February 20, 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 Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present. 

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 6, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to receive the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of November 30, 2006, December 21, 2006, and November 11, 2007; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of February 5, 2007; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of December 13, 2006, December 20, 2006, and January 10, 2007; and, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 9, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to approve claims to 542 vendors in the amount of 2,222,997.58 and payroll from February 4, 2007 to February 17, 2007 in the amount of 1,697,562.39.  Motion carried unanimously.       
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina; Old Chicago, 2329 Iowa; and the Retail Liquor License for Hird Retail Liquor, 804 West 24th; and Louise’s West, 1307 West 7th.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Theresa Marcel Bush to the Citizen Advisory Board to a second term which will expire March 1, 2010; appoint Leslie von Holton to the Lawrence Arts Commission, to a term which will expire March 31, 2010; reappoint Bryan Wyatt to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals to a second term which will expire March 31, 2010; and appoint James Dermody to the Public Transit Advisory Committee to a term which will expire December 31, 2009.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract agreement and purchase order with Utility Maintenance Contractors, LLC in the amount of $531,923.72 to complete the Cured-in Place-Pipe (CIPP) Project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                             (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for 24^th and Crossgate/Harvard and Wakarusa Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Engineer’s Estimate                                       $191,380.00

                        Instituform Technologies USA, Inc.                $127,956.00

                        Ace Pipe Cleaning Inc.                                    $121,338.48

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to award the bid to Ace Pipe Cleaning Inc., for $121,338.48.  Motion carried unanimously.          (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to approve the purchase of one (1) street sweeper for the Public Works Department from Key Equipment Company for $182,567.35 (off the H-GAC Cooperative Contract) less trade - $44,400 total sweeper price $138,167.35.  Motion carried unanimously.                              (3)

Ordinance No. 7829, rezoning (Z-07-31-04) .93 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to IG (General Industrial District), property is located at 724 North Iowa Street, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                             (4)

Ordinance No. 8062, annexing approximately 1.14 acres of property generally located west of Franklin Road and north of 25^th Street Terrace, was read a second time.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.              (5)

Ordinance No. 8074, granting the Fire Chief or his/her designee certain authority regarding the demolition of unsafe structures that pose an immediate hazard, was read a second time.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to adopt Resolution No. 6690, amending the policy of the City of Lawrence with regard to employee organizations.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                          (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to adopt Resolution No. 6705, authorizing the Mayor to sign the application for the 2007 Emergency Shelter Grant from the City to the State of Kansas.  Motion carried unanimously.  (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request for a “stop sign” at the intersection of Harvard Road and Sunset Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.          (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request for a multi-way stop sign at the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Peterson Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the east side of Sunset Drive between 9^th Street and Broadview Drive; and placed on first reading Ordinance No. 8078, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Sunset Drive between 9^th Street and Broadview Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                 (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to rescind disabled parking in front of 714 Alabama Street; and adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 8079, rescinding dabbled parking in front of 714 Alabama Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                             (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to approve as signs of community interest, a request from the Pilot Club Antique Show to place signs in the city right-of-way at the corner of Harper and 23^rd Street on March 2 – March 4, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                   (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Amy Summers, 714 Alabama Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                (14)

Commissioner Schauner pulled from the Consent Agenda the Engineering Service Agreement with Bartlett & West Engineering for surveying, master planning, and design development services for the Burroughs Creek Tail & Linear Park in the amount of $50,000, for discussion. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if this was a project staff could consider doing in-house because $50,000 probably paid an engineer’s salary for most of the year.

David Corliss, City Manager, said staff was surprised at some of the cost and complexities of the project.  The City did not have survey crews, the ability to perform some of the utility locate requirements for that work, or individuals who had design abilities.  He said that did not answer Commissioner Schauner’s question, it just provided a background of what the City had right now.  He said the City could have those types of talents, but did not currently or was not budgeted for that purpose.  He said if the City Commission wanted to proceed with this project, it was staff’s recommendation. 

Commissioner Schauner said he assumed the City would have some need for work of a similar variety when they construct the circle park at Langston Hughes as well.

Corliss said staff had completed the design work in-house and a lot of the general planning work.  He said Mark Hecker, Superintendent of Parks and Maintenance, used his talents and other talents to proceed with the project and to some extent it was multi-department because the Public Works Department looked at stormwater concerns.  He said that was an example where that department was challenged to use those resources lightly.  He said just today there was extensive e-mail correspondence between Hecker and the Playground Committee of citizens that were interested in a playground.  The committee looked at the catalogue cut sheets for potential playground equipment at that location.  He said Hecker was essentially serving as the general contractor and designer for that type of project instead of hiring someone for that work.  He said staff thought this project was a little more sophisticated because of its location, and the importance of having a good design was not only because the merits of the project were highlighted, but also because they had to acquire the property.  He said one key issue learned in staff’s discussions with the property owners was, along the proposed trail, the property owners wanted to know what was going to be in their backyard.  He said the work from Bartlett & West Engineering would give staff sufficient answers so staff could have good discussions with those property owners. For the property owners staff could not come to terms with, the City would need to acquire that property by eminent domain and staff would be able to speak specifically about what was going to happen behind the property because staff would have that detail.  He said the City did not have the staff at this point, but were continuing to look for in-house staff that could perform some of the design work, but for most of the elements of this particular project, they simply did not have the staff on board at this time.

Commissioner Schauner said for a few years, staff talked about ramping up the City’s in-house capacity and 2 ½ - 3 years later, the City continued to spend a lot of money outside.  He said the number of projects for which they were hiring outside help had not diminished in three years, but had gotten bigger.  He said he suspected in three or four years, in the foreseeable future, it was likely to continue.  He said he would like to keep that thought front and center when the City Commission thought about the 2008 budget and whether adding additional capacity would make a lot of sense. 

Mayor Amyx said in looking at various projects, such as this project, the Commission needed to understand staff’s capabilities.  He said they had seen progress on in-house projects on a regular basis.  He said there was some expertise the City probably could not afford and he thought the City needed to be more careful on what they could not afford. 

Commissioner Schauner said he would disagree.  He said he wanted to compliment Hecker and others staff members on their willingness to do work out west.  He said in looking at the scope of work Bartlett & West was going to provide, some of work was not particularly sophisticated. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering source agreement with Bartlett & West Engineering.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                          (15)

Brian Young, Director of Children’s Programs, pulled from the consent agenda a request from Headquarters Counseling Center to place signs in the city right-of-way on Clinton Parkway, on either side of Inverness Drive, on Saturday, April 28, 2007.

Young said the annual Life Support Rally was a big fundraising event which took place at the end of April each year.  He said proceeds from this fundraiser would help them support Headquarters Counseling Center services, their children safety programs and suicide prevention in Douglas County Schools, the 24-hour Crisis Hotline and Suicide Hotlines for the entire state of Kansas as well as the healing after suicide support group.  He said Headquarters had been open for 37 years and never closed since December of 1969, and he wanted to keep this event going. 

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve as signs of community interest, a request from Headquarters Counseling Center to place signs in the city right-of-way on Clinton Parkway, on either side of Inverness Drive, on Saturday, April 28, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (16)

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, pulled from the consent agenda receipt of the 2006 year end report from Bert Nash regarding the Case Management for Homelessness. 

Collingsworth asked how they could get a comparison analysis between the quarters every time Bert Nash turned in their report.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission would ask that Bert Nash break the analysis down. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what Collingsworth was looking for, if the City Commission asked Bert Nash to break down the comparison analysis quarter by quarter.

Collingsworth said he was looking to make sure there were no double counts.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was on service delivery content.

Collingsworth said correct.

Schauner said things like outreach service numbers and number of hours.

Collingsworth said yes.  He said he wanted to make sure progress was being made and to make sure the community outreach specialist was not overloaded because that was one of his main concerns.  He said if those people were at a breaking point, the City Commission would need to address that issue in the budget discussions. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the 2006 year end report from Bert Nash regarding the Case Management for Homelessness.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                            (17)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said one of the challenges for the transit system, this year, was to continue to provide the quality para-transit services the City had planned for this year within the budget.  The para-transit system has seen a large increase in demand which was good on one hand in that they were able to serve more members of the community, but it was also challenging from a budget standpoint because it increased the costs that MV Transportation charged the City for providing that service.  He said there were certain requirements as far as denials were concerned regarding para-transit.  He said they could not have too many denials of the service.  He said staff would look at a number of different ways to see whether or not staff could alter the system to stay within budget funds and when looking at the 2008 budget, staff would provide the City Commission with opportunities to determine how the City Commission would like to proceed.   

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the self-certification on the para-transit service, he asked if the City currently used self-certification as the method for determining eligibility.    

Corliss said that was his understanding.

Commissioner Schauner asked what would trigger moving away from self certification into physician certified eligibility.

Corliss said that would be a policy decision.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a federal program or some other triggering mechanism that would require that move. 

Corliss said different transit systems did things differently.  He said one scenario that was discussed, was they would not perform self certification anymore.  He said it was an option to go to a physician at this point, but it was not necessary.  He said one option would be to require that a physician certified patron’s disability.  He said there were pros and cons to both and he had not had the whole briefing.  He said those were some suggestions, based upon their experience around the country.  He said they were all policy choices and ultimately spending money was a policy choice.  He said there was only so much money budgeted for this year and they had to be careful not to deny service at a pattern that was going to give them difficulty in complying with the City’s federal funds.

Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said they had several potholes reported over the weekend and today.  He said staff was confident they had made some progress with the crack sealing program.  He said there were a lot fewer potholes in the areas where they crack sealed.  He said staff had information from 2005 -2006 which showed a decrease in potholes. 

He said they received good bids for the crack seal project which would be presented to the City Commission next week. 

Mayor Amyx said thawing of the ground needed to happen to get the water out of the holes.

Commissioner Schauner said he was in Topeka almost every day and Lawrence’s streets were much better with respect to potholes.  He said Kansas City, last weekend, did not do a good job of clearing their streets.  He said this City’s street crew had done an absolutely terrific job.  He said on balance, he thought it was a terrific improvement.

Soules concurred.  He said 6^th Street from City Hall all the way west had one pothole in front of Hy-Vee.  He said he thought the program would pay off in the long run.

Corliss said staff would give the City Commission the information comparing what the City did in pothole repair activity in 2005 versus 2006.  He said it was obviously weather dependent to some extent, but if staff received additional data, there would be better comparisons over time. 

