November 6, 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 Hack presiding and members Amyx, Dever, Chestnut and Highberger present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAIMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Hack proclaimed November 9, 2007 as “Celebration Marine Corps Birthday”; November 11, 2007 as “Veterans Day”; and the recognition of City employees who have severed or are currently serving in the Armed Forces.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Grant Review Board meeting minutes of June 18, 2007; the Lawrence Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 25, 2007; and the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 24, 2007 and September 26, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 784 vendors in the amount of $5,656,488.69 and payroll from October 14, 2007 to October 27, 2007, in the amount of $1,702,348.48. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Mad Greek, 907 Massachusetts; Crimson & Brews, 925 Iowa, Ste: Q; Encore, 1007 Massachusetts; the Class A Club for Veterans of Foreign Wars, 138 Alabama; the Retail Liquor Licenses for LT Liquor, 1540 Wakarusa, Ste: F; and Harper Liquor, 2220 Harper St., Ste: C. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for painting the north final building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Dayco Painting $71,734
Gray & Co., Inc. $113,346
J.F. McGivern, Inc. $178,755
Goens Bros., Inc. $199,700
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Dayco Painting, in the amount of $71,734. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for repainting the filter room ceiling at the Kaw Water Treatment Plant for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Dayco Painting $25,494
J.F. McGivern, Inc. $32,950
Gray & Company, Inc. $43,830
Goens Bros., Inc. $57,000
Commercial Waterproofing, Inc. $78,825
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to J.F. McGivern, in the amount of $32,950 because the Utility Department had checked references for Dayco Painting, low bid, and found several problems experienced with several industrial coating firms. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for replacement of west perimeter fence and gates at the Kaw Plant for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Collins & Hermann, Inc. $20,929.41
Apex Fence $32,869.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Collins & Hermann, Inc., in the amount of $20,929.41. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2007 Sidewalk Gap Program for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $78,013.00
Asphalt Improvement Co., LLC $72,306.30
GSR Construction, Inc. $73,221.77
Comet Corporation $77,415.89
LRM Industries $81,669.84
Morgan Concrete $87,154.05
Kansas Heavy Construction $96,700.00
Meadows Construction $97,382.00
D.F. Freeman Contractors $148,452.95
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Asphalt Improvement Co., LLC, in the amount of $71,306.30. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date of December 4, 2007 for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program Projects at: 931 Murrow Court; 1645 Rhode Island; 224 East 17th Terrace; and 2616 Mayfair Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 8192, establishing Baldwin Creek west sanitary sewer interceptor line connection fee, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 8193, incorporating by reference the “Subdivision Regulations for Lawrence and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, September 11, 2007 Text Amendments”, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 8190, establishing “no parking” along the south side of University Drive from Crestline Drive, east to its end, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 8191, establishing two “disabled parking” spaces in front of New York Elementary School, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 8189, establishing an “all way stop” at the intersection of 4th Street and Maine Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 8188, providing for a Special Use Permit for the SE Lawrence Benefit District No. 1 Pump Station (SUP-07-07-07), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 8187, an ordinance providing for the rezoning (Z-08-16-07) of approximately 537.70 acres, from GPI (General Public and Institutional Use District) to GPI-FP (General Public 7 Institutional Use District), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Ordinance No. 8138, establishing the maximum assessments for the construction of Stoneridge Drive, Overland Drive to 6th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Ordinance No. 8137, establishing the maximum assessments for the construction of Overland Drive from Queens Road to Stoneridge Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Brian and Tracy Pobjoy, 2002 Maple Lane. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve as a “sign of community interest”, a request from Centenary United Methodist Church and the Festival of Nativities, to place a directional sign in the right-of-way at the northeast corner of 2nd and Elm Streets on weekends from December 1 through December 23, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve a Temporary Special Event Permit (SE-10-37-07) for a patio sale at Jayhawk Bookstore, 1420 Crescent Road, from November 7th through November 14th during the regular business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to receive Downtown Lawrence, Inc., third quarter report. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Commissioner Highberger pulled the October 23rd City Commission meeting minutes for a correction. He said the revised minutes should read:
“He said he noticed a typo in the Consortium Agreement on page 3, 6B, which stated the matching Employment Award(s) would equal the KBA financial support resulting from Deciphera employment creation in Lawrence, Kansas but in no event not to exceed $500,000. He said the double negative in that sentence appeared to be a typo and he thought the agreement should be reworded to remove the “but in no event” clause and just read “not to exceed $500,000”. He said other than the double negative typographical error he would happily support the agreement.”
It was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 23, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said the City received its highest sales tax distribution at the end of October which was good news. The continued challenging news was the City would not meet its original sales tax budgeted amount for 2007, but would be relatively close for the revised sales tax projection. Staff was continuing to monitor the sales tax and looked forward to the sales tax distributions for the City in November and the end of December.
Also, the Alcohol Beverage Control scheduled hearing for Last Call was set for November 19th and 20th, at 9:30 a.m. Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, was working on that issue and he would be making the City’s presentation where the City would ask that license not be renewed.
(18)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct public hearing to consider the vacation of the west 10’ of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street and the south 10’ of right-of-way of 4th Street adjacent to the north half of the east half of Block 30, in West Lawrence
Mayor Hack called a public hearing to consider the vacation of the west 10’ of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street and the south 10’ of right-of-way of 4th Street adjacent to the north half of the east half of Block 30, in West Lawrence.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the applicants desired to develop property located at 4th and Wisconsin which had a large 100’ right-of-way on both streets.
All appropriate property owners were notified and no objections were received. He said staff was recommending that easements be retained within the vacated right-of-way.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dever, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Chestnut , seconded by Amyx , to approve the Order of Vacation of the west 10’ of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street and the north 10’ of right-of-way of 4th Street adjacent to the north half of the east half of Block 30, in West Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Conduct public hearing to consider the vacation of a drainage easement and a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 5, Park West Addition,
Mayor Hack called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a drainage easement and a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 5, Park West Addition.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the Park West Addition area has developed and those easements were not necessary.
He said the adjacent properties were notified and no complaints were received. Staff recommended approval of the vacation.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dever, seconded by Amyx to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Order of Vacation of a drainage easement and a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 5, Park West Addition. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Discuss the ECO2 Commission’s draft Request for Proposals for the possible City/County acquisition of open space
Trudy Rice, Chair of the ECO2 Commission, presented the report. She said the City and County adopted the ECO2 Plan in the spring and they were currently in the second phase of a three phase process. The second phase was the implementation of the plan itself and the third phase included funding of any projects that were a result of the plan. The City Commission had appointed the Business and Industrial and Open Space Implementation Committees.
Larry McElwain, Co-Chair, Business and Industrial Implementation Committee, said they were taking sites that were designated over the years through the planning process or through Horizon 2020 and using the ECO2 plan to score those sites, for future reference, in making decisions about particular sites. In time, there might be a different footprint than what was scored originally, and they might need to go back as an implementation committee, at a later date and rescore those sites based on a new footprint. He said their committee would pass their information to the Open Space Committee where that committee would look at conflicts and from that point, the information would go to the ECO2 Commission and to the City and County Commissions for review. He said if anyone had any infrastructure costs to any particular site that information would be helpful to their committee because those costs were one of criteria used in scoring those sites.
Rice introduced members of the Open Space Committee. She said this committee had developed the RFP for this open space proposal. The committee would review the business and industrial portion and if the City Commission agreed to issue the RFP, the inventory for the proposed open space projects would be reviewed by that committee in the February/March timeframe.
She said their request was for the City and County to agree to issue a joint RFP for open space projects to be funded as part of the ECO2 plan in the future and requested that those Request for Proposals be opened until January 30th.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the list was envisioned as creating a restrictive list for potential open space projects. He said it seemed this would be entirely voluntary participation.
Rice said one of the principles of ECO2, whether it was business industrial or open space, was voluntary participation by the land owner and requested the land owner be aware. She said it would be an on-going process and saw it as the first attempt to create an inventory of open space projects.
Commissioner Highberger asked if someone could use this process to recommend a tract that was in someone else’s ownership, but if wanting to move forward, it needed to be voluntary participation.
Rice said yes.
Commissioner Amyx said the City had not allocated funds, but it would be necessary in Phase 3. He asked if they were asking the City Commission to approve the joint RFP between the City and County, initiating this volunteer program. He said in looking at financing in the future, financing needed to be discussed in next year’s budget.
David Corliss, City Manager, said there was no identified funding for acquisition of open space under this proposal or any other avenue. Funds were available in the City’s Sales Tax Reserve Fund that were not necessarily encumbered. He said depending on the costs, there might be an opportunity to participate along with the County, but the City and County did not have a discussion about a partnership or leadership in the acquisition of open space. The ECO2 Commission provided both governing bodies revenue options that might be appropriate to consider, but the City Commission had not made that commitment. He said depending upon the shelf value of those proposals, they would discuss it as a possible budget item, but the partnership issues needed to be worked out and a number of other issues related.
