proposal Werner was speaking about earlier.

The person who previously spoke said yes. He said even under those circumstances, allowing for the fact this was an aerial shot, those houses were essentially stacked on top of each other and there was no space between those homes. He said he knew the area had mixed zoning, but this plan was completely different. He said the applicant thought they could get $200,000 for those homes and maybe they could, depending on people who were commuters working in Topeka or Kansas City. He said the proposed plan would attract college students or single people and in that sense, the plan was a concern. He said it was not sufficient, in this instance, to look at an aerial shot. He said he would suggest the City Commission drive by the area to see the size of the lot the applicant was proposing for that plan. He said that area was incredibly small and there were other houses that were essentially built on the same amount of land the applicant was suggesting to put five homes on. He said it was completely inconsistent with how everything had been developed and everyone they had spoken to was opposed to that plan.

Mayor Amyx said there were two choices: 1) approve the rezoning request; or 2) send the plan back the Planning Commission for further consideration. He said the public hearings on rezoning were considered by the Planning Commission and suggested the plan be sent back to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission could reaffirm the recommendation and the plan would come back to the City Commission. He said he recommend sending the plan back to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said his biggest concern was with sending the plan back and forth to the City and Planning Commissions. He said at some point, neighborhood interests tire and could only be able afford to hire babysitters so many times to follow a project. He said his biggest concern about sending the plan back was it was very difficult for the typical neighbor to follow the process, be at all the meetings, and so forth. He said in a theoretical sense he did not have a problem sending it back, but as a practical matter he thought it did substantially disadvantage and suspected Werner was on the clock this evening and the neighbors suffer some financial hardship following those projects. He said on balance, he would rather proceed, but suspected there would not be three votes to proceed, but would prefer to proceed at this time.

Commissioner Highberger said there appeared to be valid concerns, but assuming the applicant indicated the project would come back with a new application, he was not sure they would be saving anybody any time. He said he certainly had some concerns about the proposal and the way it was presented now. He said they were going against the adjacent office rezoning, but would like the Planning Commission to receive this proposal before it came back to the City Commission.

Commissioner Rundle said he did not mind sending the plan back. He said he believed the way the regulations were set out, if it did not meet the recommendation of the Planning Commission guidelines, the proposal that went back should be substantially different, which was the requirement if it were to be voted down. He said if the Planning Commission changed their decision, that there was clear rationale for it being substantially improved, but he sensed that it would not be substantially improved.

Vice Mayor Hack said they had to judge the substantial difference when the Planning Commission and staff saw the proposal. She said City staff gave the plan a positive recommendation and thought sending the plan back gave time for conversation. She said this proposal had time for negotiations and the neighbors had been involved through the entire process. She said there was a question of fairness to all sides. The applicant was asking to have the plan returned to the Planning Commission in which she had no problem with that request because it could potentially make more people happy with the plan.

Commissioner Schauner said in reading staff’s recommendation, which recommended approval of the rezoning to RS5, he noticed the first condition was that staff recommended conditional zoning to ensure the development would be compatible. He asked if the conditional zoning had been resolved because he thought that type of zoning was still a major issue with respect to the Salvation Army issue. He said he was not certain the City Commission arrived at a conclusion as a Commission that was a path they wanted to travel and maybe there had been a decision he was not aware of about conditional zoning.

David Corliss, City Manager, said there had not been a decision about conditional zoning. He said staff had an increased comfort level that they had both statutory authority and also city code authority to establish reasonable conditions on rezonings through the new development code. He said he hesitated to say that was the City Commission’s position, because he did not think that it was.

Commissioner Schauner said it would not be his position.

Corliss said that was staff’s position given what they knew about the law in this area and thought staff had done a good job of trying to highlight the balance. He said there was not a reported case on this issue. He said staff had talked with other communities and other land use attorneys in Kansas. He said there were differing opinions and Commissioner Schauner made the point that they did not want to be the test case and did not want to be the test case if it was a detriment to the property owner or to the neighborhood.

Commissioner Schauner said Jane Eldridge stated a few weeks ago that she did not think the City Commission had that authority in another case. He said he did not want to get them off the track on this proposal, but found it interesting that staff had taken a position which might or might not be consistent with any direction this City Commission had given to staff about the use of conditional zoning as a planning tool. He said he had a better comfort level if they had some agreement as a City Commission if that was the direction they wanted to go.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to receive the request for rezoning (Z-11-28-06) of approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential), and refer the request to the Planning Commission per the applicant’s request. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (20)

Reconsideration of Planning Commission recommendations for PDP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6^th Street, a multifamily planned residential development containing approximately 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres, generally described as being located at the southeast corner of West 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the development plan was forwarded back to the Planning Commission and during the time in between the City Commission action and when the item was reconsidered by the Planning Commission, the applicant was to look at some alternative designs trying to respond to specific comments that the City Commission had made during the City Commission meeting. The City Commission had a copy of that revised plan that showed some one story buildings. She said there were originally some duplexes on the very far east side of the project that were now four-plexes. The conditions of approval that were forwarded back to the City Commission referenced the design of the plan with that specific date of the project presented in front of the Planning Commission. She said what the City Commission had were both what they had seen originally as well as the revised drawing the applicant was present to discuss.

A couple of topics from the neighborhood that was discussed with staff were the conditions regarding the access control to Winthrop Court and that was a final development plan element. She said staff made it clear that was a recommended condition of approval throughout this project and that particular condition had not changed. She said they would be looking at the details of what that element would look like making sure that fire trucks would be able to get into the project as well as looking at some design elements to make it aesthetically pleasing both within the project and to the public street.

She said staff would also be bringing back to the City Commission the plat if the Commission chose to recommend approval of the preliminary development plan. The plat included a piece of vacation of right-of-way, Winthrop Court, that had quite a bit of utility when discussing the issue with Public Works in trying to relocate the utility, the storm sewer inlets and the implications of the remaining piece of right-of-way that would be placed on Mr. Lang’s property. She said it was probably in Lang’s best interest to retain public access pieces to revisit that plat and staff would bring that to the Commission in the next several weeks.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any timing concerns from staff about the right-of-way question, just addressed, and approval of the preliminary development.

Day said no. She said because there was a final development plan to approve as well so they could coordinate those types of things. The final development plan would not be coming back to this body and would complete its action with the Planning Commission. She said she would try to coordinate that final plat coming back to the City Commission closer to that timing.

Commissioner Schauner said he noticed there had been an increase in the size of plant material. He asked what was the general rule with respect to required long term maintenance of those materials.

Day said that was part of an ongoing enforcement activity once a project was developed. She said it was shown on the development plan or also on a site plan that if those materials were not maintained, that would be something the City had the ability to site that applicant or the property owner to bring the property into compliance. One of the elements they would probably at least consider visiting on the final development plan was what kind of language there should be about the maintenance and upkeep, whether or not sprinkling systems were proposed, which she did not know at this time, about whether or not those would be recommended to help maintain that vegetation.

Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, said he was before the City Commission on this matter once before and the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission. He said the issues that were brought up at that prior meeting by the City Commission had to do with the size of the structures, mass of the structures, some landscaping issues, especially along the single family lots. In the plan that was actually before the City Commission, some of the buildings were duplexes which were multi-bedroom duplexes and larger two story buildings and were now two story buildings, but smaller four-plexes with a much smaller footprint, a footprint that was very similar to the footprint of the houses, immediately adjacent. Those lots were not built upon yet, but were owned by the same owner. He said they changed two larger buildings to three smaller ones. He said a large building was changed to a smaller one bedroom four-plex in an effort to meet those concerns about size and scale. He said they turned the pool and moved some of the units closer to 6^th Street. He said they felt like they addressed the major concerns that were expressed and at the Planning Commission, he was pleased to say they had the sometimes unique experience of having the neighbors stand up and agree with the proposal and he thought it was something where the parties had worked hard for the past 90 days to get to the point of a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation and a favorable staff recommendation and asked the City Commission to approve the plan subject to the conditions, the last condition of which was the plan was revised to include those four-plexes and match the document that was attached at the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner asked to indicate where the gate would be.

Thompson said the gate was not on this plan, but would be shown and described on the final development.

Mayor Amyx asked who would have the keys and how would that gate function.

Thompson said they were at the mercy of the City on the gate issue. The Fire Department was of the opinion there should not be a gate. Staff was recommending and he was anticipating the direction of the City Commission, there would be a gate. The Fire Department indicated that if there was a gate, that it would be a gate that could be opened with an opticon system which was all they knew, at this time, about the gate.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Kevin Loos, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said the process had worked very well and it had been quite a burden to come back again and again, but in the end, had a unanimous feeling that it had worked out. In general, there was full support of the plan, right now, with the insistence of the gate. He said in essence, everything else had been planned such as density and heights and all other aspects, they were all in agreement.

Mayor Amyx said he would like to thank everyone who had been involved in this process. He said good things happened when everyone comes together to work out problems in projects.

Commissioner Schauner thanked the applicant for the proposed changes along with the neighbors for their continued patience in staying with this project. He said he thought it was a good example of when neighborhoods were involved, they could make a difference of the quality of their life and ultimately the project would be one where everyone would be happy.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a revised Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-01-02-06) for Aberdeen on 6^th Street, a multifamily planned residential development containing approximately 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres, generally described as being located at the southeast corner of West 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show a restricted gate along Winthrop Court per City Fire and Public Works staff approval.

2. Provision of a note that states access gate shall be for emergency purposes only. General vehicular access immediately to Stonecreek Drive from the development shall be prohibited.

3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection and geometric improvements to W. 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that shows installation of larger size (10 gallon minimum size) planting along the south side of the development for lots that abut Stonecreek Drive per staff approval.

5. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Final Development Plan shall include specific building elevations that note building materials to be used for roof, siding, and facing elements visible from the public streets and viewable from abutting properties.”

Motion carried unanimously. (22)

Receive letter from Steve Ozark concerning funding for homelessness issues.

Steve Ozark presented the report. He said he was requesting the City Commission devote time in their 2008 budget planning to fund effective transitional and supportive housing and services programs that would close the gaps that were identified by the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness. On behalf of their friends and neighbors they were requesting a study session with the City Commission before the 2008 budget process began. For the past 5 years he was involved in city leadership to take important steps to begin addressing some of those gaps and concerns. City leadership had approved funding since 2003 to be sure the Lawrence Community Shelter and Salvation Army were opened 24/7 under extreme weather. In years past, they had people die from exposure because they had nowhere to go.

The then, Mayor David Dunfield, who was on the Task Force on Homelessness met in May 2003 through July 2005. He said they worked to understand what was and what was not happening in Lawrence to prevent homelessness and to help those already living on the streets. He said they studied 14 model cities to learn what was working in other cities.
He said the most important element for success was the attitude and intention of the people involved. He said programs that dispense services and oust clients that did not comply with the authoritarian environment where a handout rather than a hand up became the norm. Successful programs all shared a common philosophy of care, respect, and individual knowledge and attention to a client’s personal goals, dreams, problems, and fears. Relationships were formed and trust was built. It was important to make people know where they were and to know that they care for those people as individuals as everyone knew from their own families.

Peer support and involvement in services had shown to be the most successful in rehabilitating, inspiring, and motivating people in need. He said who better to understand and help someone than someone who had already been there. He said they needed much more of that in Lawrence and he understood either this year or next year that Medicaid was going to fund that effort and that funding would be available to the service providers for peer support. Also, too often, people in financial hardship were volunteering their time to help, rather than being paid for their efforts.

He said they were in great need of effective jobs placement programs that work for people with special needs, Lawrence Community Shelter and the Workforce Center on 26^th and Iowa were the only two possibilities that he knew of in town for someone from the streets to get work. Both organizations were overworked and under-funded to really work with individuals on an individual basis. Given the current scenario, very few of the middle class folk could navigate through the system without an advocate to help them get through to get a job or get through the paperwork.
He said the City Commission also approved the Task Force on Homelessness recommendations and formed the Community Commission on Homelessness, but over the last year, as he understood, to gain consensus among themselves with the Commission and the community. He said the Community Commission on Homelessness, known as CCH, was currently detailing what the shelter should look like and what it should and should not do. He said he looked forward to hearing the report in June. He said he fully supported the work and leadership of the CCH and thanked and applauded them for their hard work and vision.

He said he was compelled to come before the City Commission tonight as time was marching on and the needs were largely unmet. Unwittingly, Lawrence was a community that too often gave a hand out rather than a hand up because Lawrence simply did not have a system in place to rehabilitate, but rather the hard working social service leaders and staff work were in crisis mode themselves being overloaded and under funded. Their case management, as he had been told, has hovered around 35 clients per case manager. He said research showed that case management load should be 12 to 1. He said he was sure of some of their gifted workers could handle more than the recommended 12 clients, but all of the service providers he had spoken with were triple or more of the recommended amount. He said he believed they needed to change the ratio dramatically if they wanted rehabilitation rather than maintenance.

He said the greatest factor for successful programs around the country was having an adequate transitional permanent support of housing. The lack of permanent, supportive housing in Lawrence was the number one need in Lawrence. Many people he met on the streets suffered from mental illness and some were duly diagnosed in mental illness and addiction problems. He said many of those folks need assisted living for the rest of their life, but how could they have effective support of housing programs, when people were living their lives in emergency shelters that were never intended as a way of life. He said they have seen effective support of housing models with the cost per day of over $37 and understood in Lawrence they were spending between $90 and $127 a day on the mentally ill and people were experiencing homelessness to be incarcerated in the jails and prisons. He said there were cases where the jail system did not have the money to buy the medications in Lawrence. He said the people were not being able to be maintained because they could not get their medications. He said there were three times more people that were homeless or mentally ill in prisons than there were in mental health facilities, which was on the national system the funding had been cut so drastically.

He said by having insufficient housing and jobs programs for people who had been incarcerated for a crime, was creating homelessness in Lawrence. He said when people leave the jail or prison, those people had no where to go. He said it would be hard for anyone with a criminal record to get honest work in Lawrence, let alone people with a felony on the record. He said they would like criminals to return to the lifestyle they came from.

He said he could not find the numbers that Commissioner Rundle had brought forward at the beginning of the task force about how much money they were spending in the City for emergency services because of the gaps in housing and social services. He said hospital care, emergency medical personnel, police, were wasted services of people who were extremely busy and were being called upon because there was no effective system. He said having a thorough crisis intervention system in Lawrence was critical and as the City hospital was moving on with their development with a mental care unit, the need was so much greater.