Soules said if people came across a pothole, they should call the Pothole Reporting Line at 832-3456. 

Commissioner Highberger said when the 311 system was available in the distant future, contacting someone would not be a problem.  

Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, said the City’s para-transit services had increased throughout the years, but last month ridership increased over 16% which created some challenges in meeting that demand.  He said staff was looking at short-term and long-term solutions regarding better management of demand and cost of providing that service. 

He said he discussed with the PTAC Board policy type issues and they would form a sub committee to help work on that policy development.  Once policies were crafted, those polices would be available to the public for viewing and feedback.  Based on that feedback from those polices, staff would gather that information for the City Commission for review and approval.

He said in terms of policies, staff suggested making the certification process somewhat more stringent than what it currently was.  He said currently, to certify for the T-lift service, a person would fill out an application indicating their disability; the impact of their disability and why it prevented that person from using the fixed route service; and provide contact information about their physician.  He said staff’s suggestion was to have a physician certify, on behalf of the individual, how that person’s disability impacted the use of the fixed route service. 

Also, staff was looking at doubling the fares for both for the T-Lift and fixed route services.  He said the City’s fare box recovery was lower than other transit systems and improvements could be made by increasing the fares.  One benefit for increasing fares, for example, would be to increase the T-lift fares from $1.00 to $2.00 and the fixed route from 50¢ to $1.00 and then offer to the disabled community that registered for the T-lift service that they could ride the T-lift and pay the $2.00 fare or ride the fixed route service for free as an incentive to ride.  He said right now a reduced fare was offered to ride the fixed route which was not much of an incentive because the full fare was 50¢ and 25¢ for a reduced fare, and would only be saving a quarter as opposed to $2.00 a ride.  He said that would be one way to better manage the demand for service for people with disabilities that could utilize the fixed route and T-lift service; they might decide for some of their trips they might use the fixed route service. 

He said staff performed an analysis of their trip reservations and found that one out of three trips was being cancelled and the reason was because of the advanced reservation window of 14 days.  In order to get a trip a person would schedule the trip in advance and as they were closer to that trip date, that person was getting a better idea of what their travel schedule was for that day and the person would adjust that trip date.  As a result, if another individual wanted to reserve a trip for that same time, it would show that trip date was full when really that slot was not full.  He said it was sending a false demand and staff was looking at shortening that window as well.  He said those were a few draft policies staff would be addressing with PTAC. 

Mayor Amyx asked if those policy recommendations would be before the City Commission prior to budget time.

Galante said he would like to have those policy recommendations to the City Commission before budget time.  He said staff would meet with PTAC next month, then get that information out to the public and provide adequate time for feedback.  He said early April would be the earliest he could have those recommended policy changes back to the City Commission.

Corliss said he wanted to make it clear, those adjustments suggested by Galante might need to be made in this budget year in addition to what they want to do in 2008. 

Galante said one of the challenges in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act was they could not show a pattern of denial of service.  For instance, if someone wanted to travel next Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. and if staff knew well in advance that every Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. that trip would be full and could not provide that service, then they were showing a pattern of denial which was prohibited by the ADA.  In the past, when they started to show a pattern of denial, they immediately solved that issue by putting more service out onto the street so they would not have a denial.  In prior years when there was more flexibility in their budget, it could be handled, but this year they did not have that type of flexibility and he asked how they should handle that situation because they wanted to comply with laws.  He said it would be a matter of how they could better manage the demand for this service, and he thought part of it was going to be putting some policies in place.  He said this would be an issue that would continue to be a challenge as time went on as the community continues to age and people need more specialized services and put more demand on the system. 

He said Lawrence was an attractive place for people to retire, and when people retire one of the things they looked at was availability of transit services.  He said this would be a challenge for many years to come, and they needed to get their hands around this issue to better manage it.

Commissioner Highberger asked if he saw the letter in the newspaper today concerning bus reliability.

Galante said yes.

Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding the on-time percentage was good.  He asked if Galante had a response to the letter.

Galante said he was surprised because the gentleman who wrote that editorial indicated he had spoken with management numerous times about the issue and he could honestly state that he never received any type of contact from that person.  He said his department kept a written log of any type of complaint.  He said he notified the contractor to see if that person contacted them, and they had no record either.  He said if that person had a problem, he encouraged that person to contact him and he would certainly look into the matter. 

Mayor Amyx thanked Galante for the update and asked Galante to keep the City Commission informed of any changes needed for the 2007 budget prior to addressing the 2008 budget.                                                                                                                                    (18)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Conduct public hearing regarding the structure located at 1019 Kentucky Street, and make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed demolition of the structure and that the proposed demolition includes/does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property. This is an appeal of the Historic Resources Commission determination (DR-09-112-06).  

Mayor Amyx called a public hearing regarding the structure located at 1019 Kentucky Street.

Lynn Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, presented the staff report.  She said the property for the demolition request was located in the environs of several properties that were listed on the National Register of Historical Places and the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.  She said when the applicant first proposed demolition of this structure, that district was not in place.  The property was presented to the Historic Resources Commission not as a non-contributing structure to a historic district, but as an environs project. 

The HRC review under K.S.A. 75-2724 for projects that are within 500 feet of a property listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places have to be reviewed for their impact on the listed property.  The City of Lawrence had an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office to conduct those reviews on a local level, and Historic Resources Commission conducted those reviews on behalf of the City.  She said for the projects in those environs, the Historic Resources Commission must use the standards and guidelines for evaluating the affected projects on the environs.

She said they did know the structure was constructed circa 1885 and was known as the Barber House in the National Historic Register Nomination.  She said the HRC had used the standards and guidelines for evaluating this project and the first of two standards the HRC found were the most relevant to the project was standard 1, addressing the character of the property’s environs.  She said retaining and preserving that character was of the utmost importance.  She said things like landscape features, space relationships and characteristics of the environs should be preserved and the demolition or reduction of those should be avoided.

She said standard 4 specifically spoke to demolition.  She said demolition of character defining building, structure, landscape features and historic property’s environs should be avoided.  She said when the severity of deterioration required removal within the environs, compatible reconstruction should occur.  She reviewed the guidelines that went with those standards, which was retaining the features, and if removal was warranted, there should be compatible new construction.

 She said the HRC found that based on the applicant’s proposal and since there was not a compatible replacement structure as part of that proposal, it did not meet the standards and guidelines they were required to use to review this project. 

The applicant was repealing the decision per K.S.A. 27-24, as amended, and that was the reason for this public hearing to determine if there was a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project.  If no feasible and prudent alternative was available, the City Commission should determine if all possible planning to minimize the harm to the listed property associated with the project was identified and undertaken. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if a replacement structure could be placed at that location under the current code.

Zollner said yes.  She said as far back as 1889, even though this was one platted lot, it showed the two parcels existed with individual structures on those parcels and was a non- conforming lot, so there was provision and residential could be constructed. 

Commissioner Schauner said if there were to be a replacement structure built, he asked if it would require some architectural conformity with its neighbors.

Zollner said it needed to be a compatible replacement structure.  She said compatibility issues looked at size, scale, massing, materials and setbacks, but not architectural style.

Commissioner Schauner said the structure could be a square or rectangular box with no architectural features and that would be compatible with their review.

Zollner said if the size, scale and massing were compatible.

Commissioner Schauner asked if “feasible and prudent” required information about the cost of repair and maintenance.

Zollner said yes, and that information was included in the City Commission’s packet materials in terms to what the applicant had addressed as the cost factor to rehabilitate the existing structure versus new construction. 

Mayor Amyx said the Commission made the determination on feasible and prudent alternatives that were sensible or realistic and asked if that was to the property owner.

Zollner said it was what the City Commission determined was sensible or realistic, feasible and prudent.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a metric in which that was measured or was it a subjective call on the Commission’s part.

Zollner said it was based on the definitions in the state statute. 

Commissioner Highberger said on the surface, the structure did not look like it was falling down.  He asked if the structural damage was caused by termites or were other things going on.

Zollner said she thought there were several things going on with this structure.  She said upon rudimentary inspection by staff, there had been termite damage in the structure for some time.  She said in the 1950’s someone tried to make repairs to that structure and those repairs were not modern day up to code repairs.  She said a lot of the stabilizing structural joints were cut off and they slapped something underneath it.  There was water damage in the basement and deferred maintenance on the structure.  She said she and Neighborhood Resources thought it was fairly marginal on whether the structure could be repaired or not, but the further the applicant investigated the structure, more deterioration was found. 

Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission believed the damage and cost of repair did not match the reasonable and prudent standards, what authority did the Commission or anyone else had to cause this building to be put into habitual conditions.  He asked if the building could just sit there and deteriorate further.  He said they have had long discussions in the past about garages that were falling apart and that became a substantial effort on Neighborhood Resources.  He asked what happened if the denial to demolish was upheld. 

David Corliss, City Manager, said it was his understanding the City had not initiated any dangerous or unsafe structure proceedings on the property.

Zollner said correct.

Corliss asked if there were any current citations as far as any other code violations on the property. 

Zollner said not that she was aware of.

Corliss said staff did not have jurisdiction over the property in order to require the property owner to rehabilitate the property.  He said staff might be able to initiate the rehabilitation if staff had blight evidence, but he did not know if that was the fact.  He said if the City Commission denied the appeal and sustained the Historic Resources Commission’s determination and deny the demolition, then the status quo stayed.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the applicant’s letter, it stated the owner had also agreed to write a letter stating the property was beyond rehabilitation and asked if that was Zollner’s position.

Zollner said the Historic Resources Commission submitted the letter, stating the HRC recognized the fact the structure might have reached that point where rehabilitation might actually create a new structure as opposed to a rehabilitated one.  There was so much historic fabric already gone and so much compromise, so if the structure was rehabilitated, the structure might be a new structure and no longer historic.  In other words, there would be less than 20% historic fabric left.  She said while the HRC recognized that fact, they wanted to make sure the Commission understood the HRC had to deny the demolition request because there was no replacement structure as part of the project. 

Commissioner Schauner said to the HRC, the replacement structure was the missing element.

Zollner said yes.

Commissioner Rundle said if demolition were to occur, he asked if the applicant wished to build another structure or leave the lot empty.

Mayor Amyx said they would ask that question to the applicant during the hearing.

He asked if the City Commission made the determination on whether it was realistic to have the property owner rebuild a structure on that lot. 

Zollner said the City Commission made a determination whether or not there was a feasible and prudent alternative to the demolition of this structure. 