Mayor Hack asked Rice to go over what happened at the County level.
Rice said the RFP was presented to the County Commissioners and the discussion was similar. The County Commission approved moving forward with the RFP process through January 30th because being business industrial inventory was available because of their long range plans and areas that were designated to be developed for business industrial. She said the way the community was planned, they did not really have a very good way to identify what projects the community would like to see developed for open space. She said knowing very well there was not funding, they tried to carefully word it as availability of future funding for those projects. It was just an attempt to create that inventory and the County Commissioners were supportive of that yesterday.
Mayor Hack said areas were identified, but they were looking for something broader.
Rice said yes they were looking for real projects, not concepts or ideas and land owners were supportive.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Corliss said staff would work with Douglas County and ECO2 Commission for the distribution of the RFP.
Commissioner Amyx said not sending out the RFP would be an issue because the City Commission would not know what was available for people who wished to volunteer. He said he always had been supportive of the ECO2 Commission report and thought the Commission needed to find out what was available.
Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Amyx and thought it was a very exciting step. She said she looked at the open space analysis much differently than the industrial business space because there were business plans such as Horizon 2020 and area plans that looked at specific designated areas. She said everyone needed to remind themselves it was preservation of open space.
Vice Mayor Dever asked Rice if the word “inventory” meant they were making a list of candidates for acquisition. He thought a lot of people thought they were putting this land in a hierarchy for acquisition, but in reality they were just making a list of candidates. He wanted to make it clear to the public they were making a wish list of properties that might be available when the City had the funds.
Rice said correct, a wish list but also go back to a list of land owners that were willing to participate in this process.
Moved by Dever, seconded by Highberger, to direct staff to work with the County on the dissemination of the RFP. (20)
Consider the following items relating to the Sidewalk Dining License for the Bourgeois Pig, located at 6 East 9th Street:
a. Consider approval of the Sidewalk Dining License.
b. Consider authorizing the City Manager to execute a Use of Right-of-Way Agreement.
c. Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No. 8195, an ordinance allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain city property pursuant to the Bourgeois Pig Sidewalk Dining License.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director, presented the staff report. He said the request was from the relatively new owners of Bourgeois Pig for a Sidewalk Dining License and a related request for approval to serve alcoholic beverages in that specific area of City sidewalk. The request for approval to serve alcoholic beverages came before the City Commission despite the fact the applicant could not meet the 70% food sales requirement generally required for a drinking establishment to obtain a sidewalk dining license.
He said it was important to note the prior owners of the Bourgeois Pig received a Sidewalk Dining License every year since 1998. At the time the 1998 Sidewalk Dining License was applied for, the Bourgeois Pig also had a valid Drinking Establishment License and had a Drinking Establishment License every year since. It was unclear from the applicant’s files or the City Commission meeting minutes from 1998, how the 1998 Sidewalk Dining License was approved given the applicant was a drinking establishment and could not meet the food sales requirement. Staff knew however, there was no ordinance at that time, or since, authorizing alcohol in the sidewalk dining area for the Bourgeois Pig. When they informed the new owners earlier this year that there was no authority to have alcohol in the sidewalk dining area, staff was told, right or wrong, alcohol was being consumed in the right-of-way and the Bourgeois Pig was purchased with the understanding from prior owners that alcohol was allowed in the Sidewalk Dining area.
He said because City staff never received any complaints about the Bourgeois Pig or was not aware of any public safety issues with the establishment, this was the first time staff was aware of alcohol consumed in the sidewalk dining area. Given the existence of a valid Sidewalk Dining License since 1998, the lack of complaints and safety issues about the Bourgeois Pig in general or its use of the sidewalk, staff recommended approval of the application of the Sidewalk Dining License and related request to allow alcoholic beverage in the right-of-way.
Commissioner Amyx said in 1998 the City Commission might have made a mistake. He asked how many other current licenses in the downtown area did not meet the 70% food sales requirement for outside dining or alcohol consumption.
Reeb said it was important to understand the only entities that were required to have the 70% food sales requirement were drinking establishments. He said staff was not aware of any establishment that was a drinking establishment and also had sidewalk dining that was currently authorized that did not meet the 70% food sales requirement. Henry’s on 8th Street had a lower level and upper level. They also had a sidewalk dining license at the present time, but there was also no ordinance allowing alcohol in the right-of-way. It was his understanding the licensed premises was only the upstairs and not the lower level. It was the coffee shop portion of Henry’s that had the Sidewalk Dining License, not the upper level that had the drinking establishment. Other than Henry’s, staff was not aware of any other drinking establishment that had a sidewalk dining license that was not meeting the 70% food sales requirement, but a formal audit to verify percentages had not been done.
Commissioner Amyx said after the City Commission took action on this item, he asked how many others would come forward.
Reeb said there were approximately 25 drinking establishments in the downtown area that did not have sidewalk dining at the present time.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if there were no other non conforming uses staff was aware of.
Reeb said with the possible situation of the Henry’s situation described, that was correct.
Commissioner Amyx asked about the requirements to obtain a sidewalk dining area.
David Corliss, City Manager, said food sales requirement needed to be met, go through the various historic and site plan review requirements, sign a license agreement, and pay a fee of $3.50 per square foot fee. If the establishment met the various approval processes, the license would be placed on the City Commission’s agenda. He said this issue was discussed in the early 1990’s when the City enacted this ordinance. The licensing scheme had to do with the ability to make sure the uses in the public right-of-way were appropriate not only for the business, but for the pedestrians and other patrons up and down the sidewalk. He said the Bourgeois Pig might be an exception coming at an unusual angle that showed the City might not need that level of concern, but he did not know. He said if the sidewalk area was going to be railed off and used for patrons, that activity should be pedestrian sidewalk friendly. The City did not want a business that was not involved in some type of dining or eating to be able to claim the sidewalk. It needed to be related to a pedestrian and sidewalk related friendly type use and the City had struggled as to where to draw the line. In the original ordinance, staff wanted to make it clear the use would be a dining type environment, which was why the 70% food sales requirement was established.
Commissioner Chestnut said the memo discussed the 1998 approval, and how that application listed “not applicable” for the alcohol and food sales verification and unfortunately, since it went on Consent Agenda, there was no discussion as to what happened. He asked how it was determined the establishment met the 70% food sales requirement.
Reeb said it depended on how new of an establishment it was. For example, In-gre-di-ent recently received approval for a sidewalk dining license and that establishment requested alcohol to be consumed in the right-of-way. What they were required to do was estimate for that first year what their gross receipts and food sales portion would be. If it was an existing drinking establishment that had submitted liquor returns to the Department of Revenue, staff would ask for copies of those returns and verify food sales by looking at those receipts.
Commissioner Chestnut asked if Reeb concluded that because Bourgeois Pig did not supply that information, there was an intention of not granting alcohol service on the sidewalk.
Reeb said it was speculation, but a Sidewalk Dining License was approved by the City Commission in 1998 for the Bourgeois Pig. What was expected was when the Sidewalk Dining License was approved, an ordinance would be drafted allowing alcohol in the right-of-way, but that was not done with the Bourgeois Pig in 1998.
Vice Mayor Dever said if an establishment wanted a sidewalk dining license, but did not want to allow alcoholic consumption in the right-of-way, the establishment needed to apply for a permit and pay fees for a sidewalk dining license.
Reeb said that was correct. All those requirements for sidewalk dining would apply except for the 70% food sales requirement and there were establishments like that downtown.
Vice Mayor Dever said the City Commission might have approved this license, but did not approve the alcohol consumption portion.
Reeb said that was a likely possibility and for whatever reason, the sidewalk dining was approved with the understanding that only non-alcoholic beverages and food would be consumed in the right-of-way and the alcohol would be limited to the actual inside premises. There was no City Commission meeting minutes or records reflecting allowing consumption of alcohol in the sidewalk dining area for the Bourgeois Pig’s Sidewalk Dining License.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if there was a clear delineation on the form between requesting a license for alcohol consumption and requesting a license for food consumption.
Reeb said it was all the same form. That was where on the original application from 1998 the “not applicable” pieces were added.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Paul Davis, Attorney for RCJ, Inc., doing business as the Bourgeois Pig, said Ed Rose and Ryan Pope, owners of the Bourgeois Pig, purchased this business on January 1, 2007. In dealing with some of the issues that new business owner frequently dealt with, the new owners stumbled upon this issue related to the Sidewalk Dining compliance and immediately after discovering there was a problem, contacted and alerted City staff of that issue. The new owners were working with City staff since that time to determine an amicable resolution.