He said he read from the Wall Street Journal last month that stated supportive housing cost $12,000 per year per person while shelter care with the services needed listed out as $35,000 per year per person. He said they were paying the price and not getting back change. He said someone much more knowledgeable than he needed to gather the facts so they, as taxpayers, could realize this investment would pay dividends financially as well as being the humane thing to do for the citizens of Lawrence.

He said another valuable system studied was having a single point of contact for people for information and services. He said many people that he met on the streets were frustrated with trying to find who they would go to because when they go somewhere it was the wrong person and were often denied services. He said to not have a good information system as a source of first contact was something they needed to be addressed. He said he would suggest headquarters as a good possibility of that. He said they would have a list full of services, but lacked personnel to take on the volume of people who were in experience of being first point of contact.

Mayor Amyx asked if all those ideas were things Ozark wanted the City Commission to consider as part of that requested study session.

Ozark said yes. He said in between now and then he hoped they would have a much more definitive picture of what they were looking for, the steps, costs, and the outcome.

He said in the past year, the City Commission had approved the Community Commission on Homelessness recommendation for $160,000 to hire 3.5 outreach workers and a half time administrative position. He said the four young outreach members went out into the community, made relationships, built trust and changed lives. He said it was the most positive change in the past five years of this advocacy. He said the model of where the clients were had much merit in his mind and hoped to see more of it in this community. He said they have done a superb job, but now they were overloaded with too many clients in too little time. He said the support funds the City continued to give the Salvation Army and the Lawrence Community Shelter were absolutely critical so they could stay open, especially in this kind of weather. He said travel options address the much needed gap.

He said he applauded the Salvation Army’s willingness, at present, to look to the community for City leadership and ask them what they wanted to do. He said the Salvation Army’s goal to relocate and serve a specific in house group of individuals and families to transition into housing was an outstanding vision and would be a benefit. He said he found it unfortunate that the Salvation Army continued to be held in limbo, primarily, as he understood it, because of neighborhood concerns. He said they realized what the Salvation Army proposed working for specific clients, not general population of people of whomever wandered in. He said the clients would be dependent and following the rules of the program. He said compatibility with the Salvation Army and neighborhood could be achieved here as it has with other communities in the country.

This brought him to the Lawrence Community Shelter. He said his opinion of the shelter care services were the most difficult service to provide. He said all the people that work and volunteer at LCS deserve a great hand of support and thanks. He said working with the chronically homeless a floating population of people was never going to be a perfect picture. He said he wondered what a person who believed they should get rid of the shelter would think if their wish did come true.

He said as part of the models for the task force subcommittee, he spoke with the director of the shelter in El Paso which had a distinctly rougher edge than Lawrence. He said the director told him that his biggest opponents, the downtown community, became the biggest supporters of the shelter over time. He said along with the leadership of the University of Texas, El Paso, the local residents recognized the shelter was their safety net from chaos of much greater crime on the street. He said as all the parties began to know each other, businesses came to financially support the shelter, create job opportunities and even socialize with people from the streets. He said they all came to realize they were all just people and doing their level best, some with much greater challenges. He said he thought it was important to note that over time, their shelter became staffed primarily by peer support.
He said helping people who were already homeless in Lawrence was a community health issue. He said he was not asking the City Commission to fund all that was needed, but partnership was needed, ownership was needed, care and respect and action on behalf of the people who had little representation was needed. He said the time of action was now.

Commissioner Rundle said the example in El Paso, he said Ozark called it a shelter, but asked if it was a permanent housing model.

Ozark said it was a shelter that he researched that was right in the middle of a business area. He said he thought it was a special situation where the University took a lot of ownership and financial responsibility for what happened and over time the understanding between people who were homeless and people in business, took the time to acknowledge the concerns of downtown business. He said people were concerned about people flocking to Lawrence, like Topeka, when they bring someone in. He said the best place for rehabilitation was where they came from and where they have family and contacts. He said he was not looking to make this community a magnet for people who were not working. He said he thought they had to look at the humane thing to do.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission would meet with the Community Commission on Homelessness during the budget process. He said he would like Ozark’s part of the study session be a part of that general discussion.

Ozark said he would like that too because he was not pretending to understand homelessness.

Mayor Amyx said if there were specifics concerns that Ozark would like the City Commission to consider during that study session that Ozark get those concerns to City staff in plenty of time for the City Commission to review those concerns. He said staff would setup that meeting.
Commissioner Rundle thanked Ozark for his dedication. He said he did not know anyone else who had been such a trooper week after week.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

A member of the public said she was present to support Ozark. She said she became part of homeless activism in Lawrence more than 10 years ago when Hilda Enoch started the Coalition for Homeless Concerns. She said she took people to churches and public places. She said they worked very hard toward the end to put together a proposal for a full service recovery center that was submitted to the City Commission in about 1999. She said she was also the Treasurer for the Coalition for Homeless Concerns and was responsible for getting the non profit status it carried today and because they did not quite have their non profit status, their proposal was not accepted. However, she still retained a copy of that non profit status and a group of them worked very hard to put it together. She said she would like to say that she had been watching closely what was going on around the issue of homelessness for all of those years, during and since.

She said Ozark had so eloquently pointed out every detail of the situation as it was today and the steps that had been taken in terms of putting case managers in and 10 years ago the Drop in Center did not exist and people were meeting at the Friends Meeting House on 13^th and Oregon. She said she had followed the homeless issue and had been to countless studies and meetings about what to do about the homelessness issue and thought it was a class issue. She said she really thought that it was a class issue and Lawrence, as a developing City that really wanted to put out an image to solicit business from people outside the community who would come in and bring their tourist money downtown that would then allow them to build up the downtown further and they had people who had a lot of money that were coming in and asking for their plans to be approved for their developments. Yet, year after year they go without really solving the problem of homeless people in Lawrence. She said she thought it was a shame and thought that a progressive community like Lawrence should also be known as a compassionate community and thought it was time to stop the discussions and take action and in support of Ozark, she spent a day on the internet downloading examples of communities that had taken this issue in hand and made beautiful developments and community sites where there was transitional housing, permanent housings, emergency housing built right into the plan. She said she saw church communities take it on and privately fund it and saw examples of public/private funding that allowed the communities to be built and run with the kind of support that Ozark discussed.

She said they had Heartland Mental Health which was being run out of Kansas City that was a friend of hers, who was also in her fellowship, who had established a model for working with persons with mental illness that allowed those persons to live in the community. She said the example she was thinking of right now was a very large single building that was in an apartment building where in the persons living there were then trained as peer advocates and work inside of the building to monitor the activities of the building and give support to the people living there who were also in various stages of recovery and would always need to be in that kind of housing and would not be able to move any further, but had roofs over their head.

She said she downloaded examples of communities that decided to house people with alcohol and drug problems without requiring them to do anything else, but live in those places for which they pay a certain amount of their social security or Veterans disability income. She said she saw on public television an example of a man who was part of that project who eventually, due to just having a place to live, was able to put himself into rehab and get himself to the point where he was able to live a respectable life without drugs or alcohol. She said she thought it was a shame this community had drawn this problem out as long as it had.