Mayor Amyx opened the public hearing.

Ellie Le Compte, applicant, said they looked into rehabilitation and found they could rehabilitate the structure, but an engineer named John Lyle from Topeka indicated the stability of the structure was so uncertain, they would need to remove all of the interior plaster and examine every single member of the frame of the house to determine if the house could be lifted up, held up in the air, because the entire foundation had to be replaced.  The foundation and repairs of foundation were all failing.  She said the foundation had to be replaced and in order to hang on to the house, they would end up with a frame and siding, which made it a contributing structure, but the siding was like a wave because of the movement of the house on the land that where the structure sat.  She said the structure would probably need to be extensively repaired and replaced as well. 

She said the professional engineer, Lyle, stated that regarding the feasibility of this project, a rough estimate to renovate this structure would likely be around $200,000 and very well might cost $250,000 or more, if it could be done at all.  She said she owned both of the properties on either side--1017 Kentucky to the north and 1023 Kentucky--and had renovated both of the properties successfully.  The appraised value of 1017 Kentucky, to the north, which was essentially the same as 1019 Kentucky except it had a small addition on the back, was $107,000.   The appraised value of 1023 Kentucky, which was completely renovated, on the other side, considerably larger and on a full size lot, was $74,300.  She said to replace that property, it would cost approximately for the no frill structure $175 a square foot for a very basic structure and the most basic 1200 foot structure would cost about $180,000.  She said the Historic Resource Commission recommended replacing the building with one of similar mass and adding another 300 square feet to the rear property, which had been done on 1017 Kentucky before she bought it.  She said the result would be building approximately 1500 square feet with price ranging $225,000 - $262,500, not including the original price of $74,000 for which she bought the property, or the demolition costs of the existing structure which would be around $10,000. 

She said she surveyed some of the other landlords that had other property.  She said she talked to John Crawford and John Snider who have properties on that same block and rent space out to people, and said the range of rent varied from $300 - $600 for an apartment or a room.  She said she could not make her basic expenses how ever she rehabilitated, and she was completely ineligible for tax incentives because so much of the historic fabric of the building would be destroyed, it would not meet the standards of the National Park Service, which was the governing agency for the tax incentives for the historic preservation of the Federal Government, nor would it meet the standards for the State Historic Preservation Society, so she was completely ineligible for any tax incentives.  All of the money to either rehabilitate or to rebuild the house would have to come out of her pocket and even if she had a 1500 foot structure, the most spaces she could get out of that would be 3 pretty small apartments or offices at $300 - $600 a piece, more in the range of $450 she was guessing because they would be pretty small.  She said she would be losing money every month.  She said she could have the entire house rigged so that each space had its own utilities, which was an additional expense she had not taken into account, so that the tenants pay the utilities.  She said they were basically talking about doing this project from the ground up, either through rehabilitation or building a new structure.

She said the other concern she had was that she already had tenants on either side of this property.  In the last two days there has been a toilet problem at 1017 Kentucky and they were unable to find the pipe where they could install a clean out, so they have completely dug out all of the area behind both buildings, which was extremely disruptive to the tenants.  She said she was concerned about the cost, not being able to recoup the cost in her lifetime, potential damage to 1017 Kentucky considering it was 10 feet away, and how it was going to affect the tenants she had on either side.  She said she was completely pro preservation, but this was not a project that was feasible financially.  She said what she had experienced with historic preservation was financial feasibility was last on the list and the financial feasibility was the issue she brought to the City Commission.  She said historic preservation operated on the assumption that if it was feasible (i.e., if it could be done), then it was feasible, but whether it was feasible financially was not considered an issue.  She said she was also concerned about the effects on the buildings she owned on either side. 

Vice Mayor Hack asked Le Compte how long she owned the property.

Le Compte said she bought the property August 16, 2006.  She said the mortgage payment was $450 a month plus utilities.  She said she bought the property because she was concerned that someone could buy the property for $74,000 and without doing anything to the structure, rent it out for which a $450 payment could be made easily with three tenants who were not related, paying $150 a month in rent, and asked about the type of tenant that would bring.  She said she already survived a crack house on that block and right now she was struggling with a boarding house which had 15 girls living in that house with 6 parking spaces.  She said there was another boarding house down the alley with boys living in it.  She said she did not want to contribute to some situation that might be frightening to her tenants or their clients. 

Vice Mayor Hack asked if her goal in buying that property was to protect her other properties or was it to rehabilitate the structure.

Le Compte said she was willing to rehabilitate the structure.  She said when she initially went to the Historic Preservation Commission and asked for demolition, the HRC said before considering demolition, the HRC wanted her to look at everything that had to be done to rehabilitate and she followed every statement.  She said she had all the exterior fiber board siding removed, all the plaster on the first floor from the floor to three feet up removed so they could assess the extent of termite damage on the inside of the house, and then had a professional engineer come and examine the house very closely and give an estimate on what it would cost or if it was feasible to rehabilitate.  She said she was open to the idea but was not wildly open to the idea at that cost because she did not think there was a way for her to recoup the money.  She said she was even open to the idea of building a new structure, but the cost of $175 a square foot was extremely high.  She said at this point, she was asking the City Commission to consider and allow her to demolish the property. 

Commissioner Highberger asked where the $175 a square foot estimate came from.

Le Compte said it came from her contractor and a professional engineer.  

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Amyx said if the Commission made the determination that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives, he asked if there would be a vacant piece of property if demolition was allowed.  He said if the goal of the property owner was to rehab the property, but a determination was made that she could not afford the rehab, he asked if the property could be replatted so the land could be divided to the two outside properties.   

Zollner said the applicant could apply to have the property replatted.
            Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission could require that property be replatted. 

Corliss said he did not know the answer.  He said it could be made a condition of the demolition permit. 

Mayor Amyx said the reason he asked was because he did not want to see it become a parking lot.

Corliss said he thought as a condition of the demolition permit, the City Commission could require the applicant to replat the property.  He said the Commission could condition the use of that property as well and not allow the property to be a parking lot.   

Mayor Amyx asked if the land use recommendation was a better way versus forcing the applicant to do something else.  He said there were business concerns on those properties and obviously that was an off street parking area.

Corliss said the City Commission had pretty extensive authority as long as they had reasonable conditions. 

Vice Mayor Hack said the property could be conditioned to residential use.

Corliss said the property was zoned for residential use.

Vice Mayor Hack said Zollner’s report indicated to the City Commission that there would not be eligibility for tax credits because so much of the historical part of the structure would be lost.

Zollner said it was not that the property was not eligible, and actually by the removal of the siding and returning it back to this state, it could now be considered as a contributing structure to the district which would allow it be to eligible for the state rehabilitation tax credit.   She said if it was going to become an income producing structure, it could also be eligible for the federal tax credit.  She said when the tax credit review at the State Historic Preservation office looked at this structure, they determined it to be in a status of concern because there was so much deterioration that if it was a non sympathetic contractor that came in and wholesale replaced rather than repaired, then they would end up with a new structure rather than a rehabilitated structure.  She said if it were a new structure at the end, then the tax credits would not pay for a new structure and would pay for a rehabilitated structure.  She said there would be that weighing there that would have to happen as that process went along.  She said they were eligible for the tax credits, but the status of building was so critical as to how much needed repaired or replaced, that it could be the structure would not be eligible.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was correct that it was only the exterior the tax credits would look at to whether it would retain its historic character.

Zollner said no.  She said whether or not it was contributing or non-contributing was based on its external appearance.  She said the tax credits would pay for everything from the new foundation to HVAC, to electrical and plumbing, wiring, anything that went into saving that structure. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the interior needed to be gutted.

Zollner said no, when they do the tax credits they look at the interior finish as well as the exterior. 

Vice Mayor Hack said to the extent it could be preserved as much as possible, she asked if it could still be eligible.

Zollner said correct. 

Commissioner Rundle said those were very different planning animals than other planning items and the HRC had a very narrow charge, as did the City Commission.  He said he wanted to commend Zollner in helping clarify the process along with helping the public and applicants understand that.  He said a feasible and prudent alternative for historic properties was also something that was quite different than for a normal project, in part, because some people did make some projects work.  He asked if selling the property to someone who would try to rehab the structure would be included as a feasible and prudent alternative.

Zollner said it would be for this City Commission to determine.

Commissioner Rundle asked if that was something that would normally be considered.

Zollner said if the City Commission determined that was a feasible and prudent alternative.  The statue laid this right at the City Commission’s feet to make those determination based on those definitions.

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission were to make a determination based on a feasible and prudent alternative which was the sale of the property to someone else, he asked if that would be like a taking.

Commissioner Rundle said they would need to find someone who could actually verify they were going to do what the Historic Resources people at the state level wanted to do which was to keep it a contributing structure. 

Corliss said they could not force the sale, but they knew from the recent acquisition what was a reasonable sale price of the property.  He said the likelihood of that would be a matter of judgment and the point was the acquisition of the property was not simply for income, but protecting other property and that would have to be taken into account as well.  He said if given a reasonable period of time, the property could well come to the hands of a qualified purchaser who could rehabilitate the property and met the needs of the current property owner both economically and for protection of the other property; he thought that could be an alternative.  He said whether or not that was feasible, was a matter of some judgment. 

Commissioner Rundle said he was not necessarily lobbying for that idea.  He said there was a substantial amount of evidence that it might not be feasible even for people that did that type of work.  He said for example, the Old English Lutheran Church at 11^th and New Hampshire, they wanted to tear it down and someone else bought the structure, rehabilitate it, and now it was a viable structure.  He said that was a much different situation than this because it was commercial.  He said because the City Commission was to look at all feasible and prudent alternatives, the Commission needed to open up that as one of the remote chances that might apply here.

Mayor Amyx asked if the applicant had any other appeal other than to this body.

Zollner said there was an appeal to the court.

Corliss said this was a quasi judicial decision applying the law to the facts before the City Commission in making certain findings.  He said after the findings were certified to the Historic Preservation officer, either the applicant or other parties had the opportunity to challenge the finding in court.

Mayor Amyx said because there were so many things to take into consideration, he asked the applicant’s information that she had from the engineer should be provided to the City Commission. 

Zollner said that information was in their packet.

Mayor Amyx said the next thing was whatever determination the City Commission made, they had to have factors presented on whatever decision the Commission made. 

Corliss said the City Commission conducted the hearing and now the Commission needed to make a determination based on the factors the Commission heard, whether or not there was a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed demolition, and whether the proposed demolition included all possible planning to minimize the harm of the listed properties.