He said the Sidewalk Dining permit had been issued to the Bourgeois Pig for a number of years and was operated with alcohol being consumed in the sidewalk dining area and had done so without any problems whatsoever. The owners did not have any intention of changing the character of the Bourgeois Pig or clientele at all. One of the issues that made this situation somewhat unique was the owners purchased this business in accordance with a certain business model that had been operating for a number of years. Anyone who purchased a business knew that business model was factored into the purchase price of the business and there were revenue expectations that were built into that. He said the new owners had seen a very noticeable change in their revenues since the time they voluntarily stopped allowing the consumption of alcohol in the sidewalk dining area. He did not want to make any wild accusations that if the City Commission did not allow consumption of alcohol in the sidewalk dining area that this establishment would go out of business, but the owners would tell that the direction they were seeing on their revenues right now made them question the viability of the business on into the future. They had some real concerns the impact that would have on them being able to operate a business and pay the bank and do the things that every business owner wanted to be able to do.
He knew there were others that were interested in this issue, but he did not think this City Commission had to necessarily entertain that policy issue tonight. He thought it was a significant policy issue the City Commission would like to entertain in a more deliberative fashion and where there was more data available to make the best decision. They were asking the City Commission to address a unique situation they would like to see remedied so that those business owners could be allowed to essentially maintain the status quo this business operated under for a number of years.
Commissioner Highberger said if the City Commission granted the approval, he asked how the Commission would distinguish this applicant from other applicants who would be requesting a sidewalk dining license and could not meet the food sales requirement.
Davis said this particular business had been operating in this fashion and was allowed to operate in this fashion for a number of years without any problems the City would be concerned about.
Additionally, if looking at the structure of the Bourgeois Pig, it was a very small building and could not hold a lot of people. He thought it was distinguishable from other establishments downtown in that those outdoor seats were a critical part of the business whereas other establishments were much larger and would have only a smaller accommodation for outdoor seats. Outside dining was a big part of that business. The owners had looked at opportunities to expand, but there were no opportunities for expansion. He could understand the desire for a bright line to be drawn, but did not think that by passing this ordinance the Commission would be departing from a bright line. It was still a policy decision this Commission could make in the future. He thought it was recognition of a unique situation this particular business had been put into.
Ed Rose said this had been quite a hit to their business, especially during the warmer months. It had taken their 25 best seats out of their business plan. When they stopped selling alcohol outside on July 20th, since then, they noticed a loss and for some months, nearly 30%, but now that it was cooler, it was closer to 20%. He said outdoor dining was a huge part of their business.
Commissioner Amyx said regarding the purchase of this business, he asked if the contract included receiving approval for alcohol consumption in the sidewalk dining area.
Rose said as far as the actual contract, he was not sure if there was any specific wording. In all their research, they kept finding the outdoor dining license had been in place since 1994 and had receipts going back to that date. All the documentation in the office referred to their establishment as being grandfathered in at that time and had no reason to think otherwise.
Mayor Hack asked if there was any reference to the drinking establishment license for that.
Rose said no. In the application itself, the percentage breakdown had been left blank and he was not sure how that initially was setup.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Jane Pennington, Director of Downtown Lawrence, Inc., said in an effort to better represent their member businesses, DLI solicited opinions about the passage of this ordinance and the reactions were very diverse. For the most part nearly everyone agreed the Bourgeois Pig had been a model downtown citizen and had a very good history. The majority of the people that responded fully supported the granting of this license. However, the opinions about the future ramifications were very much more divided. Retail members have significant reservations about granting similar licenses to other vendors who might not be as responsible or have as good of a reputation and there was concern the perception of late night downtown was going to become overwhelmingly focused on the consumption of alcohol. Bar owners fully supported the approval and some of the restaurants would like to see the current ordinance applied.
Since ordinances were not really passed to supervise the responsible, but rather to maintain some minimal standards, DLI asked that any approval be tailored in such a way that the City retained not only full discretion in granting the license, but also tight reigns in the event of a less responsible vendor that might not maintain the respectful behavior of its clientele. Some thoughts along those lines might include more frequent review of the license, swift penalties for any complaints, higher license fees, more strict regulations of the service hours, limitations on how many people could occupy the area, specific requirements about maintaining the surrounding area, and well defined consequences if complaints were filed with the City maintaining the ability to withdraw that license immediately if problems occur. They knew it was not a definitive answer, but really believed it helped preserve the interest of most segments downtown while maintaining the luster of the jewel that was Downtown Lawrence.
Phil Bradley, Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, said they were in favor of this ordinance. They did not feel it would be a danger in any way, shape or form to what was currently happening or change the focus of late night downtown. He was not aware of any functions that were going downtown other than entertainment venues and hospitality venues.
There were many cities and many parts of cities, including the Gas Lamp District in San Diego and others that allowed this type of activity go forward. It helped those places become destinations for tourists for those coming from out of town. It helped those places become greater revenue generators for cities and a jewel for their cities. They felt this would do the same and continue to do the same. They would like the City to keep control over this type of issue and did not think it was necessarily applicable to everyone, but would like to remind the City Commission that there was extensive discussions of allowing certain businesses of a specific type, specifically those who had no other avenue downtown when the smoking ordinance was passed, to provide some sort of facility for those patrons to smoke on. They believed that discussion was still going on somewhere and would like to continue that discussion and make sure they were a part of those solutions. The negatives had to do with that they did not want it to turn into New Orleans. There was no one who wanted it to be a New Orleans type atmosphere and no one was asking for people to be able to take alcohol anywhere or everywhere. They were asking for the consideration of businesses in this community and others who had established a controlled environment and were responsible for controlling that environment and maintaining that environment. Many events that occurred in the City right now, like the Get Downtown function, had proven that with consideration, control and proper thought and administration, absolutely wonderful events could happen. He thought the Bourgeois Pig and their activities in the past and hopefully the activities in the future would continue to prove that as well.
Commissioner Highberger said Bradley had mentioned there were no other legitimate activities going on in the downtown area at night other than hospitality establishments, but people lived downtown and that fact needed to be taken into consideration.
He said this item was the most difficult item on the agenda. On one hand they had an appreciated downtown business that caused no problems and people had been consuming alcohol on the porch of the Bourgeois Pig and enjoying it for a long time. On the other hand, there was an issue of fairness and making sure the City applied rules fairly. He was not interested in making a policy change for sidewalk dining. He thought Lawrence was different than some of the places mentioned. He had concerns about how opening up every downtown drinking establishment might affect the character of downtown. He said he was not interested in making a policy change, but in this case it could be distinguished that their business had been operating through a permit in this manner for quite a long time. The problem was this issue of alcohol consumption was not reported and the business owners took it upon themselves to bring it to the City and try and work something out. He would be willing to approve the Sidewalk Dining License with alcohol consumption.
Commissioner Amyx said this establishment had been a good neighbor and there were a lot of businesses that have enjoyed the success of the Bourgeois Pig and its longevity downtown. He said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger that for whatever, the Commission, at that time, approved a use of the right-of-way and Sidewalk Dining License for the Bourgeois Pig as far back as 1998.
He said the businesses on the side streets of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th Streets in the downtown area, might not have the activity as on Massachusetts Street. He said it might be that some type of zoning would be the only way to handle those special situations, but that idea could be discussed at a later date. Also, he said Special Use Permits were controlled by the City and if someone was not following the rules established by that special use permit, the permit could be pulled and the establishment could be shut down.
Corliss said that was correct and it was important to point out that in this instance, the City was operating not so much as a land use regulator, but as a property owner for the public right-of-way and the City had the ability to remove that use of right-of-way after providing notice and opportunity for hearing for the property owner, but removing that use of right-of-way had not been practiced because the City had good compliance with the establishments. Although, the City had threatened to pull a permit because the sidewalk dining fees had not been paid, but did not because the establishment complied. He said the City had the ability to revoke a license, but staff needed to be consistent and fair.
Reeb said the use of right-of-way agreement acted somewhat like a lease and clarified all the requirements.
Commissioner Amyx said there was a difference between this application and future applications. Those rules needed to be established or what a lease agreement would look like.
Corliss said the City needed a more rigorous set of rules for the use of the right-of-way for establishments that did not have the food sales background to where the predominant use was going to be alcohol. The City had a tool in the absence of a special use permit outside of the zoning authority. If the City had problems with the use of the right-of-way, staff had the ability, after a hearing, to revoke that use.
Commissioner Amyx said if the Commission approved the applicant’s request, someone would apply for a permit and the governing body would need to make an arbitrary opinion on whether or not to allow that business to use the right-of-way.
Mayor Hack said if the applicant’s request was approved, it would be important to look at the list of ideas presented by Pennington for applying tighter reigns for a less responsible business that might not maintain respectful behavior of its clientele.
She said she agreed the past action without documentation had placed the City Commission in a difficult position and needed to be careful about how they moved ahead. Also, she said it was discussed if the smoking ban was enacted they would discuss outside arrangements.
Commissioner Chestnut said he shared Commissioner Highberger’s sentiments and he was very hesitant to move forward with changing the policy. This was a specific case that since they really could not seem to form the intention of the City Commission in 1998, it made it very difficult. The opportunity was to recognize an exception and an exception like this created the opportunity to establish better policy. What happened was a situation that fell into a middle ground that was hard to rule on, which meant they had to look at the whole situation. He said they needed to distinguish their intent because in this case it was difficult to clarify what the intent was. He was hesitant, but willing to move forward in this case because he agreed with Commissioner Highberger in that it was a great business.