She said she was at the Homeless Coalition meeting that afternoon where Margene Schwartz, Community Development Manager, gave out copies of the study that had just been done through staff at the community shelter and also with the homeless outreach case workers that Ozark mentioned. She said she wanted everyone to know the final figure for the number of homeless, which included single individuals and families, was over 400 and thought it was time act.
Carol Burt, Lawrence, asked what the main resistances in Lawrence that kept Lawrence from having an effective way to assist and help the homeless. She said it sounded like it was along standing problem.

Commissioner Rundle said that was a difficult question to answer, but the biggest obstacle was funding. He said the City Commission had many things along with homeless needs that they would be dealing with in coming months with the budget process.

Mayor Amyx said when looking at that figure of 400 individuals who might find themselves in a homeless situation, he thought that issue had not been discussed by the City Commission and asked how many people could be housed in a facility, what was the level of funding, how many people could they afford to have in a shelter, what type of services did they have available, how could they incorporate all those services because the City funded a number of services in Lawrence. He said with Ozark coming forward with the letter asking for a study session later on this year, he thought the City Commission could answer some of those questions he had mentioned. He asked if they were being asked as a community to find housing for 400 people. He said the City Commission needed to help fund the community shelter and obviously get help from Salvation Army in being able to house people, but needed to understand how many programs there were in this community that involve housing. He said at this time, he did not know if they had a lasso around everything that was going out, but helped with funding in making sure they filled those needs. He said this was a big and growing problem and needed to make decisions to make sure the agencies the City was funding were filling the needs of this community.

Commissioner Highberger said he agreed that this was going to be difficult budget year, but thought this year they needed to take the next step forward in implementing the recommendations on the Homeless Task Force. He said everything he read in supportive housing was the option that was most effective for getting people off the street permanently. He said he thought they needed to explore that option and certainly needed to find greater leverage to encourage private funding in this project as much as possible. He said they could have a city matching grant program or something, but he thought this was the year they needed to move forward.
Joe Patterson, Lawrence, said he had lived in Lawrence since 1948 and early on the City’s Salvation Army did a fantastic job for people that needed help and were homeless and back in those days there was true homelessness. He said in recent years, what contributed to homelessness were drug and alcohol problems. He said this City had done a lot to help a number of different organizations and people, so it was not a small decision to make today.

He said he knew some people that were at the homeless center that were homeless by design, which was a statement he used because they had good income and did not have to be, but that was the way of life they chose for whatever reason. He said it was a major problem, but he did not think the answer was nearly as simple as they thought sometimes because the City spent a lot of different tax dollars on a lot of different projects in this community and the homeless problem had become too huge for just the Salvation Army by itself.

Vice Mayor Hack thanked the Mayor for his comments because the City had committed dollars to the homeless situation not only through the issue with the case management, but to case workers, as well as money they did give to the Salvation Army. She said they never had the basic conversation about what the City’s responsibility with regard to the homeless population. She said that was a tough thing to answer because they were a compassionate community and would not make one excuse for the kind of moneys the City had given to a multitude of causes and concerns. She said budget session was a tough time and would like to fulfill every request they get because they know every one of them was valid to a group of people in the outcome. She said there were some people who look at City services as paved the streets and fill the pot holes, arrest the bad guys, put out the fires and haul away the trash and provide water and beyond that, everyone was on their own and that was not Lawrence, Kansas and have never been that way and would never be that way, but ultimately they needed conversation about what was the City’s responsibility as a city government and could they broaden the base of support to include more participation through the faith based community. She said she thought they had some issues with the shelter and had some concerns about the Salvation Army, so they had a lot on their plate in terms of dealing with that, but would repeat that Lawrence was a compassionate community and a compassionate Commission and they had limited dollars to spend on everything they spend money on. She said the homeless situation was among them.

Commissioner Rundle said regarding the supportive housing model, it was obvious from who all was being benefited in other communities and was the best approach. He said regarding the analysis of what they were spending, it was an incomplete assessment. He said they could safely assume that if they were successful, they would see money reallocated to those purposes and free up for more efficient use of funds.

Mayor Amyx asked Ozark to provide specific information in areas that Ozark thought need to be addressed to the City Commission. He asked Corliss to setup a meeting with the Community Commission on Homelessness and Ozark.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to recess for 10 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. (24)

Continued Commission consideration of Library Board recommendation concerning proposed library expansion from December 19, 2006 Commission meeting.

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report. He said back in December, the City Commission received the Library Board’s recommendation concerning the proposed expansion of the Lawrence Public Library which was after an extensive review, last year, of the number of different proposals the City had received and also an examination of possible expansion opportunities on site at the library’s current location at the southwest corner of 7^th and Vermont. The Library Board made a recommendation which was in the City Commission’s agenda packet. The City Commission also had the opportunity to ask questions along with members of the public about the proposed library expansion. The Library Board did make a recommendation to pursue a facility site at the current site of the U.S. Postal Service at the northwest corner of 7^th and Vermont. They also indicated that a proposed expansion would have a certain size and budget. Staff provided the City Commission with additional memorandums that follow up from discussion they had about that issue regarding the fiscal impact on the City. The City of Lawrence was the primary funding source for the Lawrence Public Library devoting property and motor vehicle taxes. If looking at the current funding of the Library, it was a little over 3 mils, which was for all operating costs and there was no debt service costs for the current library facility. If a 30 million dollar facility would proceed, staff would provide the City Commission with what the property tax impact of that would be and also would indicate there might be an opportunity to pursue an election for a sales tax. He said those were the two funding issues. He said staff also included a memorandum concerning other capital projects that were pending before the City. It had been staff’s view that staff wanted to look at all of the City’s capital projects together and not in isolation focus on one particular need or issue. He said they wanted to look at, and prioritize, all of those projects and then move efficiently and expeditiously to accomplish all of the City Commission’s goals as those priorities were outlined.

One of the key issues that would be important for the City Commission was to establish the capital budget for 2008 and for future years, but that was not the topic, the topic was to give staff direction on the library. He said that was one of the issues they had talked about extensively, this time last year and one of the keys was to sustain that commitment. He said staff was receiving good news and information from street maintenance work as far as the preventive maintenance work they had been able to devote substantial resources to. The reason why he mentioned it was because it was staff’s concern they not have a large deferred maintenance of streets while pursuing other projects, unless it was a conscious commission decision and the City Commission could make that decision, but he wanted the City Commission to fully know where staff was on street maintenance. He said the emphasis the City Commission had on preventive maintenance would help staff. He said staff thought the recommendation was solid in the sense that it represented the library’s and staff’s best views about how to proceed with the library expansion if that was determined to be a priority of the Commission.

Mayor Amyx said regarding staff’s recommendation for funding options, it discussed the current 2007 operating mil levy and debt service. He said obviously, it was zero with a total mil required to operate the library at 3.258 mils. It was anticipated in 2009 once a new library was to be finished the operating mil levy would go to 4.9, the debt service would be 2.567 mils and the overall mil levy required for a new library was 7.5 mils.

Corliss said they were now 26 mils and change. He said this Commission had seen that as an important priority as to not to raise the mil levy. He said they added some services and programs, but they were able to do that within the assessed valuation growth. He said they always noted the assessed valuation growth meant that those property owners that were fortunate to have an increase in value in their property were getting a property tax increase, but the mil levy did not need to be raised, the mil levy had been stable. He said the library was property tax dependent and that would be 26 mils and 7.5 mils for debt service and operating expenses and would be a very sizable percentage of all of those property tax dollars going toward library services. He said they were also pointing out there were sales tax funding options. He said at a recent finance conference in Wichita where a number of other municipalities were continuing to use sales tax as an additional option to add amenities to their community, whether it was as large a project as a Sedgwick County Arena for the sales tax it was probably, at the outside of dollar amounts, but there were a number of other communities that had seen sales taxes attractive for other amenities and other projects. He also wanted to point out that sales tax was attractive for increasing the service standard on traditional municipal services. He said Blue Springs Missouri had a sales tax referendum for sidewalk maintenance and street maintenance in order to meet their level of standard for those items.

He said staff was in the process of finalizing the memorandum that would highlight where Lawrence stood in relationship to the sales tax of other area municipalities. He said that information indicated they had a smaller aggregate sales tax than a number of other communities, but that did not negate some of the challenges with the sales tax.

Mayor Amyx said in 1989 the budget was 46 million dollars and a total debt of 27 million dollars. He said 17 short budget years later, the budget was 140 million dollars and a total debt of approximately 166 million.

Corliss said the total debt was a little bit higher with general obligation and utility debt.

Mayor Amyx said there were still concerns about the City’s infrastructure which was the City Commission’s highest priority in 2007 for street work. He asked if the City could afford this project at this time given it would add another 30 million dollars of debt to the community during a time when there likely would be a minimal increase in assessed valuation for 2008.

Corliss said he wanted to look at all the City’s projects. He said there would be a request from PLAY which did not mean it was the City’s obligation, but there would be those discussions. He said it was indicated the concern about streets and staff was working aggressively on a number of the City’s stormwater concerns. He said he thought the City Commission might want this project as a ranked priority and respond to it. He said it was entirely appropriate to remember while the costs were significant, the value was significant. The last time the City built a library as a community they stepped forward and benefited from that library which was a while ago. He said it was not inappropriate to think they had to take another large project on and the Commission might want to have a good discussion with the community about priorities and staff had some ideas on how to engage that discussion if that was the Commission’s desire. He said the Commission might want to go ahead and proceed with this project at this time. He said his recommendation was to look at all those priorities, particularly in light of the information they would have on street maintenance in the next few weeks. He said he thought this community was going to continue to grow and continue to be able to afford enhanced amenities along with being able to pay attention to maintenance.

He said next week if they were able to finalize the Clinton Water Treatment Plant improvements project in a satisfactory manner, they would be looking at large utility capital projects and there was a rate base that supported that fact. He said whether it was writing a check with your mortgage for property taxes or writing a check for your utility bills, it would continue to have large rate impact because staff did not think the actual rates were going to change. He said they might move some of the water and sewer in between them, but they were talking about a large capital project for the Water Plant on Wakarusa and of course they were familiar with the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility which was a more expensive project. He said those would be paid for by users over time. The same thing with the library, if they did a 20 year or longer debt, that debt would be paid for by the users over time.

Mayor Amyx said he was a supporter of priority ranking and asked if that would give them the opportunity to rank different projects in a timely fashion that could be brought on at various times to show how debt would be paid down to help peoples’ decisions to vote on the library, PLAY Projects, or other various projects.

Corliss said all of those projects should be included in the City Commission’s decision making and staff’s analysis. He said staff thought they had done a good job of analyzing this project. He said his concern was making a decision on this project while not looking at other projects was probably not doing justice to where the Commission wanted to be as far as having a long range picture of debt and the budget. He said it was made very clear that staff did not think they could take on this project within existing resources. Unless the City Commission wanted to realign different spending priorities, staff did not think they could take this project on within existing resources. He said the City Commission was going to need to discuss either increasing the mil levy, increasing the sales tax, or adjusting those other priorities.

Commissioner Schauner said the Library question should be decided by the voters. He said it was unique in the sense it was not like leasing or buying fire trucks because those were the type of policy decisions that more appropriately lie with the governing body. He said he did not think it was quite apples to apples comparison to look at the City’s enterprise fund expenditures with the general fund expenditures. He said it would all come out of someone’s checkbook, but they should be considered separately. He said whether it was stormwater, wastewater, drinking water improvements, he would like to consider those in one discussion, discussions about street maintenance and purchase of capital equipment as another discussion and then a separate discussion about whether it was additional recreational facilities or a new library as a third set of discussions. He said those made sense as discrete groups of expenditures.

He said they all knew that sale tax was incredibly regressive and it affected those who could least afford to pay the most and immediately. Property taxes ultimately affect those same people as those costs find their way into the cost of doing business, whether you were a landlord, builder, or a homeowner. He said any way you sliced it, the same people would pay, but pay at somewhat different rates and through different mechanisms. He said he did not want to add to the level of tax burden on those who could least afford it. He said he would have a hard time supporting a sales tax for major capital improvements such as a library. He said having said that, if they did 1% for a short period of time and paid it off and had that sales tax levied for that specific purpose, then you were left with that O&M side as opposed to debt. He said it did not make good sense to push this thing outside in forever land. He said if they were going to build a library, he suggested building the library and pay it off as quickly as possible and move on. He said they could talk about a new library a lot longer and not come to a clearer consensus about whether they wanted to build the library or not until put the library on the ballot side. He asked the other City Commissioners how much information should voters have about what it cost to build the library, what it would look like, the location, and would it be a City only project or partnership with some private enterprise. He said the part of this prioritizing and whether they placed that issue on the ballot should include some hard numbers on any of those projects. He said he would like to at least see a business plan for what the library would cost because the proposal he had seen, did not have those detailed numbers. He said it did not make sense to put that kind of proposal on a ballot and trust the City in that it was a 30 million dollar project and they would get a great project.

Vice Mayor Hack said the City Commission kept discussing prioritizing, but had not. She agreed this was a huge endeavor and should be put to a public vote. She said she did not want people to think that all the work done on the Library had been for nothing. She said the City was looking at difficult budget times. She said the City Commission and staff’s job was to fill in some of those details.

She said looking back at the School District bond issue and if she voted for that bond issue, she knew the details. She said they could not put all of that type of information together upfront before deciding, as a Commission, this was the direction they wanted to go. On the one hand, the Commission was saying they wanted more details, but on the other hand they were not really sure they were going to construct a new library, but were still asking for details because it was helpful.

In terms of the funding mechanism, paying off the bonds to build it was correct. She said she would support sales tax if it was designed for specific goals and the library might be among those and if it had some sort of sunset provision. She said regardless of any sunset provision, they still had the operating costs for the library. She said she had some specific questions about the library staff which could be answered as they went through that discussion process. She said from a Commission standpoint she wanted to have that priority conversation regarding those different segmented areas because the Commission had discussed having that type of conversation, but that conversation had not taken place yet.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the City Commission had agreed about considering the utility pieces separately and he hoped, when looking at prioritizing projects, that they not prioritize a wastewater facility or an expansion of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant against the library.

Vice Mayor Hack said that would not be done. She said it still came from the taxpayer and was money out of their pockets, but it came from the enterprise fund.

Commissioner Highberger said he was always operating under the assumption that before going to a public vote, they would have a detailed plan and specific location drawings and a fairly detailed budget cost estimate. He would like to see the Commission move forward on this project but they needed a public vote on a project of this magnitude.