Zollner said the applicant asked that she show the City Commission an e-mail from the State Historic Preservation Office showing they did define the building as what they called a fragile building and issued a warning so the applicant was aware it could go through the rehabilitation tax credit process, but they might not be eligible to participate.

 Mayor Amyx said they had a situation where a property owner could not afford to rehab that property at the cost estimates from a licensed engineer and the determination they had to make was to consider all feasible and prudent alternatives and if none existed, then they could proceed with the demolition with conditions.  He said if it was determined there were prudent and feasible alternatives he asked if the Commission needed to indicate those alternatives.

Zollner said the City Commission did not need to identify those alternatives, but staff recommended if the City Commission determined there were feasible and prudent alternatives, they identify them in case this was challenged in a legal battle. 

Commissioner Schauner said the property just sold for $75,000, give or take, and the cost to demolish the structure was $10,000, which was $85,000, so they would lose $85,000 while spending additional money to build, repair it and build a new structure in its place.  He said the differential between the two struck him as being a number against which they all measured fiscal prudence, not the gross number of building a new structure on a piece of bare ground. 

Mayor Amyx said if this property was eligible for rehab, they would have a $75,000 loss plus $175,000 or whatever that figure was going to be.

Commissioner Schauner said they already lost $75,000. 

Mayor Amyx asked if that property would be worth 2 ½ time more when it was completed.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not know.  He said regarding the Mayor’s comment about conditioning the demolition permit on replatting and giving half to each side of the property and since the owner owned a house on each side, he thought if would be an easier condition to enforce.

Commissioner Rundle said he would rather not divide that property.  He said if the opportunity came in the future to move an appropriate structure onto that spot, then they would have the provisional fabric restored.  He said it sounded like there were plenty of ways to restrict that so it did not become a parking lot.

Corliss said he thought the City Commission could use their powers regarding the demolition permit to condition that it would not be improved as a parking lot. 

Mayor Amyx asked if they, as a Commission, believed feasible and prudent alternatives existed for repair or recondition of this property.

Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding for this to proceed they had to make two findings.  He said the Commission had to find there was no feasible and prudent alternative and if found, they also had to find the proposal included all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.  He said he was reluctantly willing to agree there was no feasible and prudent alternative.  He said he was not at the point that he thought all possible planning to minimize harm had taken place.

Commissioner Highberger said that was his concern and very much appreciated the applicant’s efforts to preserve the houses on both sides and did not want to discourage the engineering estimates presented, but found it a little difficult to believe the implication of what they were told, that infill construction in the neighborhoods was not financially feasible, and was not prepared to accept that.  He said that it might not be in this case, but looked at the last line in the letter from the Historic Resources Commission and encouraged the applicant to work with the HRC and staff to see if there was not a way to better minimize the harm for the registered properties. 

Commissioner Rundle said if this structure were to be demolished and time passed, he asked if a future proposal for construction would go before the HRC.

Zollner said correct.

Mayor Amyx said he did not think an alternative feasible improvement existed.  He said his main concern was how to protect the structure on the other side and the environs and not ending up with something that would have a harmful effect.  He said he did not want a parking lot to be put up between the properties.

Vice Mayor Hack said she agreed.  She said she hated the thought of tearing down a building in that area, but at the same time she knew this looked like it was beyond hope.  She said the Commission needed to do something about demolition by neglect so that future Commissions were not facing this kind of decision.  She said the last thing she thought anyone wanted to do was do harm to other core neighborhoods. She said they did not want to leave empty lots or create situations where there were unsafe conditions in the neighborhood for anyone.  She said they were really stuck between a rock and hard place and were put in this position because someone else did not take care of the property before Le Compte had it.  She said she appreciated Le Compte’s desire to do something positive for her existing properties, but also for the neighborhood in general, which was why it was so difficult to think about tearing it down.  She said she thought if it could be conditioned on the replacement of the future structure that would fit in with the character of the neighborhood, then she could reluctantly go along with it. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if there would still be a 30-day waiting period for a demolition permit.

Zollner said the 30-day period already concluded.  She said there would be a 5-day waiting period because they would have to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer of the City Commission’s determination and if that determination was to overturn the ruling of the HRC, then they had 5 days to comment. 

Commissioner Rundle said he agreed it was hard to say there were feasible and prudent alternatives.  He said one of the technical issues was the idea of having to phase the structure and whether it was stable or not.  He said to find out if that was feasible would take a lot to invest.  He said the rehabilitation process for a structure in this condition met that factor.  He said the communitywide plan had an emphasis on preservation.  He said that structure itself was not incompatible to the plan. He said he thought there were adequate factors to make that determination and he encouraged contacting people who had done rehabilitation, if they were interested in partnering, but he was thinking about the 30-day waiting period that would give them a chance for that to happen.  He said he encouraged Le Compte not to proceed hastily with the demolition, but he was prepared to say there was a finding that there was no feasible and prudent finding prohibiting demolition. 

Commissioner Schauner said on the one hand if the building came down, he guessed there would never be another structure on that location, which was consistent with the architectural character of that neighborhood.  He said he looked to Commissioner Rundle who had more experience on those matters than he did in terms of he has fought over the years in doing anything but tearing the structures down.  He said he went back to what Commissioner Highberger said about the two tests, the first test about prudent and reasonable alternative and the second test was making sure they did not do any harm to the other structures nearby.  He said he wondered if a vacant lot, even if it was zoned or conditioned so it could not become a parking lot, if it did harm to the other structures or not.  He said he suspected he preferred that to a structure that was built there that was not architecturally compatible with the neighborhood, and they see a lot of those structures in Oread which was very detrimental, in his view, to the neighborhood. 

Mayor Amyx said he suggested making the first determination there was no feasible and prudent alternative and suggested staff draft language that would take care of those concerns to make sure they were not creating problems to the adjacent structures.

Commissioner Schauner said he could support that idea, but his caveat would be if the City Commission were asking staff to do that this evening it did not give them enough time.

Corliss said they could continue it until the meeting on March 6^th where staff would come back with the findings.  He said his question was if it was acceptable to the Commission to place conditions on the property such as no parking or those types of things so it would not turn into a de facto parking lot. 

Commissioner Highberger said the property the Commission was trying to minimize harm to was the property and historic houses in historic neighborhoods and he understood the key concern for HRC was the break in the street front.  He said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern that an inappropriate street front might be worse than nothing at all.  He said he was not trying to minimize the effort put into this issue or the difficulty, but he would like to see one more shot to finding a way to put some structure at that location before they allow demolition without any replacement option. 

Commissioner Schauner said he did not claim to have any great expertise in construction, but it was his sense that $175 per square foot built a pretty swell place.  He said at $150 a square foot where the land was not an additional cost, it seemed it was a figure that built a whole lot of houses in West Lawrence at $150 per square foot, including land costs.  He said before the City Commission actually pulled the trigger on this property, he suggested deferring the entire issue until March 6^th and give the applicant an opportunity to look more into this issue. 

Mayor Amyx said they held the necessary public hearing and did not need to reopen the public hearing.  He said all that was left was a determination from the Commission by the 6^th of March.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if they wanted staff to draft some language if the City Commission determined this was completed.

Commissioner Rundle said he hardly ever thought that one found there was no feasible and prudent alternative because they saw out in the practice of people in historic preservation; there were so many examples where structures were brought back.  He said it was the size of the structure and the costs.  He said he thought the size limited the potential.  He said it was a very difficult project.  He said he appreciated the delay and thought it was a good strategy. 

Mayor Amyx said the public hearing was closed and staff understood the Commission had requested information along with conditions of the demolition permit and conditions that would eliminate harm to the structures, but also the environs.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by            Hack, to entertain a motion for deferral.  Motion carried unanimously. 

Vice Mayor Amyx said the City Commission discussed, during their budget cycle, demolition by neglect and what type of tools the City had because currently it was complaint base.  

Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to put on the record that it might not be a feasible alternative, but there were modular buildings being constructed for hurricane reconstruction in Mississippi that were structurally comparable, size comparable that were being moved out for substantially less square foot.   He said he did not know if that was a feasible alternative here.                                                                                                                  (19)

Consider staff recommendation on the reuse of the old Fire Station No. 2 (1839 Massachusetts Street) and the old Fire Station No. 4 (2819 Stonebarn Terrace).  

David Corliss, City Manager, said they would talk about a different kind of historic stewardship that involved some old fire stations the City owned.  He said until the occupancy of the new Fire Station 5 for the headquarters, individuals were housed and located at old Fire Station 2.  He said the other facility was old Fire Station No. 4, located at 2819 Stonebarn Terrace and Lawrence Avenue, south of Clinton Parkway.  The construction is now completed and we’re operating Fire Station 4 at the 1900 Block of Wakarusa Drive.  He said both of the old facilities remain vacant.  He said after discussing this issue last year, staff challenged themselves to whether or not they could find existing public uses for either of those facilities.  He said staff believes the best use for the Massachusetts Street fire station is retain it in the Fire and Medical Department and use it as offices, vehicle storage and other storage for coroner investigative services division of the Fire and Medical Department.  

He said the other facility was the old Grover Barn location.  He said at this point, staff was not ready to recommend that it be used for permanent public use or private use.  He said they thought it was very important that it retained as continued public use.  He said in discussions with Judy Billings with the Commission Visitor’s Bureau, they thought this facility might have an important role in the management plan that needed to be developed in the national heritage area.  He said Billings and others involved in that multi-state and county national heritage area would be developing a park service that would highlight a number of structures and areas involved in Kansas and Missouri’s role in the pre Civil War and Civil War.  He said the Grover Barn was an important aspect of that era and was one of the reasons staff worked hard to be a strong steward of that facility.  He said his concern was if, they made any type of use of that facility, about what would be the proper organization at this time.  He said staff wanted to keep all of the options open.  He said staff would like to allow for limited tours of the facility and perhaps use it for some storage and City office space that could be quickly removed, but not taken outside the City’s inventory at this time.  He said staff’s recommendation was essentially to keep both of those facilities in City use.  He said Fire Station 2 would have an active daily use as part of the Fire and Medical Department and Fire Station 4 would not have that level of use, but they probably would revisit that station as the management plan for the National Heritage Area was finalized to see how they could maximize the public access and enjoyment of that facility.  He said both of the facilities were challenged in terms of parking and neighborhood sensitivity.  He said staff could very easily locate some of their offices at Stonewall Terrace location and were in need of additional office space.  He said it did not work well as a combined planning and developing department because there was not enough parking for visitors and patrons. 