He thought it was important that the integrity and transparency the owners and Davis came forward with. Clearly when they recognized the fact there was a problem, they chose to take the actions they did to the detriment of their business and demonstrated a level of transparency and trying to make something happen. He had a hesitancy to move against because he spent some time meeting with them and there was no resentment saying they knew there was an issue and problem and wanted to do something about it the right way.
Vice Mayor Dever asked Corliss what the real purpose was for basing the approval process on percentage of food versus drink. They needed to determine a reason for creating this standard and decide how they were deviating from it before they could make a good decision on how to bend the rules.
Corliss said he was involved in the drafting of the ordinance. The primary proponent of the ordinance was Bob Schumm and he left the City Commission and wanted to do this for Mass Street Deli. The discussion centered on the desire to try and not create the Mardi Gras type of atmosphere where there would be alcohol essentially anywhere on the street or in the public area. By state law, alcohol was prohibited on public property unless the City adopted an ordinance allowing it. Clearly, that situation could occur in drinking establishments with 70% food sales. They were usually more the restaurant type situations whereas places that did not sell as much food, could not meet the 70% food sales requirement were traditionally more involved in just alcohol consumption and other hospitality issues, not necessarily dining. That generalization was sloppy and could be rebutted by others, but it was the governing feeling it was appropriate to draw that line and not to encourage the bar type situation on the sidewalk area. It was before they had any of the dining or railing. They now had over a dozen years experience with outdoor dining along Massachusetts Street and some of the side streets. Other than occasional challenges in collecting the fee and some comments from Historic Resources about what they should look like and those kinds of things, he did not know they had a lot of problems. There were some people that argued it made it difficult for pedestrians passing the area, but they could make their own judgments on that.
Vice Mayor Dever said if they approved this they were basically perpetuating an error the City made 10 years ago in the approval process, as long as they were comfortable with that. To him since it was lacking on public record last time, they needed to make a clear definition of what they approved and why, why it was an exception and why they wanted to grant this use in this person’s business. The problem he had was behavior based analysis and whether it was okay or not. He asked if the next owner would expect this to transfer with the business and then they would have to base their use on the approval. He wanted to make sure they lined out the loopholes and make sure everyone’s intention was clear to what they were approving and why. They were not going to make this decision every time. There were a lot of people impacted by the smoking ordinance and they were going to have people who had business concerns if they did not get this and was afraid they would have to consider that every time they deny or approve a permit.
He said the Commission should set the policy and then decide how they came to that decision. He said the minutes would need to reflect why the Commission was making this decision and how the Commission would not be swayed in the future.
Commissioner Amyx said regarding the use of right-of-way agreement, the City Manager along with the City Clerk had done a good job in outlining the agreement. In this particular case if this business were to sell, it was a non transferable license. A future new owner could apply subject to whatever new rules were in place at the time.
He said the Commission was trying to correct a problem that happened in the past and this ordinance would only address the Bourgeois Pig situation. He said the Commission could discuss, at a later date, if this would be allowed in the future and the policy. If new policy was going to be set, the rules would be tougher.
Commissioner Chestnut said from his standpoint, he was making the assumption that in 1998 when the sidewalk dining was approved for Bourgeois Pig, it was approved with the intent of the ability to serve alcohol. They had been serving alcohol for almost a decade without anyone raising exception and essentially he had to make that assumption regardless of what the paperwork said. He said for him, it was an exceptional grandfather case versus an exception to policy.
Mayor Hack thanked the applicants for being forthcoming and it would have been easy for them to continue on in the pattern established and they chose not to do that. She appreciated their honestly in coming forward.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Sidewalk Dining License for the Bourgeois Pig, located at 6th East 9th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to execute a Use of Right-of-Way Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (22)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8195, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain City property pursuant to the Bourgeois Pig Sidewalk Dining License. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
Corliss asked if the City Commission was asking staff to look at possible amendments to the sidewalk dining code that would allow for additional sidewalk dining for establishments that did not meet the current sales food requirement.
Mayor Hack said yes. She said Jane Pennington had a good list of items staff should consider.
Corliss asked if the City Commission wanted a memo from staff that would outline issues and options.
Mayor Hack said the Historic Resources Commission had concerns about awnings, heaters, and umbrellas which should also be addressed. She asked if the information could be presented to the Commission by the end of the year or the first part of January.
Commissioner Chestnut said it would be beneficial to have some input for law enforcement on this issue.
Consider authorizing staff to acquire three (3) paratransit vehicles to replace three (3) existing paratransit vehicles operated for T Lift service that have fulfilled their manufacturer and FTA useful service-life requirements by purchasing the vehicles off the Kansas Department of Transportation Vehicle Bid of 2008. The acquisition cost per vehicle is $55,505 for a total cost of $166,515 from Kansas Truck Equipment Company, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas.
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, presented the staff report. He said the vehicles they would be looking to replace would be in the paratransit fleet. There were three vehicles that had fulfilled their useful service life; both manufacturer recommended as well as what the Federal Transit Administration required. Staff would be looking at replacing those vehicles utilizing 100% state funding that came from the Comprehensive Transportation Program. It would not require any City financial contribution whatsoever to purchase those vehicles. The replacement of the vehicles fell in line with the Capital Replacement Plan which was implemented last year in terms of replacing the vehicles. There were currently 14 vehicles in the City’s paratransit fleet. Earlier this year 6 of those vehicles were replaced and would be replacing 3 more vehicles. The plan was to replace 3 vehicles a year.
Commissioner Chestnut said regarding those 3 replacement vehicles, staff’s chart indicated the percent of useful service life and mileage, yet 3 vehicles acquired on the same day had about a 10% variance on their useful life and he asked how the useful life was determined.
Galante said the paratransit was a little different than fixed route service. With fixed route service, because the vehicles all have the same operating day and same routes, the contract required the contractor to have an even distribution of the use of those vehicles. Some routes were longer than others, so the contractor tracked that and switched vehicles around and put them on different routes so there was an even distribution on the wear and tear of those vehicles. He said paratransit was a little different because paratransit was based strictly on demand for service, so each day when a vehicle was dispatched out into service, it was going to depend strictly on how many clients they were serving with the driver, what the manifest was, and what the origin and destination points were. It varied on a daily basis. In terms of trying to manage the use of paratransit, it became much more difficult to do. Also factored in were vehicles that broke down. Some of the vehicles were all manufactured by the same company and same make and model; some vehicles were more reliable than others and more of a quality control issue by the manufacturer. The vehicles that were more reliable were used more often. The vehicles less reliable tended to be in the repair shop more often, which was why they started to see the variance where some vehicles had more mileage than other vehicles.
Commissioner Chestnut asked if there were other criteria other than purely mileage.
Galante said yes. In this case, in terms of the useful service life in percentages, it was based on the mileage and 100,000 where they were in the percentage of fulfilling that requirement.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Amyx said the money would come from the Kansas Department of Transportation and asked if the City had that money in hand.
Galante said yes. He said if, for whatever reason, staff no longer utilized those vehicles due to grant funds in which to acquire those vehicles, staff would determine the fair market value of those vehicles and reimburse the State based on the fair market value.
Corliss said hopefully those vehicle could be sold for fair market value.
Moved by Dever, seconded by Amyx, to authorize staff to acquire three (3) paratransit vehicles by purchasing the vehicles off the Kansas Department of Transportation Vehicle Bid of 2008 for a total cost of $166,515 from Kansas Truck Equipment Company, Inc., in Wichita, Kansas. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Consider the following items related to Utility Department projects:
a. Consider authorizing Staff to negotiate a contract for design and construction phase engineering services for Phase I of the Kaw Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main to the Southeast Lawrence Area.
David Corliss, City Manager, said the first project involved a new waterline going through North Lawrence, on the east side of town and going through the Farmland property. Staff was making a recommendation on the consulting firm of Burns & McDonnell and Professional Engineering Consultants to do the Phase 1 design work.
Dave Wagner, Director of Utilities, said this project was a key project for the Department of Utilities to acquire redundant service to North Lawrence as well as providing future service to the southeast area and eventually the Wakarusa Reclamation Facility. It was a major project with a more conventional delivery with a design bid build delivery in three different phases. In this as well as all the other projects on the agenda, there was a covey of engineers and contractors.
Commissioner Amyx asked about the timeline and the disruption factor in various parts of town because of the construction.
Philip Ciesielski, Assistant Director of Utilities, said the timeline ran through the final phase of 2010. It would take them from the Kansas River east of the downtown area on to 23rd and O’Connell. Starting this year, staff anticipated kicking off the design phase, construction of the first phase during 2008 simultaneously with that constructional design to design the second phase and continue to leapfrog design/construction combined.