Mayor Amyx said to be able to prioritize the library against whatever projects they decided to weed out, he asked if staff had any idea of potential costs to look at site selection, cost of design, and what it would look like to take to the public for that vote.

Corliss said he did not have specific cost estimates about the design. He said it usually occurred with public votes that they had quite a bit of detail as far as some of the physical layout and location. The location was by no means certain. The Eldridge development group had extensive discussions with the post office, but he wanted to make it clear that probably would need some level of confirmation or at least a clear understanding of how it could be moved toward being confirmed in order for the public to have confidence.

He said on the question about design, he said staff’s recommendation was to go through a process to select the architect that would design the facility and then engage them in a limited design so the public would know how it would operate on that site, it’s general physical appearance, some acknowledgement of how it was going to fit into the context of downtown which would be part of the project budget. If the voters did not approve, they would have to find other funding resources for that project. He said it would probably be several tens of thousands of dollars for some level of concept design. He said that was not inappropriate for a project of that size to understand how it would be physically laid out and make some general design choices as a community so the public would know what they were voting on.

Commissioner Highberger said under our new development code they were requiring park dedication from developers and he would like to see if that changed throughout any projected expenditures under existing sales tax to see if there was some flexibility.

Corliss said staff would get Commissioner Highberger that information. He said right now they were doing approximately $900,000 worth of park projects this year. It would probably be next year until they could do more. The debt on the large park projects still remained significant for another 10 years until they free up quite a bit of money to be able to do other things. The dedication provisions in the subdivision regulations allow for the dedication of parks, but they did not equip those parks. He said that helped in future property acquisition. He said it probably was not significant enough to do debt service, but it would allow them to use some of those resources to build the parks on which the property was dedicated was his observation.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission would be willing to put a library project at 30 million dollars on the ballot and be willing to fund the library if the public said “yes.” He asked if that was a tax increase this Commission would be wiling to enact because it would clearly require either spending a lot less money some place else or adding to mil levy or sales tax either for a long period of time or a short period of time. It seemed that unless they were willing to commit to doing that there would not be much point in hiring an architect or putting the issue on the ballot. He said they might as well just move on.

Commissioner Hack said with her estimation, the time to move on was two years ago before they started this process. She said this had been on the City Commission plate for a long time and they certainly knew then it was going to be more than $4.95 to get this thing off of the ground. She said the time for making that decision had passed. She said the reason she supported the proposal was because the community needed a better library facility. She said she did not know how they would fund the new library because they did not have the actual numbers. She said the library issue needed to be a community vote. She said she also did not know what the new library would look like, but she supported a library and knew it would require an increase of taxes. She said it was not quite fish or cut bait time, but as a City Commission they should just not do anything.

Commissioner Schauner said what he thought he heard Vice Mayor Hack say was if the public voted “yes”, at least Vice Mayor Hack’s vote would be to commit to finding a way to finance that project.

Vice Mayor Hack said the way the library would be financed needed to be on the ballot as well.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought the projected increased operating costs for a new facility would be information available to the public and would be a factor into the decision. He said if looking at numbers statewide numbers, Lawrence was almost at the bottom in terms of per capita expenditures on library services and for an educated community like this, even the presence of the KU library which was not accessible to the public, it was his opinion they needed to look at the consideration of library budgeting.

Commissioner Rundle said regarding the comment about staff not wanting the City Commission to defer street maintenance so they could take a large capital project was where he would start. He said he definitely wanted to support that direction. He said the street maintenance that had been deferred had accumulated to a point where it was threatening to overshadow a lot of other things, but this was another example because the City should have been saving money for this library all along. He said their intention was on thin ice, at one point, because they were not keeping up with the collections. He said he still wanted to see an expanded new library, but it might be that they could not have a new library at this time. He said they might even need to go back and look at a branch library instead.

He said as far as sales tax, he did not see an increase sales tax. He said if instead they could increase in general more sales tax even by making investments that increased tourism so the City had more sales tax coming into the community rather than taxing citizens. He said he would like to know what was feasible and what they could hope to see increase if they started marketing both downtown and historic resources better. He said there was some sub text in the retail analysis was something they needed to move forward. He said he wished everyone had attended the commercial session on the charrette process because that analysis showed local businesses were doing okay, but were not doing as well as they should be because they have spread out sales all over the community. He said if they could move forward on impact fees in some way that was fair perhaps they could reallocate money.

He said one concern he had was redevelopment. He said they needed to decide how they wanted downtown to function both within the city and the region and take a much more considerate effort to enhance its viability and the income it generated in sales tax.

He said he appreciated the current City Manager’s downtown summit and talked about the planning they needed to do so they could support those redevelopment efforts that would occur with good planning. He said he also appreciated Downtown Lawrence Inc. (DLI) effort. He said another condition that came from the charrette was to get a business improvement district together at little or no charge and start having that dialogue about what they wanted downtown to be both the city and the state.

Mayor Amyx said he thought the City Commission had an obligation with this facility to take it to the public with the best information that could be provided so they could make an informative vote. He said he supported the public’s decision about how money was to be spent. He asked if people could afford the additional taxation right now.

Commissioner Schauner said that was the reason for the vote to let the community make that decision based on good information.

Mayor Amyx asked if Commissioner Schauner believed the community could afford it right now.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not know. He said he thought some people could afford it without flinching and thought some people could barely afford to make it right now. He said they had both ends of the spectrum in this community and sales tax hurts the one end and nothing hurts the other end. He said most people lived in the middle some place. He said the best thing about democracy was it was kind of complicated and messy and the worst thing was that it was messy and clumsy. He said people got to decide and a majority rules. He said he thought it was time to stop and if they were going to fish, then he suggested having a budget and priority meeting and look at those priorities that fit on the same discussion table and make a decision if they were going to go forward or not. He said if they were going to go forward with the library proposal, then they needed to hire someone to put the numbers together. He said the more this issue was discussed, the number 30 million scared people. He said Topeka spent about $25 million in 1998 and spent a ton of money operating and maintaining that facility. He said they were also bigger in population, even though the population was declining, not growing. He said they also had a very nice sports facility, Hummer Park, but were also saddled with a very big annual debt encumbrance on that facility. He said they might want to look at not only prioritizing a wants list, but also ought to be looking if there was money they could take off the current sales tax that had been used for Parks and Recreation facilities in a way that could lessen the impact of an additional project, like a library. He said he would like to take a hard look at those numbers.

He said he thought they ought to have this discussion sooner than later because they had a lot of people that were hanging on this issue since day one. He said he was involved with the New Directions Task Force and was present at every meeting and ironically that charrette produced a majority of the library’s current site. He said he had other questions that they did not have good answers to yet which would affect his view in terms of a priority list. He asked when could they receive numbers that were realistic and when could they have a study session.

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission could receive that information mid April.