He said there was not a good current City Hall type use for that facility, but there might be something in the future.  He said requests were entertained from not-for-profit groups or museum type uses at that location, but he recommended not to proceed with those uses because once they allowed someone to use that facility, it was going to be difficult to say they wanted a higher and better use. 

Mayor Amyx said he thought Corliss’ recommendation was sound.  He said when the Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent out for those structures, there were several proposals and an offer to buy the facility. 

Corliss said staff sent out an RFP, but the facility was not for sale.

Mayor Amyx said the City received interesting offers from people who had spent a lot of time preparing those, especially for the purchase of Fire Station 2.  Again, he said he thought Corliss made sound recommendations for both facilities. 

Commissioner Rundle said he agreed with the use of the fire station with qualifications on the Stone Barn Terrace.  He said Stone Barn Terrace should be used for some kind of historic interpretive center.  He said it had both Underground Railroad connections and stories and also figured into the Civil War.  He said he had been on a tour of the area and spent some time at the barn related to one or both of those historic items.  He said he thought sooner than later they had to keep doing what they could to push sales tax to historic tourism.  He said any use should be considered temporary and staff should actively start figuring out how to move to that type of historical interpretative use.  He said it would be nice to house more than one organization if that was feasible and staff needed to have discussions with groups that might be interested. 

Corliss said he agreed, but he was trying to give the maximum flexibility and a management plan needed to be developed and no commitments had been made.  He said if boxes were kept in that facility or they let someone use that facility on a temporary basis, it would be with the full understanding that it was on a temporary basis.   He said his concern was if they had a group that wanted to use the facility it would be hard to ask those people to leave.

Vice Mayor Hack said once the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the National Heritage committee began the planning portion of the management plan, she hoped something more permanent would be seen. 

Commissioner Rundle said it might be an alterative, that once they did have the historic use, that it still remained a city building at low cost or no cost.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment. 

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the use of 1839 Massachusetts Street as an investigations operations site for the Fire/Medical Department and authorize the City Manager to develop a plan and process for public use of 2819 Stonebarn Terrace until such time as a more permanent public use suitable to the historic character of the public building can be developed.                                            (20)

Consider recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to construct traffic calming devices along Trail Road between Lawrence Avenue and Kasold Drive

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said on February 5^th the Traffic Safety Commission heard the request from the neighborhood.  He said Trail Road was a collector street and the speed limit was 30 mph.  He said based on traffic data, the project ranked No. 6 on the City’s list of approved traffic calming projects.  He said a plan was not developed until funding was available, but it was anticipated that four devices might be required at an estimated cost of $100,000.  

He said if the City Commission desired to approve the TSC recommendation for traffic calming in that area, staff would anticipate this project might take place in several years.  

Mayor Amyx said it was important to note this plan might take several years to fund and discussions now with the neighbors in the area might give them the idea that traffic calming could potentially come quicker.  He said he did not want people to have expectations this plan would be completed immediately. 

Soules said staff had indicated to several people this plan would not be completed in the near future along with waiting until the money was available.   

Commissioner Schauner asked what calming devices were being considered. 

Soules said it would be a combination of things like speed humps or a traffic calming circle.  He said the majority would be speed humps or speed cushions.

Commissioner Schauner said he could not imagine why it would cost $100,000 for those traffic calming devices.

Soules said that was a preliminary number and that figure was consistent with other projects.

Vice Mayor Hack said the speed cushions were done in-house now.

Soules said staff had not done those types of traffic calming devices at this point, but they could.

Corliss said staff was going to try the design phase in house. 

Mayor Amyx said he had a vision that one day he would wake up and there would be those devices on every street in town.  He said he would ask that the City Commission not take action on this item at this time.  He said he wanted the neighbors to understand that this plan was not going to happen right away. 

Commissioner Schauner said in talking to people along Harvard Road the last couple of years, there was some consensus on that street those devices had not slowed traffic.  He said it seemed speed limit enforcement was a significantly more credible method of accomplishing the traffic calming.  He said he thought they would want slower speeds in their neighborhoods and putting an artificial barrier in the way did not seem to be a good way to resolve the issue.  He said he did not think it would resolve the issue if installed next week, especially with the outrageous cost because he could not understand why it cost so much to put those things in place.

He said he would concur with the Mayor and would like to see the plan before they put some other people on an expected waiting list and have those people disappointed both with the result as well as the wait.

Vice Mayor Hack said what was so discouraging about Trail Road was that it was an older neighborhood, the trees provided an awning and all those types of things would psychologically slow people down, but it did not.  She said law enforcement could help, but then there was the issue with not enough staffing. 

Commissioner Schauner said with those traffic units added in the last few years, based on a federal grant and how they kept those traffic units in place at the City’s expense, it seemed it would not need to be a person in a police car, but signage could be used.  He said there were signs they could provide that showed speed.  He said he might choose to ignore the signs, but thought there was a better way than creating a false impression for neighbors that they were going to get this plan to happen right away. 

Mayor Amyx said whatever solutions there might be, he suggested looking at that entire stretch out west.  He said he would rather wait at this time.

Commissioner Rundle said the traffic unit received through state funds, he asked how long was the City required to keep a stricter traffic flow.

Corliss said that period was expired, but they still had a traffic unit. 

Commissioner Rundle said maybe they should start talking about having an allocation of that resource, track it on GIS, and see if they could have some effect in those areas.

Corliss said he asked for a report from the Police Department on some of the traffic numbers in comparison with 2005 – 2006.  He said they were actively enforcing the City’s traffic laws and like any other law enforcement resource, they had to move with priorities.  He said he thought it would be an important policy discussion on how best they could attend to neighborhood values with streets, move traffic, and do it within the City’s resources.  He said staff did not think traffic calming was a solution for every location.    

Vice Mayor Hack said they could depend on resources, engineering staff, and more police officers. 

Commissioner Schauner said they had 12 locations on a list that were waiting for traffic calming.  He said it seemed they did not need to do a GIS for the police to know there were a dozen places in town where people thought speeds were ineffective. 

Commissioner Rundle said the Police Department was issuing citations.  He said the staff could target the resource in all of those five places and see an effect over time.

Corliss said he would have the Police Department respond to that issue.  He said they did target resources within the observations of the rest of the patrol about where they were needed, and some of it was on a complaint basis.  He said staff forwarded the information about where the locations of the traffic calming devices were and staff would forward that information to the Police Department.  He said the City Commission should be advised on how the Police Department targeted their resources. 

Commissioner Schauner said he found it kind of curious they had those dozen places and all the complaints he heard was from the traffic unit being out on the newly improved West 6^th.  He said it was a great revenue source, but it did not do much to calm traffic in those 12 places.    

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, suggested using trees to narrow the street some way, to break it down.

Mayor Amyx said the street was already narrow.

Corliss said parking was allowed on one side and the trees had some effect, but did not necessarily slow traffic down. 

Commissioner Highberger said deferring the item was not his preference, but would go along with the Mayor.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to defer the item indefinitely.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                        (21)

Consider request to initiate condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of a sanitary sewer easement to serve the property at 2300 Louisiana.

Corliss said immediately to the east of the Checker’s Grocery Store a facility was currently vacant and not served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, and there was no City main that connected to this property.  He said it was necessary to make that connection in order for the proposed development to proceed.  He said they have been in discussions with the property owners and representatives for some time.  He said it was staff’s determination that a sanitary sewer easement was needed on the property owned by the Checker’s Grocery Store owner.  There had been discussions with the property owner, and the property owner was not willing to sell an easement, so it was staff’s recommendation they initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire this easement in order to serve this property.  He said he was familiar with Commission discussions about the use of eminent domain and its appropriate role.  He said in this case, the City was acquiring an easement for a City sanitary sewer main and did allow for the property to be developed.  He said he thought it was an appropriate use of the City’s condemnation powers.  The property owners indicated they would pay all the legal costs associated with the condemnation action.

Mayor  Amyx asked Corliss if the property owner was not willing to sell the City an easement after they granted them the ability to build on one of the City streets.

            Corliss said Mayor Amyx had a better history on that project.  He said he was not certain that would necessarily change Checker’s mind.

Corliss said staff had been working with Checker’s on trying to get a bus stop location on Louisiana and it was a challenge.

Mayor Amyx said the City had a responsibility to make sure utilities went to that piece of property to the east.  He said he thought the City did a good service for Checker’s a few years ago.

            Peter Curran, representative of the land owners, said the owners of the adjacent property, on which the easement was requested, was really 2300 Louisiana, LLC, headquartered out of New York.  Checker’s leases property from that corporation, and the corporation was the party they corresponded with and talked to about making an offer to acquire the easement for the City.  He said they did not want anything to do with it, so they had no choice but to come to the City to ask that it be condemned.  He said he thought there was some history, that when the property at 23^rd (2300 Louisiana, owned by the limited liability company) was platted, there was some action taken on the plat that restricted the sanitary sewer easement that served his client’s property. 

Commissioner Highberger said he talked to staff about this project and it was his understanding the landlord was also not willing to grant an access easement. 

Curran said they only discussed the sanitary sewer. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a cross access easement issue that would be faced in the future with this matter. 

Curran said this whole project started when his client thought they had a cross access easement.  He said the entire site plan would need to be flipped and their access was going to be shifted further to the east and there was not going to be cross access through the Checker’s lot.  

Commissioner Highberger said it seemed unfortunate since they were spending a lot of money to close off access on 23^rd.  Curran said this started because the land owner thought there was an agreement that went back 16 months and thought they were going to build this last year, and the real property started with one man owning the business and someone else owning the land and questions about who had the authority to sign those agreements.  He said access was not going to be perfect for a while, but eventually it would get better when the property to the east redeveloped as well.  He said other than that, stormwater was solved and it was down to the sanitary sewer and they had absolutely no options. 

Mayor Amyx said he would support the initiation of this condemnation because he knew there had been a lot of work done.

            John Bowen, Lawrence, said he lived behind the property area.  He said he did not object to the access, but was hoping they did not have an extra heavy capacity situation because he thought looking at the way they could see it, it was going to be too dense in that area and he did not want the extra capacity to cause a problem.

Commissioner Schauner asked what Bowen meant by too dense.

Bowen said what he had seen so far was an apartment complex that was very large for the capacity of that area.