He said regarding disruption, this route was chosen to minimize disruption to developed areas. The original layout in the master plan, they needed water from the Kaw Water Treatment Plant at 3rd and Indiana across to the southeast area, showed a route south through the downtown and as part of the study phase staff looked at several alternative routes. In the cost estimates, they were able to procure more waterline infrastructure as opposed to paying for restorations and disturbances through the developed part of town. They were skirting the peripheral of the City limit and the developed area of North Lawrence. He said as they came south of the river, they anticipated being somewhere on the western property line of the Farmland Property as they came down to 23rd and O’Connell.
Wagner said regarding the 4th phase, staff had not decided on timing or delivery. He said what was being discussed were the 3 phases to get to the 23rd Street area and eventually it needed to be decided how to get south of the Wakarusa River.
b. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a design/build services contract with the design/build team of CAS Construction Professional Engineering Consultants in the amount of $3,908,000.00 for the construction of the West Baldwin Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Project in accordance with the recommendations in the 2003 Wastewater Master plan.
Corliss said item B was deferred. Vice Mayor Dever, Commissioner Amyx, and Commissioner Amyx, all had questions had questions about costs and staff would supply that information to the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Dever said he wanted to make sure whatever documentation could be made available to the public in assessing this unique approach to building this project. He said it was hard to grasp the size of this project without something to look at.
Commissioner Amyx said in the City Manager’s Report, regarding the sanitary sewer report for Alvamar and the cost of $240.00 a linear foot compared to this particular site of $282.00 a square foot, he wanted to see reasons for the difference in costs.
Commissioner Chestnut said when he went through the CAS Construction memo that talked about calculating linear foot on some other projects and went from the actual cost to some sort of cost to an extrapolated cost and made that comparison, it was hard to determine how they got to that and there was probably a lot more granularity on how that came together.
c. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the design/build team of CAS Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants, in the amount of $935,000.00 for the preliminary design and development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price to construct the conveyance system to the new 7.0 MGD Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WWRF).
d. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the design/build team of Black & Veatch/Garney Joint Venture, in the amount of $2,465,000.00 for the preliminary design and development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price to construct the new 7.0 MGD BNR Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WWRF) and improvements to the Four Seasons Pump Station and Excess Flow Storage Facility.
David Corliss, City Manager, said the next two projects related to the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and were design/build projects in which the City Commission waived the bidding requirements under Charter Ordinance 19 to allow staff to proceed. He said it was important to understand as they started this process the City was paying the consultants to do a certain level of design work and obtaining quotes from all the different subcontractors that would be involved in the project. Staff already received direction from the City Commission to maximize local participation. As staff looked at the quotes that came back from the various vendors and subcontractors, staff would analyze that data and the Commission would be able to see percentages from the vendors and contracts, who was offered the opportunity to quote, and the selection. He said staff would need to determine if they would accept the guaranteed maximum price in a matter of several weeks after the data was analyzed.
David Wagner, Director of Utilities, said that was obviously one of the things of concern. He said with the highly volatile commodities costs seen in materials as well as energy, staff needed to make sure they realized the limits of the guaranteed maximum price. It was also one of the advantages in the process selected to deliver in that it could take some of those into account and hopefully pay for what they get as opposed to someone’s future concept of what it would cost in the future.
Commissioner Highberger said one of the contracts was $935,000 and the other was $2,400,000. He asked if it was typical percentage of the project cost for this stage of a design/ build because it seemed like a lot of money for this phase.
Wagner said staff looked at that specifically when looking at the estimates and the cost of the development of the GMP. He knew there was a lot of work done in looking at the details and how that compared and the relative complexity of the jobs as well as the background work they already did on the projects. On the percentage basis, when looking at the 2.465% it was lighter than what was seen in the past for that project because a lot of background work had been completed. The property acquisition was already complete. He said with the CAS Construction and PEC project, property had not been procured and a lot of their effort was to help support that property acquisition effort in the field.
e. Consider setting a bid opening date of December 11, 2007 for the Stoneridge Elevated Water Storage Tank Project (Utilities Project No. 6CP-906).
David Corliss, City Manager, said a public meeting had been conducted where staff invited area residents. One of the dominant concerns was the look of the project and the project would be an expense. He said this project was an important aspect as the community continued to grow west, to make sure there was adequate water and water pressure in this area.
Philip Ciesielski, Assistant Director of Utilities, said a public meeting was held in the design phase.
Mary Baker, Project Engineer, said 40 invitations were distributed and two members of the press show up where they were given an explanation of all the technical aspects such as draining a water tank into a water pipe line.
Ciesielski said staff provided an update for the City Manager’s Report about the style of construction. He said a sign had been posted since the City purchased the property which indicated that area was a future site for an elevated storage tank.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if there was a reason why they were switching designs.
Baker said typically it was bidding and less expensive. Historically, it was neck in neck with the other type of appropriate design for that size of a tank. The City liked the particular composite design because they only had to repaint the bowl and not the bowl and column. The column was designed to place another pump station at that location and offices could be built in that area and when they were looking at about the same costs, it would be a little bit cheaper.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dever, seconded by Highberger, to authorize Staff to negotiate a contract for design and construction phase engineering services for Phase I of the Kaw Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main to the Southeast Lawrence Area. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the design/build team of CAS Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants, in the amount of $935,000.00 for the preliminary design and development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price to construct the conveyance system to the new 7.0 MGD BNR Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WWRF). Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut to Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the design/build team of Black & Veatch/Garney Joint Venture, in the amount of $2,465,000.00 for the preliminary design and development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price to construct the new 7.0 MGD BNR Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WWRF) and improvements to the Four Seasons Pump Station and Excess Flow Storage Facility. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Dever, to set a bid opening date of December 11, 2007 for the Stoneridge Elevated Water Storage Tank Project (Utilities Project No. 6CP-906). Motion carried unanimously. (27)
Consider initiating various items pertaining to the Lawrence SmartCode.
Dan Warner, Planner, said staff was asking the City Commissioners to initiate three items, all relating to the SmartCode. He said there would be two comprehensive plan amendments, one to create Chapter 15 which would put the relevant comprehensive plan policy in place to support the SmartCode and also amending Chapter 14 to include a reference to a Lawrence SmartCode Infill Plan which included some of the areas that Placemakers had designed for potential redevelopment to create a plan so those areas could then be developed with the SmartCode. Also, initiate a text amendment which was the SmartCode itself. He said if they ultimately went down this path and created the SmartCode as a parallel optional code for development, that code would be created by ordinance in Chapter 21 of the City Code.
He said he was working on a revised draft and taking some effort to button that draft down to make sure details were corrected. He said staff intended to take those items to the Planning Commission in December for introduction and for public hearings in January. A new draft would be available within a week.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there would be any work, at some point, to harmonize the other chapters of Horizon 2020 with the SmartCode.
Warner said staff could put forth effort on that idea. He said when staff asked the consultant to prepare the TND Chapter staff received a good report on what was in the comprehensive plan and what was needed.
David Corliss, City Manager, said the SmartCode provision was viewed as an alternative to the existing development code. It was not mandatory and staff did not plan on it being an alternative code.
Commissioner Highberger asked at what point they would weigh in as a Commission to where it would be mandatory in certain areas or completely optional.
Corliss said they would be able to weigh in on it when they received the Planning Commissioners recommendations, but if the Commission wanted to do that now, it would be appropriate as well. The earlier Commission discussion on this issue, in the past, was that it would be viewed as an alternative code and would not be if they wanted to develop this piece of property, they would have to follow the SmartCode and would be along the lines of an alternative means of development. One of the issues discussed at a staff level was if there would be any incentives for use of the SmartCode. Administrative incentives were discussed and other types of incentives regarding what uses could be done on the property otherwise, but that had not been resolved.
Commissioner Chestnut said he was interested in how this entire thing integrated. He said if they had SmartCode development that went adjacent with development that was in line with the City’s current code, he asked how that came together when talking about turning radiuses to make it merge together. It would be also be good to have some options in terms of adoption alternatives because, at some point, they had to figure how to meld it together. He would also like to see a time line from kicking this off through the Planning Commission and what the public process would be.
Mayor Hack said her estimate would be the first quarter of 2008.
Corliss said in staff’s long march of the development code, its adoption, and the many amendments, they had concerns when they went down this path with the consultant in getting a product and if it would be sufficiently tailored for the City’s use. Staff was still in that process from when they received that document this year to further tailor it. It would be difficult to marry up the different documents, but staff would do it.