Corliss said he thought the Commission could receive that information at that time. He said there would be good information on streets that he discussed as the preference by then. He said they would also be far into the capital improvement plan process and hopefully, at some point, would have all the other capital improvement projects, including PLAY and other projects because the Commission would want to see the entire list. He said staff would also provide the City Commission with an update on the information about the County sales tax. He said the City would receive a little bit over $9 million this year in county wide sales tax over half of that sales tax stayed in the general fund and funded the Police, Fire/Medical Departments and other things and was essentially, as promised, a reduction in property taxes. He said also as promised, about $1.5 million of that went toward paying the debt of the indoor swimming pool and community health facility. He said the vast bulk of the remainder of the sales tax went towards operating the parks facilities in funding recreation and a lot of the maintenance facilities for Parks and Recreation. He said they were spending about $800,000 of the sales tax money this year on streets. He said they could change some of those priorities, but obviously could not change the debt commitment priorities and have that money that was in the general fund that was essentially used as promised which was a reduction in property taxes. He said they needed to see those and see the trajectory out into the future. He said it was the Commission’s budget to change those priorities and staff’s job to make sure the City Commission understood the commitments and consequences.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think the Farmland property was on the list of projects which could have significant impact on debt and infrastructure issues. He said they started down the right path in terms of improving maintenance on the City’s basic infrastructure and the Commission could not go back on the promise to themselves and to the taxpayers because the long term costs to that was dramatically more than the savings they incurred by stopping that work. He said they have seen what it cost to build five blocks of Kasold and could not afford blocks at the price of $1 million per block. He said it was much more affordable to do the maintenance and cause those streets to last as long as possible. He said he would hate to take a backwards step on the current asset base of streets.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Debra Thompson, Library Board Member, said she was a fairly new library board member and in joining the board one of the things she did was went to the Watkins Museum and did research on how the library came to be and learned some interesting things. She said one of the first things the founders of Lawrence did after they came and established the community was to construct a library. She said it was a small library and most accounts say it was downtown on the second level of a building. As time went on and at the beginning of the next century, the City was a beneficiary of a library from Andrew Carnegie. She said in the late 1960’s was the time period which the last City Commission in the community had a talk about the library and voted on a huge amount of money, $1.5 million to build that library. Although, at the time, there was a great deal of angst and a lot of things happening in the community, the decision was made to build that library. Now, in 2007 they were being asked again to think about a new library.

She said when thinking about debt, debt should ideally be spent for something that was an investment that would grow rather than depreciate. She said as an educated community, effectively a library was going to help invest in the community’s intellect.

She said the $30 million proposal from the library board was really a $20 million library with $10 million worth of parking because the proposal they were asked to give the City Commission was to consider parking very carefully. She said others would agree that it was not critical where the library would be located, but they recommended a location because that question was asked by the City Commission. She said as a library board, they favored a public vote on the issue.

Vice Mayor Hack said she really appreciated delineating between the library and parking because she forgot about that and how much the parking would help downtown.

Joe Patterson, Lawrence, said he had a $60 water bill the other day and $14 of it was for water and the rest was for sewage, stormwater, and the list went on and on. He said he also would like to discuss with the City Commission the project on Kasold Drive at some point. He said he had voted for the current library and that library was built with the intentions when the time came where they needed more space, they would construct a second floor. He said now by today’s standards, they would not permit that second floor, but he did not buy that idea. He said if they could not build a second floor, he suggested building a satellite library because $30 million library was a lot of money. He said they have other projects and other things that needed to be taken care of in the City that taxpayers were going to pay for. He said he had been a taxpayer in this town for a long time and taxes did not go down but up. He said he would like an answer to why they could not expand the existing library to where it would be beneficial. He said if not, if they did build a new library, he suggested not getting so tied up in the architect and try to keep the cost down at a feasible building to try to make it maintain the use it was intended for.

Lawrence Bodle, Lawrence, said he also voted for the library and would probably vote for the next one. He said the City spent a quarter of a million dollars on someone to think about this library and asked if they suggested a site north of 6^th Street, between Kentucky and Tennessee. He said that area was vacant and had a beautiful look out on the river with a lot of space. He said the City could sell the old library for a considerable amount to apply toward the cost of a new library.

Shawn Hastie, Lawrence, said Lawrence definitely needed a new library and she did not think the branch system was going to work. She said she grew up in Wichita which had an awesome branch library system, but if they were not willing to build a branch library so that there was one in North Lawrence, West Lawrence, and South Lawrence it would not work. She said she was a huge supporter of the library because she home schooled her children and when people talk about using the KU library, she could not check out a book on reptiles that her kids could read or understand. She said Lawrence had a large home schooling community and they could not meet their needs with the KU Libraries and the public library. She said they needed a newer and bigger library. She said she definitely thought the library needed to stay downtown.

She said she supported arts in the community and needed to put in something that attracted people, like the fountain at Crown Center, which was a destination where people could go.

Jake Davis, Lawrence, said he was curious if they were bringing in proposals for the public, he asked if it was possible to put more than one proposal on the ballot with the associated taxes, like an expansion versus an actual full new library.

Mayor Amyx said he supposed the City Commission could do it any way the Commission decided to do it. He said he thought they would probably have a specific plan when one finally came together. He said they could put together a secondary question on the ballot, but he thought there would be other things they were going to be discussing over the next couple of months along with other priorities in the city. He said he thought it was possible, but he could not tell him right now.

Katherine Morgan, Library Board Member, said she served on the New Directions Task Force and had been part of this process for quite a long time now and thanked everyone for their attention to this issue because she it was a hard decision, a lot of money, and scary to take on that sort of commitment. She said she was not hearing what the library did for the community. She said there was so much the library did and so much economic development the library could bring if it were larger and had the capacity and resources that more small businesses could use. She said she and her husband were owners of a publishing company that was born in a public library. She said their customers were libraries, she did all her research at the public library and still went to the library to use its reference books because it cost a lot of money for a small business. She said she was asking the City Commission to look at what the library could contribute to the community; it was not just for the kids, but for the business and a great economic tool. She said the woman who ran the Topeka library said it was one of the first stops for the tour of new businesses that come to their town. She said they brought them to the public library because it was a reflection of what was important to the community. She said Lawrence was such a great place and she could have her business any where in the country, but she chose Lawrence because it was a great community to live in and thought a new library was warranted. She said the issue of a new library had been ignored for a long time and it was basic infrastructure for the community. She said a library was part of the basic fabric of the City and really thought they needed to put it to a public vote, let the public decide, and then go from there.

Commissioner Schauner said that was perhaps the most eloquent statement of why they ought to build a library in two and a half years of discussing it. He said that, in his mind, was about as simply and eloquently stated for why they could make the case for the library.

A member of the public said she had also been thinking a lot about the library issue because she lived in Lawrence since the 1970’s and also was a great library user. She said she had been a library user since she was a little girl and it was a wonderful community resource and completely agreed with the previous speaker about the library as a treasure in the City. She said she had been following the different plans for the library. She said she did not know where the monies came from to pay for everything the City Commission had on their plates. She said she was not educated enough about the different taxes and the way they were applied. She said in her simplistic way of thinking as a person who had been on a low budget all of her adult life, it occurred that perhaps there was a way to split the money they were looking at so they could accommodate an expanded library so they could have some money to apply to better facilities for the homeless so they also have money for infrastructure. She said we each have a certain amount of money received every month and each of us had to budget that money and pay rent, utilities, then the medical bills, and sometimes you could not pay your whole utility bill at once if you were a person who did not have a lot of income so they would have to divide it up and pay a certain amount of it every month. She said what she was thinking was instead of one large library, why could they not have an expanded library that some other of the speakers had talked about that would come in at 1/3 of the cost of $30 million and figure out a way to use the parking lot that was already across the street from the library and put a parking garage on that corner. She said they needed some way to utilize the space they already had, expand the library in its current location, not make it as big or fancy as it would be if it were a $30 million structure, but at the same time make it a satisfactory, practical library that would serve the growing community’s needs without all the bells and whistles. She said they would have some money to apply to what they were looking for a facility to take care of the homeless.

She said she hoped they did not give into a library that also included living spaces and retail. She said the library belonged to the community and should not be mixed with private interests.

Hastie said she meant to say earlier that her family was one of the families that it was a big deal to add 1 cent sales tax to their family budget but they would definitely support doing that for the library and thought that most of their friends were in the same situation and where they should put their priorities. She said she thought that most families that were struggling were willing to spend an extra penny on every dollar for an excellent library system.

Mayor Amyx suggested the City Commission direct staff to develop a priority system and schedule a study session in mid-April to go over the priorities so they could rank the library with other projects the City Commission was faced with at this time. He said as part of that, he suggested having different funding mechanisms to look at and if the Commission wished to proceed, they could get ready to select a site and possibly the design necessary would need to be taken to the public and obviously the election on how to finance the costs of the new library and the adjacent parking.

Corliss said when the Mayor indicated different funding mechanisms, he asked if the Mayor was talking about different ways to look at property and sales tax as a means to support that project.

Mayor Amyx said yes. He said the sooner they could have those discussions as to giving direction on what course to take for the funding mechanism and they might as well start early.

Mayor Amyx said Commissioners Highberger and Schauner asked about any of the sales tax money that could be freed up and he would like additional information on that idea.

(25)

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

02/20/06

 Staff Recommendation on the Reuse of Old Fire Station No. 2 (Mass. Street) and Old Fire Station No. 4 (Grover Barn / Lawrence Avenue). Staff is recommending that both facilities be kept in public use.

 Utility Department Capital Projects briefing

02/27/06

 Public hearing on Oregon Trail stormwater and park benefit district

 Commissioner Rundle plans to be absent from the meeting

03/06/06

 Public hearing on API Foils Tax Abatement Application

 Public hearing on Neighborhood Revitalization Act

TBD

 Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning;

 Retail Marketing Analysis Code provisions

 Status of Long-Range Planning Resolution (discussion of Resolution No. 6697 has been scheduled as a public hearing item at the Planning Commission’s meeting on February 26, 2007. Notices will specifically be sent to members of the public that had indicated an interest when this item was listed on the 01/16/07 City Commission Meeting Agenda.)

 Stoneridge Drive benefit districts – front footage versus square footage issues

(26)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Commissioner Schauner said that capital debt was not the only pressure on the 2008 budget discussion, but they also had a number of other issues that were hanging out there, one of which would be the homeless task force issues which may or may not be a capital piece but operating impact. He said as they had their discussions about prioritizing, they have not only a discussion about the capital debt impact on their budget, but also the other pieces which at this point were not in the acting bill for discussion. He said homelessness would be one.

Corliss said they have started the 2008 budget process and were working on a calendar responding to the Commission’s direction last week to have the Mayor sign a letter to the outside agencies indicating there were budget challenges this year and were responding to accountability issues. He said Commissioner Schauner was right when they first need to identify the critical issues so that they had enough time in the budget process to give options, do the analysis, so that they had the right comfort level on saying they could spend money on one thing and say no to others.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to borrow from themselves and reduce the long term debt costs in building a library facility by borrowing from utility money at a significantly reduced cost of money and put it on a regular pay back.

Corliss said he would get him an analysis of it. He said it was a good question and thought what the analysis would show was that they earned more money from some of the funds they had in the utility fund that they would eventually need for the large capital projects they had. He said they were earning more at a higher interest rate than it cost to borrow the money.

Commissioner Schauner said his other question was that there had been talk in the legislature for property tax relief for seniors and he was curious what sort of traction that had and he did not think it was means tested. He said as he understood it, it would fix their valuation at whatever point in time it became affected. He said he would like to know more about it like when it was going in place, how it would affect them, and would certainly be part of any budget discussion.

Corliss said there was already an existing property tax exemption that applied to some individuals that were in need. He said capping the assessed evaluation for residences of individuals of a certain age, did not achieve what they talked about and was a tax shift on everyone else.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (cont’d):

Consider motion to recess into executive session for discussion of non-elected personnel matters for 15 minutes. The justification for the executive session is to keep personnel matters confidential. The regular meeting will resume in the City Commission meeting room at the conclusion of the executive session.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to recess at 9:40 p.m. into executive session for 15 minutes to discuss non elected personnel matters.

The Commission returned to regular session at 9:50 p.m., at which time it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2007

1. Contract- Huxtables L.T. for climate control system, Police Depart. Investigation and Training Center, 4820 Bob Billings, for $26,320.

2. Agreement- Dynatron Elevator, Inc. for modifications to Kaw Water Treatment Plant freight elevator and one year maintenance services for $70,640.

3. Bid- Hourly rate price bid for dirt work for small parks and recreation jobs from LRM Industries not to exceed $75,000.

4. Bid- Unit price bid for parks and recreation contractor services not to exceed $65,000.

5. Bid- Parks & recreation concrete work for small jobs, Hick’s Classic Concrete, not to exceed $65,000.

6. Ordinance No. 7829- 1^st Read, rezone (Z-07-31-04) .93 acres from RS-1 to IG, 724 N. Iowa.

7. Ordinance No. 8062- 1^st Read, annex 1.14 acres W of Franklin Rd. & N of 25^thSt. Terr.

8. Ordinance No. 8074- 1^st Read, grant Fire Chief certain authoring regarding demolition of unsafe structures that pose immediate hazard.

9. Ordinance No. 8076- 2^nd Read, amending franchise fee for AT&T local telephone service.

10. Ordinance No. 8073- 2^nd Read, est. right-of-way use regulations for investor-owned utilities without right-of-way management requirements in franchise agreements.

11. Resolution No. 6703- Mar 6, 2007 public hearing, Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.

12. Resolution No. 6690- Amend policy of City regarding employee organizations.

13. Text Amendment- (TA-12-14-06), amendments to Ch. 20 Development Code correcting inconsistencies.

14. Final Plat – (PF-07-17-06) Oregon Trail Add, containing 123 single-family and multi-family residential lots.

15. Special Use Permit - (SUP-07-01-06) for 150’ T-Mobile monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter at 2206 E 23^rd.

16. Special Use Permit – (SUP-07-02-06) for 150’ T-Mobile monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter at 3420 Bob Billings Parkway

17. Variance - Grob Engineering, 19-214B of City Code

18. License Agreement -VanGo Mobile Arts, Inc. install & maintenance drop-off lane & solar-powered bollards within right-of-way, 715 N.J.

19. API Foils, Inc., for 55% property tax abatement.

20. City Manager’s Report.

21. Rezone- (Z-11-28-06) .954 acres from RS10 to RS5, 523-543 Rockledge.

22. Prelim Dev Plan (revised) – (PDP-01-02-06) Aberdeen on 6^th Street.

23. Downtown Lawrence, Inc. - waive written consent of the adjacent owner or tenant requirement for application for use of right-of-way.

24. Homelessness issues, Steve Ozark.

25. Continued Commission consideration - Library Board recommendation concerning library expansion.

26. Public Comment

27. Future Agenda Items.

28. Commission Items.

29. Executive Session.