            Corliss asked if he was referring to the capacity for traffic or sanitary sewer capacity.

Bowen said traffic and capacity affecting the neighborhood.  He said it was too dense and it was a neighborhood.  He said if he had caught the zoning a long time ago he would not have let it go commercial neighborhood.  He said he did not deny them having access for sewer and could see the lines and things like that, but wanted them to look farther down the line when they came up for their building.

            Corliss said they submitted a site plan and it was under review in the Planning Department.  He said the traffic would probably not be enforced because it would be handled administratively as a site plan.  He said the traffic would go to 23^rd Street, but that did not necessarily solve the problem. 

Bowen said that affected the neighborhood.

            Corliss said sure.

Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding that it was filed under the old code, so he would assume it would be the City Commission site plan.

Corliss said it was filed under the old code so it would come back to the City Commission. 

Commissioner Schauner said he knew the Commission would have an opportunity to look at the site plan at some point in the future, but what he would predict was that Mr. Warner would stand up and tell them that less density there would not be financially feasible because of their cost of acquiring easements and so forth.  He said he thought they could predict they would hear that discussion when the site plan came up for review.  He said it might be wiser, rather than incrementally make those decisions, to have a broader discussion about the site plan, the neighborhood interest, congestion, and impact on 23^rd Street before the applicant spent a lot of money on a condemnation for the sewer access.  He said they all really did work hand in glove.  He had heard enough of those that he would love to see them come back, but the message would be because they had to spend “x” amount of money on the sewer, etc., they could not build the project unless they had “x” number of units.  He said he had not seen the site plan so he did not know what the plan was. 

Bowen said their comment was they did not know about this until last night.

Corliss said they would with Planning.  He said the site plan notification probably went out when the site plan was reviewed some time back. 

Mayor Amyx said the item before the Commission deals with providing sewer service to that piece of property.  He said no matter what the site plan was going to show or what would ultimately be built on that property, the item before them was going to be whether or not they were going to issue a process that would provide utilities to that building.  He said they would ultimately decide what would be on that lot.

Commissioner Schauner said he understood that, but he wondered if it made sense to have those items move in tandem.

Curran said he understood Commissioner Schauner’s concerns as well as the Mayor’s, this property, whether it was their site plan or someone else or other people looking at this property, there was no sewer to the property at all, and this was the only way to do it.  He said their site plan letter would have gone out in October of 2005, somewhere in there was when this project started.

            Mayor Amyx said the item before them was the initiation of the condemnation for the sewer easement.  He said the applicant, in this case, was willing to pay the cost of the condemnation.  He said the access should be done as part of that condemnation.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to initiate condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of a sanitary sewer easement to serve the property at 2300 Louisiana.  Motion carried unanimously    (22)

Receive update on the Utilities Department capital projects. 

1.) Clinton Water Treatment Plant Project:

David Corliss, City Manager, said staff was setting a bid date of March 27, 2007, but before the City Commission would approve a contract with a successful bidder, staff would have information about the cost of that project and potential impacts on rates given the increases seen in those project.

Mike Orth, Black & Veatch, said the Clinton Water Treatment Plant was currently a 10 million gallon per day facility and we’re looking to expand that facility by another 15 million gallons per day to get to a total capacity of 25 million gallons per day.  He said they were repeating the same treatment processes that were out at the treatment facility regarding the lime softening plant.  The basin capacities would be larger to accommodate more capacity and the high service pumping station capacity to discharge that additional treated water out to the distribution system to meet the increased demands they were seeing. 

He said there were some significant cost increases within the project scope since the previous estimate, and the majority of those dealt with scope modifications to the design.  He said they were adding sodium hypochlorite out at the facility and removing the chlorine gas.  He said that was truly driven by a safety issue and getting that plant out of risk management planning issues with surrounding neighborhoods.  He said chlorine had been widely used at treatment facilities, but it was a hazardous compressed toxic gas and there were consequences to the operational staff and adjacent neighbors.  He said they were making a safety decision to change that chemical to another chemical that still reacted with the water and did the disinfection in the same manner, but did not have off site consequences because it was a liquid, so it was much safer to the plant operators and the community. 

He said associated with that, they had to add a carbon dioxide system out there to drop the PH back down, which was a cost added to the project.  He said they also saw some cost added to the project because they knew there was a landfill out at the site where they were going to be building the new basin facilities, but had not characterized the extent of that.  He said they conducted a geotechnical investigation and had done some open pits to characterize that material for disposal.  He said there was been some significant increases in equipment cost and inflation since the 2003 estimate.  He said those were the primary factors that had blown up the plant cost. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if Orth could discuss the road widening piece of that increase.

Orth said associated with the addition of the high service pump station, they were adding a better turning radius and better control into the plant so they had more parking area in the back of the plant.  He said currently there were only approximately six spots in front of the treatment facility--there was just not a lot of a parking capacity out there.  He said there was not a lot of demand out there, but the operating staff and everything had very limited parking in the back of the house.  He said associated with the high service pumping station, they were adding additional parking and truck access for turning movements so they could get the liquid chemical freely back into the site and get out of the site without having to make a whole bunch of turns to remove the traffic from the traffic site.

Commissioner Schauner asked how those costs would be divided between extra parking in front and different turning radius behind the house.

Orth said they had not quantified that difference.  He said it could be done if the Commission wanted to see the difference in the numbers.  He said most of the paving was all back behind the fence line so it was really combined use for parking and truck turning movements. 

Phillip Ciesielski, Utilities Engineer, said based on the bid date in March, staff anticipated having the capacity improvements in the new facilities online and available for the 2008 summer month seasons and they would have additional treatment facility in the Clinton Plant when they were at the high demands of the summer season. 

He said at this time, both the Kaw Plant and Clinton Plant under high demand scenarios during the summer were running at the upper levels of their capacity.  He said they were not treating as much water as they could and did not have a redundancy should they lose one treatment train at one plant or another.  He said this gave them demand and the ability for growth in the future in terms of water capacity as well as redundancy in the current situation. 

Commissioner Highberger said the City restructured their rate structure several years ago and it was anticipated they could go to the flat rate and decreasing might cut the growth rate in the summer demand.  He asked if that had been the case. 

Ciesielski said he did not have historical data that he reviewed regarding demands in response to that question. 

Commissioner Highberger said this expansion was coming on a little sooner than projected.

Orth said it was forecasted to be online by 2007, but there had been some delays.  He said weather was a big factor in forecasting demands and they had reasonable summers which drove plant capacity.  He said this would be completed a year later than what was originally planned.

He said they were also looking at doing some rehab and maintenance on the existing equipment at the facility.  This would occur after the new main plant addition was completed and after they take those existing basin drains out of service in the lower demand season next fall to winter, so it should not impact plant operations at that point in time.

Mayor Amyx said what could be expected if they did not proceed with this plant expansion.

Ciesielski said in the immediate, it provided redundancy and additional growth.  He said he discussed this with Keith Whealy, Kaw Plant Treatment Manager.  The Clinton Plant was up there at the top end of its capacity in the higher demand periods of the summer.  He said if they saw a hiccup at either one of the facilities, they did not have a back-up situation, at this time, and this positioned them for additional growth to get those facilities online. 

Commissioner Schauner said if the City increased the plant capacity as proposed, he asked about the impact of the remaining life expectancy of Clinton as a source for that plant.  He said he asked someone three years ago from Black & Veatch about the likelihood of having a shortage of water available for treatment.  He said the answer that was given was the City did not need to worry about it, but everything he read about the Clinton Lake life expectancy was counter to that comment.  In fact, they had some reason to believe Clinton Lake was silting in faster than what had been projected and it was a major source of water to be treated at the Wakarusa Plant.  He said the City could add all the treatment capacity the City could afford, but if they did not have something to treat, he asked if they had done themselves a disservice by making more water available rather than focusing on a way to deal with less water and lengthening the life of the lake and predictable and sustainable use of water for the community generally. 

Ciesielski said it was in the master plan, a longer term horizon that looked at additional water, whether Clinton was a dwindling water supply.  He said staff was doing a study with another firm for water sources for the Kaw Water Treatment Plant and one of the scenarios in the Master Plan was a large collector well facility farther up on the Kansas River that could supply raw water to both the Kaw and Clinton Plants.  He said there were items out there in the planning stages and on that future horizon as they looked at the decline of Clinton Lake, possibly as a water source and other options.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the distance of that horizon was.

Orth said with the master plan projections, the second source was required around 2017 for the expansion of the Kaw Plant to bring them both up to 25 MG capacity so they would have redundancy at the treatment facility so if they lost either a major pipeline or had a major issue with the electrical system at one of the plants, at least they would have same capacities on both sides of the town to meet demands. 

Corliss said the other thing that was important was they were not ignoring the sedimentation issue in Clinton.  He said they were active participants in what the state called the WRAP program, protecting watersheds, and were looking for opportunities to protect that resource not only for the City of Lawrence, but for the wholesale water users, the rural water district and Baldwin City, which also rely on Clinton as a water source. He said they needed to continue to work on protecting that resource and want to be wise about the long-term horizons. He said this facility was needed much sooner than those issues would be facing the City.  He said they continued to be real good stewards of the water resources, both from Clinton and Kaw.  He said they had significant water rights in both of those sources that were by no means close to exhausting, but it did not mean they do not plan decades out in the future and also did not protect things out into the future. 

Commissioner Schauner said the last time he attended a WRAP meeting, he was concerned about the lack of success upstream and the remaining silt from undeveloped ground and a verity of other sources and a number of other issues upstream that seem to have a direct impact on shortening the life of Clinton as a water supply and recreational area, both of which were important.  He said he was pleased to hear the City was thinking about the 10 – 15 year horizon for alternative sources and protection.

Orth said they had the water right to Clinton Reservoir at 25 million gallons per day and by doing this expansion at the Clinton Plant, it would match that water right.  He said just because they had that right, did not mean the source was going to be there.  He said they had to be good stewards of their environment and Clinton Lake and what they had to do with Clinton Lake was the WRAP’s program and look at controlling sediment run off because there were issues that get compounded with a shallower lake that had more nutrients into it. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City funded the WRAP program for research or other activities for that program or was it strictly state money. 

Corliss said he was not sure if the City funded anything other than participation type costs.  He said this project would need to get beyond the planning discussion stage to the implementation in deciding what success looked like and implementing success.  He said they needed to find a way to protect Clinton.  He said a lot of it was education at this point, but was not sure if there were other tools that would be necessary to provide that.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment. 

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx said had staff had done a tremendous job in recognizing future needs of the community and with the recommendation of expanding the Clinton Water Treatment Plant.  He said people relied on the City for clean running water.  He said he would like to look at other methods in minimizing the $28 million cost of the project. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6704, authorizing the sale of $28,100,000 in revenue bonds for water and sewer system improvements, and authorize the City Manager to set a bid date of March 27, 2007 for Phase II of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                          (23)

Receive update on the Utilities Department capital projects. 

2.         Clinton Water Treatment Plant Project:

David Corliss, City Manager, said one of the City’s major projects not only with the Utility Department, but with the entire city organization has been proceeding with the Wastewater Master Plan recommendation to locate a wastewater treatment facility along the Wakarusa River.  He said next Tuesday the City Commission would have a contract that would finalize the acquisition of the acreage staff identified as the site for the new facility along the Wakarusa.  He said there was a public advisory committee subgroup that would help finalize the design concepts of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and staff wanted the City Commission to understand the involvement of that group and proceed with the creation of that group and formalize that group’s involvement.

He said they also wanted to talk about the delivery system for the Wakarusa Reclamation Facility.  He said there were two traditional ways they could build a project.  One was to design the facility, set out competitive bids, and construct the facility; and the other was the design/build method.  He said staff was recommending they proceed with the design/build method for this facility.  He said they had been successful with design/build, particularly with the team that staff was working with in the Utilities Department and their ability to manage that contract.  He said staff had successfully come to substantial completion on the expansion of pump station 16 at 6^th and Kentucky.  He said he understood that project was completed ahead of schedule and as the final dollar amounts were tallied, it was likely they were going to get some of that money back on the design/build contract.

Ciesielski said the team they had on the sanitary sewer pump station at 6^th and Kentucky project was Burns and McDonald Engineering and Garney Construction was the contractor.  He said they did a preliminary design to guarantee maximum price which was the bid price to complete the project, which was done with 60% of design completed.  He said they identified the major equipment components and had a vast number since it was mechanical. 

He said they entered into the agreement on the construction phase of the pump project roughly May 23^rd and at that time they had anticipated substantial completion by April 20^th and final completion by May 18^th of 2007.  He said substantial completion was that the pump station was up and functional and pumping as a sanitary sewer lift station, and final completion allowed for some of the clean up, like re-grading of the road and some of the finer details.  He said the pump station had actually been pumping with all four new pumps since December 21^st, well ahead of schedule.  He said at this time staff had been working on cleaning up the HVAC equipment and getting that installed, working on the roofs, and hand railings.  He said they would be having a final walk through on that project next Thursday.  He said the contractors were doing a good job and would be done after a few minor things being cleaned up. 

He said there had been some savings on the project and some were decisions staff made during the project as the contractor and engineer worked together through the process.  He said on a rehab project, they never knew everything they were going to uncover when taking the original structure apart.  He said at this time they anticipated a total savings of $35,000.  He said granted, it was approximately a $1.6 million project, but they did anticipate a net savings of $35,000. 

He said Dave Wagner, Interim Director of Utilities, had been a very active participant in this process as well.  One of the things they saw was the ongoing ability with the contractor and engineer to make those value decisions as they were going through the process as opposed to seeing what the contractor came back with and also trying to get themselves to a known cost to complete the project much earlier in the design phase as opposed to doing 100% of the design and waiting to see with contractors came back with.

Corliss said the memorandum that staff put together highlighted a number of the benefits they saw in the delivery method.  He said they believed they could structure the RFQ and the ultimate contract to provide contracting opportunities for local contractors that was not an assurance when they would go through the traditional design, bid, and build process.  He said there was a value they saw in the single point of responsibility where they would not have the friction between the design professional and the contractor.

Scheduling was something important for this project.  He said it was not going to be the guiding determination, but allowed them to keep the project scheduled close.  He said obviously the schedule along with the actual facility and scheduling the corridor pipes to the facility would be important.  One of the things that advocates of design/build point to was in the period of escalating construction cost, if they were able to get the product in the ground quicker, they were able to save that amount of time as far as cost that would continue to escalate with a contractor.

He said there were representatives from Black & Veatch to talk about their interest and background in design/build.  He said if it was the Commission’s direction was to proceed with this delivery system, staff would come back with a request for qualifications for the City Commission to approve on the agenda for staff to disseminate and receive responses.  Staff would evaluate the responses and pick a qualified firm to work with them for a guaranteed maximum price. Once that price was established, along with the contract for the project that included the local contractor participation, and included the time schedule and all the different values they wanted, they would have that before the Commission to approve, as well. 

Mayor Amyx said he and Corliss had discussions about how this new Water Reclamation Facility should go together and whether or not it should be a standard bid project or a design/build project.  He said there were several companies that could give the City a design and bring this project on in a timely fashion and met all the requirements with all the necessary permits. He said one important issue was the use of local labor for this project.  He said whoever was selected for the design/build was going to be extremely important to this Commission because it was a community project and local contractors should be involved in the building of this facility

Commissioner Schauner asked if design/build would give them greater insurance that it would have local labor involved in building as well. 

Corliss said that was a good question regarding how staff could structure both the RFQ and contract to provide for maximum local labor participation and that burden would be placed back on the responders and staff would ask those responders how they were going to maximize local contractor participation.  He said there would be some elements of the project that would have good commonalities with what the City’s labor market was involved in.  He said obviously, the large, mechanical systems and things like that, which were not constructed here, might not be involved but there would obviously be dirt moving, concrete or any number of different items.  Staff would ask how the responders would maximize that participation, whether it was through the solicitation process or actively involving those contractors.  He said when those responders came back with that guaranteed maximum price, staff would be able to see the subs that would be part of that project and make that judgment as well and as they were building the guaranteed maximum price, staff would look at the quotes from the various vendors.  He said it was possible to construct the design/build contracts so a substantial majority of the project was quoted.  He said they could not force a local contractor to participate, but what they could do was make it as advantageous as possible for a local contractor to do so.

Mayor Amyx said this City had very good qualified people in the trades in this community that were more than capable of doing the great majority of this project. 

Commissioner Rundle said he heard that carefully explained rationale for the design/build a number of times with a number of projects, which was appreciated.   He suggested the City’s auditor look into this issue when he or she came aboard. He said sometimes they had done a number of negotiated bid projects and thought staff needed to float those out for bids to see for sure the City was receiving the best deal.

Corliss said it would be the largest construction project this community had undertaken.

Commissioner Schauner said using local laborers was an admirable goal and he was in support.  He said he was not clear how design/build gave them a greater reason to believe that would happen than traditional bid process.

Corliss said he did not know if he would agree that it would give them a great ability to guarantee that.  He said what staff could do through this process was find a number of different points where they were going to have the design/build team do a number of practices to encourage that solicitation and have the ability to check that at the guaranteed maximum price. 

Orth said one potential mechanism might be an open book process which was basically any tender they received, if it was three bids on hardware, that was made available for staff to review and look at and comparing those prices whether it was a local vendor versus a vendor from Kansas City.  He said the City Commission had the potential to look at a price difference, schedule difference, and quality difference and be involved in that decision on what type of hardware would go into the job. 

He said on a traditional project, such as the Clinton Water Treatment Plant where it was going out for public bidding, that information was not seen and the City did not have the opportunity to say they would rather use that local contractor.   He said the general contractor that had accumulated all those bids had to take the combination of the lowest alternatives because he was involved in a low bid competition.  He said the Commission did not have the luxury of being involved in saying local issues were very important in this community and wanting to help support this community’s efforts in being involved in this project.  He said that was where a selection process allowed them to get involved in more types of those decisions.  He said it also had the benefit of, that if the price started to go up, they could correct that in advance of having to make that final number come to the tables.  He said they had a lot more budget control because they were involved with seeing those scope definition issues immediately. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if those scope definitions were seen early in the process.

Orth said yes. 

Orth said those packages were rolling in as the volume was building up and there would be some target numbers to price those numbers against and if there was too big of a deviation, that indicated the need to go back and correct some decision already made or gave an early heads up that they had to correct something down the line.  He said there was that high degree of collaboration where the Commission or staff sat at the table and help make those decisions.

Corliss said in his view, it would not only be that the existing staff that were well qualified, but that they might also have some additional help to fine tune some of those things. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to formally request the involvement of the PAC subgroup to assist in reviewing design concepts for the Wakarusa WRF facilities; utilize design/build to design and construct the Wakarusa WRF; and proceed with the selection of the design/build team utilizing a qualification based selection process.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                    (24)

Commissioner Schauner said, as a follow up to the conversation about the comment made by Commissioner Rundle about trying to engage the City’s auditor’s position in that discussion, that this made a great first project. 

Corliss said the City was currently soliciting for that position.

Receive staff report concerning possible federal funding requests.

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said he put together a memorandum where staff suggested a number of funding items that needed to be submitted to the congressional delegation if they wanted to seek to participate in the federal fiscal year 2008 appropriation process.  The memorandum outlined two different surface transportation projects that staff had identified as possible submissions to the Congressional delegation.  He said one project was beginning the planning process for improvements at Franklin Road and 23^rd Street and K-10.  The second project was for improvement of K-10 and Bob Billings Parkway.  He said both of those projects were major transportation projects that the City, by itself, would be challenged to finance in the near term.  

He said the Commission was familiar with some of their concerns at 23^rd and East Hills Business Park and the desire to improve access in working on possible acquisition of the former Farmland site. 

The second project was the K-10 and Bob Billings Parkway, formally known as 15^th Street and SLT.  He said the project was going to be an important infrastructure project if the City decided on urban density development west of the SLT. 

He said staff would submit a joint request along with the University of Kansas.  He said staff’s primary emphasis was going to be on bus replacement.  He said they had some federal funds available for bus replacement and some funds for the equipment reserve fund from the transit budget in the past.  He said they had some funds available, but as the buses become more of a challenge to maintain, those buses would need to be replaced. 

He said the last item was storm water funding.  He said when staff ranked stormwater projects, staff saw the results of the North Lawrence Drainage Study.  He said the most viable project that could happen there was the Maple Street Stormwater Project.  That probably had a price tag of $5 million, and it is very unlikely federal funding would be available to pay for half of that project. 

He said the next in line was 23^rd and Ousdahl.  He said staff’s estimate, which was over a decade old, was $1 million and he thought it was reasonable to ask for $2 million as of today.  He said that project might not be entirely funded, but it could be made up with general obligation bond funding in a future year and make a major improvement to that important street in the community. 