Mayor Hack said an incredible amount of staff time had been devoted to get the City to this point. Staff would be looking at the whole idea of transition areas between the current code and how they moved to this code. Staff’s recommendation, all along, was to not make it a parallel code and not required, but they could have that conversation. They could have incentive issues that could encourage development of the TND in some areas. Those were things that would come out as it came through the Planning process and Planning Commission. The Commission’s responsibility was to launch the code from where it was now toward the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Kirk McClure, Lawrence, said they were asked this evening to initiate a process to adopt this poorly named SmartCode. He was speaking only to the process and it was extremely poor. There were repeated public requests to see what responses happened in the development of the SmartCode and were rebuffed by staff. They had also been rebuffed by PlaceMakers, but he did not expect to be treated nicely by PlaceMakers because they were a consultant. He expected to be treated nicely by the staff of City Hall. He said they were assured the SmartCode was changing, but in fact the public could not see those changes. He said perhaps the City Commission had seen these changes, and if so why had the public not been able to see the version of SmartCode as it stood now. If the Commission had not seen the changes, he asked why the Commission would take the steps to initiate a process to adopt this code that had not been seen. The SmartCode was going to the Planning Commission in December and they were already past the deadline for normal submission of materials. He said those were long documents and many members of the public had put in long hours working collectively with PlaceMakers and working individually with PlaceMakers. Many had studied those documents and written at length, asked numerous questions, and received virtually nothing by way of response. If the public was truly to be part of the process, they needed some demonstration of that happening. It reflected badly on the Planning staff, City Hall in general, City government, and exacerbates the image of secrecy in government that now pervaded the way they were operating in Lawrence. He recommended stopping the misnamed SmartCode dead in its tracks right now. The process was fatally flawed and to send this only weeks from now to the Planning Commission with only the vague promise they would be able to see the document in a week or two was unacceptable.
Commissioner Amyx said he would like a response to why staff had not answered questions.
Corliss asked if it was accurate staff did not have a revised version of the code yet.
Warner said staff had a draft that had been online for quite some time and was working on a revised draft right now. He had a couple of different e-mails explaining that to McClure. He said he had mentioned earlier that he was trying to button that code down and get the details sorted out. Staff was working on another draft and would post that draft in about a week.
Corliss asked if it was true for the text amendments to Horizon 2020.
Warner said those drafts were not currently posted online, but were available and would be posted all together.
Corliss said the issue before the City Commission was if they wanted to initiate something not seen. He said the Commission had seen the original of the SmartCode, but Warner would make additional changes. He asked if there was any reason why the Planning Commission could not simply talk about the code, but not formally initiate anything until after the public and the City Commission reviewed the entire code.
Warner said it was a timeline issue.
Mayor Hack asked when initiating something, she asked if the process began when working through the Planning Commission and moved to the next step with the public having continued chances.
Warner said this was a technical matter and they could not hold public meetings on those items unless the Planning or County Commissions initiated those items and staff was asking the City Commission to initiate that process.
Mayor Hack said it seemed logical to get it started.
Corliss asked if staff could ask the Planning Commission in December to initiate it.
Warner said yes.
Corliss asked if there was a legal requirement for the submission of that material now.
Warner said no, staff was in front of the timeline for December submittals.
Corliss said McClure had a point about not being able to see something ahead of time. He said staff should get that right.
Mayor Hack said the assumption that this Smartcode issue was done in secret was an inaccurate comment.
Warner said that statement was not accurate at all.
Mayor Hack said it was not the way City staff or the City Commission operated and it was not fair.
Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, said this issue had a lot of discussion in the public in terms of introducing it to the Planning Commission, holding charrettes, and having PlaceMakers consultants available. He said because Warner had seen the SmartCode in its draft form, he asked if there was a outline of some of those revisions staff had been working on, in general, that would help someone understand that staff had not drastically changed the SmartCode from how everyone knew it.
Warner said most of what had been changed recently related to process and ensuring proper subdivision language in this code. He said staff was treating it as a parallel development code and staff needed to make sure there was proper subdivision language and had been working out how the rezoning process was going to work. It was coming down to a lot of technical things. Staff wanted to make sure there was a code that went from A to B to C to be able to pull a building permit.
Vice Mayor Dever said they had this matter on public record that McClure believed the City Commission was not being a responsive City government or to the public. He asked how the City Commission could respond because if it was problem perceived by McClure there were probably other people that felt the same way. He asked how would staff respond and do a better job in the future.
Warner said for the immediate problem, staff would get a draft out as soon as possible and make that available. In the future, he said he responded to e-mails and kept communications open and was not sure other than waiting on that draft.
Commissioner Highberger said he assumed that in accordance with past practice there would be a summary of revisions made that came with the new draft.
Warner said yes and hoped the timeline would be about a week.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the Planning Commission would see the draft code in December.
Warner said staff intended introducing and discussing the code with the Planning Commission. The issue was to meet the filing deadlines for December. He said if the issue was pushed back, staff would need to wait until January.
Mayor Hack said this item could be deferred until next week. She asked if the draft would be ready for next week.
Corliss said next week meant tomorrow to post on the agenda for next week’s meeting.
Warner said staff could come back to the City Commission with the draft in early December.
Mayor Hack said staff would be okay for the filing in January and would defer the item until early December.
The City Commission deferred this item until early December.
Provide direction to staff on the following future agenda items:
a) Sales tax options.
David Corliss, City Manager, said staff’s intent was to try and capture all of the information requested by City Commission about procedure for sales tax and staff provided a recommendation. It should not be surprising that staff wanted to maximize the revenue because there were many needs. There had been some City Commission discussion about using some of the funds for open space acquisition and also talked about economic development infrastructure. Staff used the $6 million with the half cent for an example and took $500,000 for economic development infrastructure, $500,000 for open space following the ECO2 principles and following the needs staff thought was important. That provided $5 million for additional street projects. They could then go from that number and change it with a 5 year or 10 year sunset and see all of the different options that were set out.
One of the issues staff continued to talk to the City Commission about was the service level for street maintenance. He said substantial progress had been made in that area as far as being able to tell the Commission where staff was with their pavement condition index and making progress in maintaining city streets.
He said there were also questions about process and staff supplied information about mail ballot elections.
Commissioner Amyx said he appreciated staff’s work regarding sales tax options and the amount of work that could be completed in this community for infrastructure. He said a lot could be told about a community by its level of the streets and sidewalks. He said there had been discussion about whether the City would take responsibility of sidewalks and if the City would be able to assist individuals who could not pay for repair of broken sidewalks. He said it was important to help get past that curve before some of the city streets get so far behind that the City could not afford to repair those streets. He said if the City Commission was going to ask the public for permission to increase sales tax, he thought everything needed to be laid out. As for economic development, he thought the Farmland property was extremely important to future economic development in this community because it would be a big project. He said regarding open space, he asked where the financial stream was going to come from.
Corliss said staff struggled when putting this information together about the level of specificity. Right now staff did not know which streets would be milled and overlaid and micro-surfaced next year. City staff had a good idea of which streets, but would wait for the freeze thaw cycle of the winter to tell staff where their highest priorities were. They also knew in asking the public for additional money, the best specificity was the best sell so the public knew what they were going to fix and build. Staff could pick out streets, but that might not be the wisest decision. Staff could make a guess, but he did not think that was needed.
Mayor Hack asked about how valuable the Capital Improvement Plan was in this type of analysis.
Corliss said the Capital Improvement Plan listed all new projects and the Capital Improvement Debt Plan included some mill and overlay. Unless staff was doing reconstruction, like Kasold, they really did not have that in the CIP. It was not maintenance, but more a listing of projects that were new or major reconstruction.
Mayor Hack asked if staff had information in the pavement management plan.
Corliss said yes, every street had a PCI and staff knew its classification and history. He said staff was much better off than a few years ago as far as being able to categorize and prioritize how staff wanted to spend those funds because of its limited resources. He said staff tried to give an estimate to the amount of streets and as they kept building the report, staff could show a list of streets of likely candidates.
Commissioner Amyx said as a voter and taxpayer, what was important to people was where their street fell into the scheme or the streets they mostly traveled.
Mayor Hack said she agreed. Some of the immediate specifics were going to become more obvious in March and April.
Commissioner Amyx said the only question he had was the timing of the election. He said if the City was to hold a special election in an August timeframe with the primary election for state offices, he asked what needed to be done if they were going to make an adjustment to the budget in 2009.
Corliss said yes the budget would allow them to do it. If they had a new revenue source they were allowed to go through a process of the budget to reflect that.
Commissioner Amyx said he believed it should start at the beginning of a calendar year with a new budget. He said the Commission would be asking the public to approve the sales tax and if they were fortunate to have it in August and collected it for three or four months, he did not want it to be a double dipping thing. They would make the changes necessary in the 2009 budget when those items were approved.
Corliss said an election could take place at a certain time as long as state law allowed, but there were certain windows when an election could not take place. He said an election could not take place in front of a general election, but that was why they wanted elections to take place with the general election. The general election of November of next year was when people would be voting for President and other offices and that was a time an election could take place with the most impact as far as participation at the polls. The mail ballot election was something else to consider as well. They could have an election and then have some ability of when the tax would come into place. An ordinance had to be adopted and then the ordinance had to be certified to the Department of Revenue.
Commissioner Amyx said he wanted to make sure staff was not forgetting needs in other places also. If the City was going to be looking at $5 million in infrastructure improvements, it was a whole lot of street work. He asked if it was too much in one year.