Commissioner Schauner said he thought they ought to be budgeting for a traffic calming on 15^th Street, east of K-10 if they build that interchange because it was going to make the other streets look like they were 2 miles per hour and it should probably be built into the request.  He said once it became a major entry and major arterial into the city from K-10, there would be some downstream impacts that needed to be addressed. 

Commissioner Rundle said he was not sure those funds would be available for this project, but he would like to see staff exploring requests for money of a feasibility study of the City’s eastern bypass or alternatives.  He said it was only going to mean more trucks on Lawrence streets.  He said enough time had passed, and there was a majority on this Commission that wanted to look at alternatives to what they had been considering for the South Lawrence Trafficway and if there was any way to look at alternatives for federal funding.  

Commissioner Schauner said if they did a cost/benefit analysis on bus purchases and buying heavier buses to begin with, he asked if that paid for itself in the long run and did they get more value out of money spent for heavier buses than if buying medium buses instead.

Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, said he believed so.  He said one of the things to think about when looking at buses is that a bus that is built up to 30 feet or a bus that is 30 feet and under are built completely different.  He said a bus that was under 30 feet was a cutaway bus and looked like the T-Lift buses that could extend out a little bit further.  He said their service life was typically 5 – 7 years.  In terms of mileage it could range from 100,000 miles to about 250,000 miles.  The T buses currently operating were a medium duty bus and had a service life of 10 years or 350,000 miles.  He said they did about 50,000 miles a year on the T buses, so in terms of mileage they would reach that well before getting to 10 years and right now in terms of maintenance, they were requiring heavy duty maintenance to keep those buses on the road.  He said a heavy duty bus has a service life of 12 years and 500,000.  He said to go from a bus that was 30 feet in length to a bus that was 35 feet in length, the difference in cost was about $5,000 because the cheapest part of the bus was the middle of the bus; the back was expensive because of the engine and the front because it was the driving compartment, while the middle was just seats.  He said all they did was cut the middle of the bus, extend it out, and add a couple more rows of seats.  He said there was not much cost involved from changing from a 30 foot bus to a 35 foot bus.  He said there was a debate if they should go with buses that were smaller than 30 feet.  He said what he thought the issue was going to be was if they were going to pay for it in terms of more frequent maintenance and downtime as a result of that.  He said that his concern was in terms of public transit making sure service was reliable.  He said if they were not there when they said they were going to be there, people would not use them.  He said he wanted to look at equipment that was heavy duty use because they operated vehicles 14 hours a day for 6 days. 

He said the prices included were for a conventional bus, $320,000 per bus.  He said he knew it was a concern of the Commission to look at alternative fuel vehicles.  He said he had researched that type of vehicle thoroughly and to go with an electric hybrid vehicle, they were going to be looking at a price of $520,000 per bus, which was about $175,000 to $200,000 per bus.  In speaking with the manufacturers, those costs could not be recouped in that kind of investment.  He said moving forward, they should look at bio diesels or something like that, but in terms of compressed natural gas, to put in a fueling station, the fueling station alone would be a $2 million investment.  He said there were pros and cons and knew there were a lot of communities that made that investment in going with alternative fuel vehicles.  He said they cost about $500,000 - $520,000. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was additional federal funding available for alternative fuel vehicles and a fueling station.

Galante said staff could put it into an earmark request and ask for it.  He said it did not hurt to ask, but typically what staff asked for and what staff got were two different things.  He said they usually receive about half a million dollars per year in terms of their earmark request.  One thing included in the memo was he wanted to try a different approach this year in his request.  He said he did a little research and found that other communities in Kansas had implemented toll credits in the past as a local match.  It was something he would like to pursue this year to approach KDOT to see if they could use available Kansas Turnpike Toll Credits to be the local match.  He said what that meant was, normally when making an earmark request, an earmark could cover up to 80% of the capital cost and required a 20% local match.  He said normally when they ask for their earmark request, they ask for the 80% knowing they have to come up with the 20%.  He said what he would like to do this year was ask for the full 100% of that cost for federal funds and see what they could do in terms of trying to get toll credits for KDOT, which for accounting purposes would show the 20% match, when in actuality what they would be using in available funds would be 100% in federal funds, so technically it would not cost the city a penny in local dollars and would be federal dollars.  He said it was something that Kansas City had done for a number of years.  He said he thought it was something worth pursuing. 

Commissioner Schauner asked how close did the cost/benefit analysis work on hybrid electrics since it was close to $200,000 more per bus and how close did it come to breaking even, the extra cost versus the fuel savings over the life of the bus. 

Galante said it did not.

Commissioner Schauner asked not even close at all.

Galante said in speaking with the manufacturers, the price point right now for electric hybrid buses was high because there was not enough demand out there in the industry to build enough of those buses to have the price point come down.  He said there were so many more automobiles being manufactured as opposed to buses where they could mass produce those in such volume they could move the price point down.  He said with buses, there were not as many buses manufactured and sold each year.  He said eventually, in time, everyone was hopeful the price would come down but they would not recoup the cost over the life of the vehicle.

Commissioner Rundle said he was reminded the scope of Highway 59 expansion project ended a couple of miles outside of Lawrence and while KDOT assured it would have no impact on their streets, he thought it was still an open question out there.  He said it might not have an impact, but Lawrence was still growing and all of that led him to believe that was rather urgent and they needed to start looking ahead. 

Commissioner Schauner asked regarding the location of the Wastewater Treatment Plant on the Wakarusa and how the 42^nd Street alignment of the SLT would knick the corner of that purchase.  He asked if that issue had been resolved.

Corliss said there were two different 42^nd alignments, the 42^nd alignment that showed up in the KDOT documents and the 42^nd alignment  used by the Pottawatomie band.  He said staff had looked at both of those alignments, but no one has done the engineering and no one had said there was an exact route on the highway.  He said regardless of which of the two corridors was followed, the location of the plant they were building on was neutral and could happen regardless of which 42^nd Street alignment street was chosen, if one was chosen.  He said the alignment did go through the property the City had, but they did not have any operational concerns and it would probably have to be elevated because it was going through floodplain.  He said it did not present any operational concerns for them. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.  

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize staff to submit funding requests. Motion carried unanimously.                                      (25)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

02/27/07	· Public hearing on Oregon Trail stormwater and park benefit district · Commissioner Rundle plans to be absent from the meeting
03/06/07	· Public hearing on API Foils Tax Abatement Application · Public hearing on Neighborhood Revitalization Act
04/10/07	· Seating of new City Commission
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

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Commissioner Schauner said it was brought to his attention there was a neighborhood issue around preservation of a very mature tree at Lawrence Memorial Hospital, a large 50 year old oak tree in question.  He asked if staff could give him a sense whether the axe was going to fall or whether they had a chance to save that tree.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said part of the hospital expansion involved the establishment of a new service.  He said the existing service was not substantial enough to carry the whole load for the hospital.

Commissioner Schauner asked if he meant electric service.

Soules said yes.  He said Westar had looked at several options and staff met with the property owners on the east side of the road because all options pointed to put it on the east side of the road and no trees needed to be cut.  He said staff would be meeting Friday with some neighborhood representatives to discuss the neighborhood side of the issue to see what their thoughts were.  He said Westar would be there and they were trying to work it out.  He said it was the hospital’s project and they had to have service and looked at a number of ways to go.  He said he briefly had some discussions with the neighborhood people and passed them onto Westar and they were taking a look at some of those issues as well. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a Westar right-of-way either side of the line and they get to cut down everything that existed.

Soules said no.  He said on the west side of Maine Street, the main feed that went to that area and to the hospital was the main communication lines.  He said staff looked at a number of different options, but at this point had not come to a consensus.  He said the hospital project would start to get held up if some decision was not made because it was a substantial project to get power into that facility. 

Mayor Amyx said he had one item.  He said he had been visiting with the City Manager about the ordinance dealing with guns within 200 feet of the bars in downtown.  He said it was important to consider the fine part of that ordinance and that it included mandatory jail time.  He said the first offense would be 30 days plus either $500 or $1000, second offense was 90 days mandatory in jail and substantial increase in fine, and third would be 180 days in jail and about $2,500.  He suggested this issue being placed on the agenda to reconsider.  

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 10:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.                                                            

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

 CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007

1. Agreement – Cured-in Place Pipe Project to Utility Maintenance Contractors for $531,923.72.

2. Bid - 24^th & Crossgate/Harvard & Wakarusa SS Project to Ace Pipe Cleaning for $121,338.48.

3. Purchase – Street sweeper for PW Dept from Key Equip for $138,167.35.

4. Ordinance No. 7829 – 2^nd Read, Rezone (Z-07-31-04) .93 acres, RS-1 to IG, 724 N Iowa

5. Ordinance No. 8062 – 2^nd Read, Annex 1.14 acres, Franklin Rd & N of 25^th St Terr.

6. Ordinance No. 8074 – 2^nd Read, Fire Chief or his/her designee authority for demo of unsafe structures.

7. Resolution No. 6690 – Amend policy on Employee Organizations.

8. Resolution No. 6705 – 2007 Emergency  Shelter Grant.

9. TSC – deny “stop sign” intersection of Harvard & Sunset Dr.

10. TSC – deny “multi-way stop” intersection of Arrowhead Dr & Peterson.

11. TSC – “No Parking” E side of Sunset between 9^th and Broadview.

12. TSC – Rescind disabled parking in front of 714  Alabama place Ord 8079 – first read.

13. Signs of Community Interest – Pilot Club Antique Show.

14. Mortgage Release – Amy Summers, 714 Alabama.

15. Engineering Service Agreement – Bartlett & W Engineering for Burroughs Creek Trail & Linear Park for $50,000.

16. Signs of Community Interest – Headquarters Counseling Ctr, April 28, 2007.

17. 2006 Year End Report – Bert Nash for Case Mgmt for Homelessness.

18. City Manager Report. 

19. Public Hearing – 1019 Kentucky St – deferred after discussion.

20. Fire Station recommendations for reuse.

21. TSC for traffic calming along Trail Rd between Lawrence Ave & Kasold – deferred indefinitely.

22. Condemnation proceedings 2300 Louisiana.

23. Resolution No. 6704 – Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds, $28,100,000, bid date Mar 27, 2007.  

24. Wakarusa WRF Facilities – PAC subgroup review & design.

25. Federal Funding authorizing.