Chuck Soules, Director of the Public Works Department, said it was a lot of work. He said staff could handle it, but was concerned about getting contractors geared up to do that much work. He said other contractors from the Kansas City area would probably bid for some of those projects. It would be a nice challenge.
Corliss said if forty miles of overlay was completed, that would be five times what was currently done now.
Mayor Hack said they would include curb and gutter and many other things.
Soules said this year it was a bit of a challenge because of huge staff turnovers such as a new City Engineer and Assistant Public Works Director right at the first of the year. Now there was a project engineer, City engineer and were properly staffed up now. Staff could probably accomplish a lot more than what they had time to prepare for last year for this year.
Commissioner Amyx asked if they could plan around 40 miles of roadwork.
Dena Mezger, Assistant Public Works Director, said the bigger challenge was if the public could tolerate that level of construction. It would take a great deal of planning as to where they were working so as not to shut down one area of the City or main arterials at the same time. The challenge was how those projects would be phased and located so the tolerance was acceptable. She thought staff could perform that amount of work. She said to put together a package for 10 miles versus 20 miles for maintenance was not incredibly different as far as putting it out to bid. She thought there were a lot of contractors that if there were bigger projects available staff would see more competitors come into town. If the competitors were outside of Lawrence, unless it was a big enough project, it was not very economically feasible for those competitors to come in to another community. She said if there was a large enough program, it became economically feasible and the competitiveness might work to the City’s favor in terms of getting good bid prices, as long as oil prices did not get too high. The bigger challenge was to plan a program the public could deal with driving around, living around, and commuting through. She said that would be the bigger challenge by increasing by 150% of what was done every year.
Commissioner Amyx said staff had an opportunity to chime in on what would be a more acceptable level of those annual improvements and in getting those projects completed in a timely fashion. He said it might not be an additional 5 million dollars, but 4 or 3 million dollars.
Commissioner Highberger said he saw the need for the projects. It would be nice to get the roads to a place where they would get the maximum amount of return for the amount to spend on repairs. He said his concern about the sales tax proposals was the regressive nature of the City‘s local tax structure. He said by his calculation if you were a lower income household in this town, they were spending 2% or even more of the household income on city taxes right now, and was dramatically less than those in the upper brackets. He said he was not going to stand opposed to moving forward with this, but before moving forward with this, he would like them to investigate some other revenue sources that were less regressive. He said all taxes and fees right now hit lower income people disproportionately hard. He did not want to balance the City’s budget with poor people’s grocery money. He said the City needed to do all it could to find some other alternative sources of revenue that made the tax structure more fair before adding on more sales tax.
He said he talked to John Nalbandian who indicated there was an expert in Municipal Finance on his staff that would be happy to talk to the City Commission. He said given what was on the books currently, other than the intangibles tax, he did not see a lot of options. He said impact fees were something that needed to be addressed, but beyond that without some type of legislative change, he did not see any options. He said it was indicated that Arizona had an innovative program where there was a surcharge on the state income tax which was refunded back to municipalities.
Mayor Hack addressed Commissioner Highberger’s comments about impact fees. She said the idea of impact fees have been out there for a year now. They had some information on how other communities were doing this. They talked yesterday in the agenda meeting about setting up some time in January to dive into the issue of excise taxes and impact fees because the unknown was scarier to folks in the development community than the known and as they continued to talk, she did not think there was as much with parameters. She said they would continue to have that conversation. She believed they either needed to have a discussion or close the door on it because it had been hanging out there for too long and they had to come to grips with it.
Commissioner Chestnut said what Commissioner Highberger highlights was somewhat of a two part discussion. Part one was if they came up with some level of percentage, how would it be allocated, and part two was what was the source of it. He agreed in principle with the recommendation of the dispersion of revenue, as far as the bulk of it. One thing that was a big issue in this community and talked about for a long time was walkability of neighborhoods and they have had a lot of challenges with it. They had to address it in this initiative. He did not know about the maintenance, but knew about the gaps. They needed to start looking at projects in rank order based on the index that they do and get a sense of the cut off line. The community could know how it would impact them as they were going around the City. He thought it would be helpful but did not know if they could make that commitment because over the next five to ten years there was no way to predict what was going to happen. He thought based on the information they had now, it would be helpful on what dent that would make and give a visual of that. There had been some comments on economic development and open space and it was imperative to be part of it because they have talked about a number of different initiatives.
He agreed with Commissioner Highberger that they had to look at the total pie and he realize that some state and local taxes in particular were not designed to be progressive. They had significant progressiveness in other taxes and those taxes helped this community in such that about half the total funding came from progressive, federal and state taxes. The intangibles tax took into consideration social security payments which to him was difficult to swallow because it put the senior citizens in a situation where they would be taxed three times on the same dollar. They needed to look at as many possible alternatives and simply have that dialogue.
Vice Mayor Dever said he had mixed feedback from citizens about a sales tax. He said he heard some people say they would pay extra because they wanted to see the improvements and he had some people say no. He thought ultimately any discussion of a sales tax increase need to be accompanied by an internal assessment on how they were spending the dollars they had. He said a clear and concise assessment of what they were doing with the money they had now was important so people could see how well they were doing or where they could do better. He thought they should make sure they were spending what they had as efficiently as they could and if they could prove that to the public, any increase would be well received and would pass. He thought the discussion on how to spend the money, ultimately the voters were going to make this decision and would like to have some money to help do some things in this community, but was concerned they were taxing people to a level that was difficult and wanted to make sure they were spending the money wisely. Ultimately, if they were going to have this conversation, they needed to make sure the City could share that information with the public as well.
Mayor Hack said one of the things that may help will be the hiring of the Auditor position. She thought having a review of their efficiencies would make sure they were doing the best they could for the tax dollars and assure the public the same way. Some of the questions that were generated by the memo were certainly questions about the process. She would hate to put something on the ballot standing by itself and costing money to do that when they could delay it for three or four months and put it in August. It gave them a chance to partner with an election that was already there and gave them a chance to let them know exactly what they want it to cover. It also gave staff a priority list that they had been talking about. She said her preference was for an August primary election date. She said she agreed with Commissioner Chestnut that they talk about the school district with its bond issue showing the parents of the various schools what actually was going to happen with the schools and what improvements were needed and what improvements would be made. She thought if they could make the connection that it was better for everyone the community would approve it. She thought the sidewalk connectivity was really important and gave them an opportunity to investigate green options and more pervious surface. It was a little more expensive but the maintenance was not as much. There were some opportunities to look at some unique ways to provide that connectivity to that community and that was what they wanted to have. She appreciated the economic development infrastructure because they were continually confronted with the idea that they did not have enough inventories and if companies did not have a place to go, they were not coming. It allowed them to hopefully change that ratio of residential property tax to more on the industrial property tax. They wanted to look at some quality of life issues and thinking about the open space, she hoped they could collaborate with the County. She did not know if the County wanted to provide an additional $500,000 a year as well, but they had to look at ways to collaborate on open space with the County. They wanted to know who would own it and maintain it. Putting this on the August ballot would give them a little bit more time to do that. The issue of athletic facilities for kids in their community, they needed to look at wellness issues with the kids. That was where the connectivity and sidewalk gap came in. If there was anything they could do with the wellness program and facilities, it concerned the community as well. They also needed to collaborate with the school district on something like that and they were prepared for some facility conversations. She thought they had time but maybe it gave a framework to begin doing some conversation. She said her preference was for a half cent for 10 years and look and see at the end of that time maybe they renew it or maybe they do not. She thought it was an exciting opportunity to talk about jumpstarting the community from an economic standpoint as well as some of the facility standpoint from this point.
Corliss said they could respond to the questions posed. He said as far as putting this on a future agenda, they would provide responses to the questions they had. They could try and find a City Commission meeting where they could put this at the front and not have too much else so they could look at a number of options and see which had the majority support.
Commissioner Chestnut said one thing they needed to have was a realistic assessment of whether they can do all of these projects. The worst case scenario would be they would get the allocation and end up with a huge backlog. A realistic assessment of a number of contractors they could work with could automatically correlate with people they were used to dealing with and confidence in their quality of work. It would give them a comfort level saying if it was an allocation of $3 or $5 million it would be the will of the City Commission but if it was not a practical or achievable type of goal and how much disruption it had to the public, it might be a threshold in that range.
Commissioner Highberger said it seemed to him it would be an option if they were not generating more revenue than they could reasonably put on streets in a given year that they could create a reserve fund for some of the rebuild projects.
Commissioner Amyx said one of the reasons he brought infrastructure up and the improvements to these roadways was because the biggest thing he did not want to do was continue to borrow money to put asphalt on roads. It did not make sense to him. He said when it was the only option that’s what they had to do, but they made commitments to make infrastructure improvements and if they were going to continue to do it they could not do it without additional funds.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
David Smith, Grassroots Action, said he was present to oppose the idea of raising the sales tax. He said sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor. They were a classically regressive tax and they had a choice between progressive taxation and regressive taxation. Progressive taxes were intended to be equitable and distribute the tax burden on everyone. Regressive taxes do not have that virtue. It sounded like they were talking about a small tax when the phrase a half cent was used. In reality, the sales tax proposal they were primarily considering, was a half cent sales tax increase which would be a 7% sales tax increase. It was 7% more for groceries and all the basic necessities that were paid for by the poor. Crumbling sidewalks were a big problem in Lawrence but poverty was a big problem as well. When they talked about poverty they were talking about the typical low income family, which was a single mother with two children and elderly and their fixed incomes. Two years ago, the City of Lawrence reduced the mill levy on property taxes significantly. Two years later they were talking about a significant increase in the sales taxes. Property taxes were paid by property owners, mainly middle and upper income citizens whose concerns were valid. If they have reduced the mill levy on property taxes and now two years later they were talking about raising new revenue, a classically regressive sales tax, then what they were in the process of doing was shifting from a more equitable tax to a less equitable tax. They were taxing the poor to pay for what the community needed. They had a choice and did not have to tax people regressively and did not have to tax the poor.
Commissioner Chestnut said he went back and looked at the 2005 budget when the mill levy was decreased and one of the comments on the front page was it was based on the assessed valuation of taxable property. Assessed valuations and the numbers were then relatively reasonable at least as he remembered off the top of his head but have gone up in the last four or five years at a rate between 5 – 8%, which meant there had been a significant increase in property tax for property owners in the City of Lawrence. He said he agreed the mill levy went down at that time, but it was a recognition in the budget that they were seeing property taxes go up at two or three times the rate of inflation and were trying to mitigate that.
Jonathan Douglass said they prepared a couple of alternative decision trees. The timelines were geared to a November 2008 election and could be adjusted if they wanted to shoot for an election on a public vote for a new library or incrementally funding the present library. The first proposal was if the City Commission wanted to significantly increase expenditures on the library at this time. It was a question that would have to be addressed in any of the scenarios they look at. The second scenario they looked at some policy questions first, namely whether downtown redevelopment was an important consideration. If it was, it eliminated branch libraries as an option and from there it proceeded similarly to a decision tree.
Commissioner Amyx said they had the opportunity to talk about the possibility of a new library before. There had been a lot of work done by the board, Bruce Flanders and all kinds of people involved with the library. The Chair of the Library Board Trustees sent a letter that talked about a couple of things they were asking the City Commission to do. It talked about a fall back position they may want to direct staff to send the decision tree to the library board for their input, but the real decision was if they were a go or no go at this point. He said if they decided to move forward with a public vote, the Board would be delighted but if they chose otherwise it was really a decision of not yet. One of the things they had been hit with over the last year, was a lot of big projects. They were looking at all kinds of things and could not afford to get in on all of these. He was not stepping away from the library, but would have to make decisions on all kinds of things coming up and the Commission had to be able to rank them and give time to get involved if they were going to get involved. He said they needed to be big people and say yes or no to a lot of things. He said he did not think they could afford to get a new library yet and could not say when they would be able to. He had to look at it realistically and did not know what that ranking would be. He said at this point, they could not do it yet.
Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Amyx. There might even be the possibility of moving forward with a bond issue or something to build a new library. What scared her was putting the responsibility of operations and maintenance on future budget decisions. They knew those were going to be huge. It did not mean they did not believe the library was incredibly important, and she would not support satellite libraries. She could not rationalize spending that much money on areas that would essentially deplete the interest downtown. She thought satellite libraries would have a detrimental effect to downtown. In the absence of a newer library, she would like them to consider what they could do to help the library come up to the quality of library this community deserved. Given that right now was not the time for a full blown library, they had things they could do and some costs that could help them get through. She said one of the faults was they did their jobs too well because it was a very successful library and knew it could be better and suffered from lack of funds. She thought they had been putting this off because they were trying to figure out a way to have that happen and did not see it happening right now.
Vice Mayor Dever said he supported incremental funding at the library at this time because it was not a good time to talk about spending more money and were doing a lot of bonding lately. He was concerned about continuing that trend. He said at this point he would vote for incremental funding.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not think the status quo was acceptable and they were asking far too much from the library staff. They started the library board on this path four years ago and have not provided the support and leadership they should have. He thought it was lack of sales tax vote or whatever mechanism they chose to finance this, it needed to go to public vote. He thought they should move forward with this and let the people tell them if they wanted to move forward or not. He understood they had to make choices and the budget situation was not going to get prettier in the next couple of years. He said the library was a community center and strengthening downtown was one of those goals and thought it fit all together and would like to see them move forward.
Mayor Hack asked how they would do that as a community to provide for the following years and if there were provisions in bond issues that said they would agree to be taxed over the next 20 years.
Corliss said they could draft a bond resolution that would ask the voters to authorize the issuance of bonds and they would be general obligation bonds. They could also ask to authorize a certain mill levy to support the library. The library was at about 3.2 mills now and there was a Charter Ordinance that had a cap. They could put that amended Charter Ordinance on the ballot with an increase of mill levy and put it on the ballot. The bill that came from the County Treasurer would show the City portion and would still get the good and bad comments about whether or not the increase in mill levy was an important policy decision.
He thought Commissioner Amyx made an inquiry if they had the funds for this or what their budget held. He continued to follow the budget goals he outlined in creating the 2008 budget, which was moving toward equilibrium of revenues and expenditures, paying attention to infrastructure, making progress on economic development so they could grow their tax base, and if they had a comfort level to pay attention to all of those but not necessarily including all of those, they could then focus on the quality of life issues. They were making progress on some of those, but had to monitor all of them. It had been their budget philosophy they were trying to follow.
Mayor Hack asked if they could pull together what a bond issue might look like for the $20 million and operation costs and what the mill levy would look like.
Corliss said it would probably be 1.5 mills for 20 years and 3.2 mills was the current cost of the maintenance of the library. If they doubled square footage, they might not have to double the entire amount, but rounding it would be 6 mills to operate. The Board made strong points about how they were under funded now. There might be opportunities to push those costs off onto a public/private project.
Commissioner Amyx asked if they would be making the mill levy one third of what the mill levy would be.
Corliss said yes.
Commissioner Amyx said he would like to have a list of other items they were currently considering of things they were going to have to say not yet to. He thought there were a lot of big projects out there. They were looking at requests for an industrial park in the north and other big projects around town. They could tell those people not yet also. He said there were a lot of things such as he felt a direct responsibility to the police and firefighters and things they had to have out on the streets and things they needed to have to carry out functions. Times were not the best right now and they had to make sure they were making the smartest decisions on these dollars. He said they should pick the ones they could do and tell everyone else they had to get in line. If they were going to look at it in a comprehensive way they had to get it all on the table.
Mayor Hack said the key was to increase the revenue stream by some sort of tax or increasing the industrial base that paid a better rate than residential. To do that, they would need to make an investment in this community to make that happen.
Corliss said if they wanted to go back and look at the study session from April 24th when they did the infrastructure audit on needs they had. They were making some progress on some of those items, but were not making substantial progress to solve those items. He said those needs were there and they would continue to work on them.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with three City Commissioners about not yet. He thought one of the things that came to mind was the fact that when they started this process all the way back to the time that Vice Mayor Dever and he were inaugurated they talked about the sales tax initiative and at that time they were proposing something that included the library. They went back and concluded that 1% was too high. To some extent he agreed with Commissioner Highberger about the fact that the facilities were not acceptable but the street grid and sidewalk grid were acceptable either. It really came down to priorities and the maintenance of the streets and the walk ability of the sidewalks had to stand in front of amenity projects that were worthy in the community and at some point they needed to try and see what they could do. The concern he had in putting a street maintenance/sidewalk initiative in conjunction with the library was they had a responsibility to make a choice on those priorities. It was always difficult to allocate scarce resources, but wanted to keep the dialogue open. He thought it might create opportunities that may present themselves in the near future that could change the dynamic of this. He said it would be difficult for him to support something that included operating and maintenance costs that were in a bond issue because at some point they were deferring a problem for a future commission because it transferred to the operating fund. Part of their financial situation now had been created by great things they needed, which was SROs and the Police Department that started as federal programs, went for three to five years, and at some point they had to fund them internally and had a significant amount of allocation they had to make because they were programs they needed. It was tough to make those transitions. One big problem for him was how the operating costs would double and how they would manage that, which he could not come up with a good answer for.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Mayor Hack said it sounded like the majority of the Commission would answer the decision tree with not yet. There might be some opportunities with downtown development that could be offered up to help some of the issues.
Bruce Flanders, Library Director said he wanted to thank the work done on the decision trees. They were useful because when he first looked at them and the major question was if the City Commission was able under the current scenario to commit substantial new funding to the library. He said they respected the City Commission’s decision and would report back to the Library Board about looking at ways to incrementally improve the library and suggestions they could bring in the 2009 budget process. They were committed to providing the best service they could with the resources they had and stretching those as far as they could. They were in this for the long haul and would be back when the timing was right. They would keep the dialogue open so they could determine when that time would be.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Moved by Dever, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk