December 4, 2007
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:40 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Hack presiding and members Amyx, Dever, Chestnut and Highberger present.
It was then moved by Amyx, second by Chestnut, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purpose of discussing possible acquisition of real estate. The justification is to keep possible terms and conditions of a possible acquisition confidential at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 6:10 p.m. at which time it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to extend the executive session for 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 6:15 p.m. at which time the Commission took a 20 minute break. The regular session resumed at 6:35 p.m.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION
With Commission approval Mayor Hack recognized Trent McKinley for 8 years of service on the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from November 13th, 2007, and November 20th, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve claims to 446 vendors in the amount of $1,048,800.98 and longevity in the amount of $380,727.85. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for The Granada, 1020 Massachusetts; It’s Brothers Grill & Bar, 1105 Massachusetts; Latino Si, 508 Locust; Quinton’s Bar & Deli, 615 Massachusetts; WA Restaurant, 740 Massachusetts; Local Burger, 714 Vermont; and India Palace, 129 East 10th. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Captain Michael Pattrick, Lawrence Police Department, to the Northeast Kansas Homeland Security Council, to serve a minimum of two years beginning on January 1, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Restroom and Shelter Cleaning for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Jani-King of Kansas City $4,788.00
Smart Building Service $11,720.00
Nelson Property Management $12,951.34
Lawrence Janitorial Service $16,500.00
Bob’s Janitorial $25,536.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to award the bid to Jani-King of Kansas City in the amount of $4,788.00. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Downtown Debris Cleaning for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Lawrence Janitorial Service $3,420.00
Smart Building Service $7,978.00
Jani-King of Kansas City $24,416.00
Bob’s Janitorial $39,458.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to award the bid to Smart Building Service in the amount of $7,978.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for security service for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Jani-King of Kansas City $7,000.00
Smart Building Service $10,738.00
Nelson Property Management $11,583.00
Mil-Spec Security $12,000.00
Bob’s Janitorial $23,016.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to award the bid to Jani-King of Kansas City, in the amount of 7,000. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8211 authorizing the codification of the general ordinances of the City. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 8198, an ordinance providing for the rezoning of approximately 3.3 acres (Z-09-22-07) from RSO to RMO, located at the Summer Tree Apartments at the southeast and southwest corners of Eldridge Street and W. 6th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to receive proposal from Lawrence Freenet regarding a bus tracking/route planning system and advertising on buses and shelters. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve relocation and Reimbursement Agreement in the amount of $333,000 with Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. for gas line relocations at the airport to accommodate improvements to the runway safety area. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to execute an Extension of Lease Agreement with The Shelter, Inc., extending the current lease from January 2008 through January 2013. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said downtown holiday decoration efforts by City Departments in cooperation with Downtown Lawrence, Inc. had taken place; the Aquatic Center continued to be nationally recognized in “Public Management” Magazine; staff was planning and implementing the Intelligent Transportation System Architecture plan. He said there were funds available through KDOT for installation of the fiber optic which could help maximize traffic flow on 6th Street.
The Public Works Department had provided vehicle purchasing information. Last year the City Commission had staff change their practices on cooperatively purchasing vehicles and in the past they participated in a Kansas City area regional cooperative for bidding. One of the advantages, was staff felt they received superior pricing quotes. One of the disadvantages was by aggregating all of those bids the local vendors were not financially able to participate. Staff went back to individual bids. Staff was not excluding who could bid, but were not joining the cooperative bidding process. Sometimes someone in Johnson County would get the bid because they were the lowest responsible bidder.
Also, he said staff pursued the purchase of a motorcar in which the Sustainability Advisability Board took a look the motorcar and gave positive feedback on the acquisition of the motorcar. They thought it would be an economical purchase and that it would not cost them as much to maintain and fuel this vehicle. They also thought it had a good environmental aspect to it as well. It was a lot smaller carbon footprint than the large pick up truck that it was going to take out of commission. They would see it used by the parking control officers in the downtown area.
He said the rest of the report highlighted a number of planners that received the AICP recognition. Also, a number of hours went in to plans for training seminar regarding the City’s switch to the I Codes. The first seminar was full and 200 individuals would be at that learning about the transition to the I Codes. They would not be having any inspection services that day because that was where the inspectors would be. (9)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive report from Kansas Turnpike Authority regarding Kansas River Bridge construction schedule and related issues.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the City Commission received a memo regarding improvements to the turnpike. The North Michigan Street Bridge would be reopened December 6th. He said as the Turnpike project would take place simultaneously with the 2nd and Locust project. Staff intended on keeping at least one lane in each direction open at all times. The closure of access points on the interchanges, both the West Lawrence and East Lawrence interchange, might affect the traffic in the area. He said the City and KTA worked hard in notifying everyone to keep them informed.
David Jacobson, Kansas Turnpike Authority Chief Engineer, said they appreciated the opportunity to come and present the Kansas Bridge Replacement Project. He said the two bridges that spanned the Kansas River were built and opened for service in 1956 when the Turnpike started. The bridges were approximately 2,300 feet long that had been in service for 50 plus years. In 2001, their general consultant, H & B Corporation, preformed a long term lead study for the KTA and indicated in their report the bridges were reaching the end of their useful life and needed to be replaced by 2012. Since that time, they had been working toward that goal, including with the project safety enhancements to that corridor and to improve customer service of traffic. The program cost was estimated at $140 million. They were currently on schedule to have a bid letting in May 2008 and would start construction in June.
Rex Fleming, Kansas Turnpike Authority Project Engineer, said this project would take three years to complete. In preparation for this project, near Lecompton, a new accel lane was added to the south to assist with traffic. The Michigan Bridge would be opened in the next few days which lead to the closure of North Iowa Street Bridge early next week. He said they were looking at a three tier approach for traffic handling. They were first going to try and catch the large vehicles that went north across the Turnpike into the industrial area. Large vehicles going north would be targeted on the turnpike to go on to the Lecompton Interchange and use the Farmer’s Turnpike to come back in. For those large vehicles that did not see those signs and show up at the toll booth, those vehicles would be directed south to 6th Street heading west back to Lecompton which would be the official detour. He said for those vehicles that end up at Iowa, the street would be blocked to the south of the bridge where there was a street that went to the west. He said the Iowa Street Bridge would be open in the first part of July.
He said regarding the Kansas River Bridge Plaza Improvement Project the letting date was May 2008 which was $140 million project and would take several different sequencing. Part of their goal was to keep two lanes of traffic in each direction through the project, which would relieve congestion for back ups and required different phasing.
The first part of the phasing was on the Kansas River Bridge. The first bridge would be built north of the existing structures which would allow the traffic to stay on the existing bridges while they were building the new bridge. The new bridge would be built 3 lanes wide with two 10 foot shoulders. They would move four lanes of traffic onto the new bridge, and then they would take out the old bridges. Removing the bridge would be up to the contractor, but on those types of structures the concrete deck would be taken off and drop the steel structure into the river, pull it out, and lay it on the side.
In the first phase, a bridge would be built on the north side and then switch to Phase 2. As part of Phase 1 in West Lawrence, after Michigan and Iowa Streets were opened, they would need to rebuild the bridge that went over the Turnpike at West Lawrence. During that phase, westbound traffic would need to get off at East Lawrence or go over to the Lecompton exit and come back into town. Traffic coming out of Lawrence towards Topeka, that bridge would be closed and the traffic needed to go to East Lawrence or Lecompton. They were expecting that work to take 8 months, which included the bridge construction and rebuilding the interchange to a more modern type interchange during that phase. Phase 1 would take about 15 months and Phase 2 would take 8 months.
After the interchange at West Lawrence was opened, the contractor would then work on the East Lawrence interchange which needed to be totally demolished and rebuilt. The entire interchange would be completely out of service for 8 months. During that time, a new toll plaza would be built with dedicated K-Tag lanes. The interchange would also be rebuilt during that time.
During Phase 2, the pavement on the westbound side would be totally reconstructed from the ground up. The pavement was 50 years old and needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. Phase 2 would last about 15 months and when that was completed, there would be traffic on both sides, with a concrete barrier which was part of Phase 3 and would last about six months. The total project would take about 3 years.
Commissioner Amyx said regarding the West Lawrence interchange work, the Iowa Street bridge would be shut down, move to the toll plaza and the bridge that went across at that location and asked about the timing of the west Lawrence interchange.
Fleming said about 8 months.
Commissioner Amyx said the City then had 8 months to complete the 2nd and Locust project.
Fleming said around July, the bridge could be taken out of service and traffic that was coming in from Kansas City could either exit at East Lawrence, going through the City’s construction project or the traffic would go out to the Lecompton exit. He said in East Lawrence, a dedicated K-Tag lane would be added to assist with traffic.
Commissioner Amyx said the 2nd and Locust project should have started four months ago.
Soules said the 2nd and Locust project was originally going to be bid in October. It slipped a couple of months because of adjustments with plans and utility issues that needed to be addressed. He was not as concerned with February because nothing could be done during winter months. Right now, the schedule was to bid the project in February and by March or April they would be well on their way. Any west bound traffic at the West Lawrence interchange would be closed, so the people that would access the Turnpike to go west or the people that were coming from the east and wanting to get off, would not have that luxury anymore and have to use either the East Lawrence or Lecompton interchange. He said when starting work on the East Lawrence interchange, everyone would have to use the West Lawrence or Lecompton interchange.
Commissioner Amyx asked when they were planning to bid the 2nd and Locust project.
Soules said in February.
Commissioner Amyx said it would take 9 months to complete that project, but right now there was a five month overlay between the projects that the Kansas Turnpike Authority had on West Lawrence.
Soules said the City could delay their project. The other side was inflation costs for construction. If the Commission desired, the City could delay the project until the West Lawrence plaza was reopened. The East Lawrence Plaza would be closed, but would not have people accessing it that needed to get to North Lawrence. He said they would have to offset it for a year.
Commissioner Amyx said if the City waited for a year, how much of the North 2nd Street corridor would be disrupted and would emergency service vehicles have access to North Lawrence. He asked how much of north 2nd Street would be torn and not accessible because of the Kansas River Bridge Crossing, North 2nd Street improvements, and the East Lawrence Toll Plaza.
Soules said traffic would be maintained on the turnpike, and one lane in each direction would be opened with the City’s project.
Mayor Hack asked for the estimate of cost increase.
Soules said the inflation would be $5,000 - $10,000, with the total project around $2 million.
David Corliss, City Manager, asked Fleming if there would be incentives for early completion of the turnpike project.
Fleming said it was discussed, but had not gotten serious about that idea. On the interchange closures, they would have disincentives for the project going longer.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Ted Boyle, President North Lawrence Improvement Association, said North Lawrence has been looking forward to the 2nd and Locust improvements for some time. He said it was too bad the Turnpike Authority was in conflict with the City’s plans. The North Lawrence residents had been anticipating this project and preparing themselves for the detours. Most of all, they had to take into consideration the safety and welfare of the North Lawrence residents. If there was any indication that there might be less protection for the North Lawrence residents, then they would postpone the project a year. They would not want to take that chance and would like to see it done, and were really hoping they would get the project completed next year. They moved it up from previous dates, so it was some unforeseen circumstance they had to deal with and hopefully when the time arrived and they could get back and forth between the Turnpike and did not have so much traffic, then they could proceed with this development.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if there was any information about the number of vehicles using the West Lawrence interchange on a daily basis.
Soules said the west bound exiting was 2,635; the west bound entering was 2,314. Essentially, it was 5,000 vehicles a day had to use one of the other two. They did not know what the break down of that traffic was or their destination, so they did not know if they would be getting off at Lecompton or the East Lawrence exit.
Commissioner Chestnut said the distribution was probably skewed over two or three hours. They needed to understand those numbers and figure out from a safety standpoint in what they were talking about because if they put another 1,000 cars through there that one hour with one lane of traffic, he thought the safety response issue could be at risk.
Commissioner Amyx said he would like staff’s recommendation on the best time to do the City project at 2nd and Locust. He said staff needed to take into consideration the emergency response vehicles. At this point, he could see moving the project back until the other projects were completed, but realized that it was a very important intersection because of the safety issues at 2nd and Locust. It was very important to their community and the North Lawrence area.
Mayor Hack said the direction was to see about an alternative plan for North 2nd Street and when that plan occurred, she wanted information concerning emergency response for North Lawrence.
The City Commission received the report. (10)
Consider adoption off proposed settlement agreement with the Kansas Attorney General concerning the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
Gerry Cooley, City Attorney, said they were there for the City Commission to consider whether or not they would enter into the settlement agreement proposed by the Attorney General after a complaint of a violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act via the local District Attorney’s Office. On November 7th, in response to a complaint of a violation of KOMA, staff filed, on behalf of the City, a written response to that allegation that the district attorney determined that he was close to people involved on both sides of the issue and elected to exercise his right to send this to the Attorney General. Over the last few weeks, staff had been in contact with the Attorney General’s Office and his representatives who came together to present to the City Commission a proposed settlement agreement which they believed fully represented a resolution of that issue.
The Attorney General determined that there was a violation of KOMA by allowing an unauthorized person to attend the meeting in executive session that was executed under an exception to KOMA where attorney client privilege was involved. The Attorney General found that Mr. Squier was not an attorney for the City, and not an agent of the City at that time. He found nothing in the Attorney General’s findings or conclusion that would support an allegation that KOMA was violated when Commissioners met privately to discuss the multi-million dollar tax rebate subsequently awarded to Deciphera. There was nothing in that opinion or settlement agreement, specifically, the Attorney General found in paragraph 5 of the proposed settlement agreement that no binding action was taken during the September 20, 2007 meeting. Whether the proposed agreement with Deciphera was discussed, it was the extent of the findings that he read of the document that the Attorney General had made.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Wayne White, Grassroots Action, said he hoped that this was an important step toward developing an open and fair method in evaluating public incentives. He also noted that Grassroots Action was not opposed to economic development; they were in favor of economic development. They were also not opposed to Deciphera in the City of Lawrence.
He read a statement from the Grassroots Action Board of Directors: Grassroots Action welcomed the Attorney General’s recent announcement that the Lawrence City Commission violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act when City Commissioners met privately in September to discuss the multimillion dollar tax rebate and other subsidies subsequently devoted to Deciphera Pharmaceuticals. This was the contention of the complaint they filed last month, which the Attorney General has now upheld. They felt this did not go far enough. The Attorney General was asking the City Commission to admit wrong doing, vow not to break the law again, and take a refresher course on open government at the individual Commissioners’ expense. The decision the City Commission reached at the result of this unlawful meeting to give the multimillion dollar tax break and other subsidies to a private firm had been left in place. This was unacceptable. No prior decision reached behind closed doors without public input should be allowed to stand. The City Commission was obliged to discuss public policy in public, not in private. Commissioners were not authorized to give unannounced tax breaks to private firms without citizen oversight and review. They now called upon the City Commissioners to do the right thing; acknowledge that they violated the law and discussed Deciphera’s tax break and assume the decision they reached without public input as a result of the executive session. They should not just admit guilt, but do something about it. They should rescind the decision, rescind the tax break, let Deciphera apply for a tax break openly, restart the process, and this time listen to the public. He further suggested that Commission Chestnut identified the path they might take. It seemed to him there was a rush to get on with new decisions and leave this one alone, but that was not good enough. Good intentions were not good enough. It was a public body and as a responsibility and any one in public decision making positions knew there was a great responsibility associated with that position and this particular responsibility was very clear in the last few weeks of being in public office.
Joan Golden, Lawrence, said she was speaking as a resident of Lawrence for 35 years. She moved in 1972 and raised her two children and appreciated all the amenities the community afforded them. They had a great public library, wonderful schools, and City swimming pool. Professionally she was a banker and had been in that profession for over 30 years. She fully understood the importance of a healthy economy for business, both big and small. As a volunteer, it was the business community that provided personnel and funding for many of the social services and agencies they count on throughout the community. She was present to thank the City Commission for supporting projects like Deciphera to expand the tax base and job opportunities in the community. She encouraged the City Commission to continue to look at new and expanding companies for the community. She hoped they could develop a common focus and vision that the whole community could embrace that supported new and expanding businesses and their needs. She thanked the City Commission for taking the time to serve the community and believed each acted in the best interest for the community for every action they take.
Harold Shepard, Lawrence, said he appreciated the work of the Grassroots Action. He said he had been a victim of City staff because of meetings behind closed doors. He could appreciate what Grassroots Action was doing and how it helped the Commissioners. He said he would appreciate some sort of apology and take this issue as a learning session to try and help the City Commission in the future so that it did not happen anymore.
Patrick Flavin, Lawrence, said he was a 35 year citizen of the community as well. The past year, the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce was involved in the employment of over 120 people in this community. He was very eager for the City Commission to stay the course in economic development as they had shown the courage to do.
He said he wanted to talk about a team from 1968 that played in the 1969 Orange Bowl game. He thought everyone knew what happened with the 12th man on the team at the last moment. Those people that were involved at that time were nothing other than human, which was what the City Commission was. They put together a team with the City Manager, the City Commission, the County, Chamber of Commerce, to try to do something very forthrightly for those who really were not interested could look at it very transparently. Then something happened that should not detract from the effort the City Commission put forward to make that happen, just like the football players at the Orange Bowl. He commended what the City Commission did today.
David Livingood, Lawrence, said he was present as a business owner of the professional business firm that had been headquartered in Lawrence for 50 years. They were a firm of 24 individuals, 20 of which lived within the City limits. They chose to live in Lawrence due to the quality of life that Lawrence provided. This quality was a result of the amenities that have been created and supported by the City Commission throughout the years. Those amenities were a result of the taxes that they as a corporation and individuals pay. He shared his appreciation for the Commissioners time and effort in leading the community. His job required long hours, and he admitted he did not spend a lot of time in the minutia of the City government. He elected to entrust that in the elected officials as they went through this process. He could not anticipate the hours it took for the City Commissioners and dedication to studying, discussing and preparing to make informed decisions for the community. He could tell them the time was appreciated. The crux of his comment tonight was he supported the City Commission and the process of the City Commission. He believed their intentions were in the best interest of the City and the process taken place in the past two weeks only a violation of the Open Meetings Act and not an intentional effort to conspire or deceive. He supported the City Commission’s actions and agreed with the settlement as proposed and asked the City Commission to proceed.
Bonnie Lowe, Lawrence, said she was a local bank president and on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, along with Bert Nash Board, and a host of other volunteers opportunities. She thanked the City Commission for serving Lawrence. She knew that each and every one on the Commission and past Commissioners had served because of the love for this community, not for personal gain. There were many sacrifices City Commission’s gave and were thankful of their service to Lawrence. She thought it was important that no decisions were made behind public doors in executive session. Executive sessions were used to educate the Commissioners as needed on specific topics. Decisions in Lawrence were made in a public setting and not behind closed doors. Beginning of January of 2007 and later in October, two separate Commissions involving 7 Commissioners unanimously approved the incentives offered to a terrific company. She applauded the decision and thought the decision was made with great thoughts. There was an ample opportunity for public comment as the items were both times on the regular agenda. The approvals were universally embraced. She also thanked the City Commission on behalf of the citizens of this community. They should be celebrating this wonderful endeavor which would increase the tax base, create great jobs, which would help support the amenities and social services the citizens deserve. The City Commission had the respect and trust of the citizens of Lawrence. The City Commission was elected to make fair, sound decisions and was confident the Commission would continue to do so.
Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said she reviewed the City Commission meeting when Deciphera was discussed. She said if she would have been at the meeting that night, the City Commission would have heard from her because she heard the City Manager use the word “incentives” and Commissioner Highberger used the phrase “cost benefit analysis.” She said that gave her a clue that something was going on with some kind of incentive that was not being publicly discussed that night. She said watching that City Commission meeting, it was clear that it was not clear or straight in what was happening. She said she tried to follow the agendas as much as she could and could not be at the meetings, all the time, to catch mistakes.
She said since the Attorney General had ruled the Executive Session was in violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, on behalf of the general public, she wanted to ask the final questions and receive answers to those questions. She said the City Commission might be advised by the City Attorney the Commission should not answer her questions based on his interpretation of the Attorney General’s decision and if that was the case, it was fine. She was not the only one who asked those questions.
The first question was for the City Manager. She asked if the City Manager could provide for the public, immediately, a summary that was sent to the Attorney General for the Open Meetings Act violation investigation. When she looked at the agenda for the September 20th meeting, the agenda stated the City Commission would consider a motion to recess into executive session for the purposes of (1) possible acquisition of real estate and (2) consultation with attorneys for the City on matters deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The justification of the executive session was to keep matters confidential at this time. The agenda clearly stated, to keep matters confidential, and not discuss those matters in front of the public. She asked if the City Commission had more than one item they discussed in that meeting or were they considering Deciphera as part of the acquisition of real estate.
She also asked the City Manager when the Mayor notified the City of her financial interest in Deciphera. She asked if it was before the executive session or during it. Furthermore, she asked who represented the City Commission as the non-voting member of DCDI. To her understanding, it was the Mayor of the City Commission and Chair of the County Commission were both non-voting members of DCDI.
She also had more questions for the Mayor and City Commissioners. She asked each Commissioner to publicly state what he or she remembered about that executive session, and if the Commission did not want to do speak to that matter, she wanted the City Commission to state why they did not want to publicly speak. The Attorney General stated the City Commission was in violation. Some people would read that opinion to mean the deal was null and void and they should be able to know what was discussed, especially if it was a policy decision.
She also had some specific questions she wanted the City Commission to address. She asked if the Mayor participated in the discussion in any way, shape or form. She asked if the four Commissioners were notified during the Executive Session that the Mayor had a financial interest in Deciphera, and if so, by whom during the meeting. If not, she asked when the Commissioners were notified. She asked if it was at the Executive Session the City Commission was informed the deal was going to be changed to Deciphera buying the building. She said it went back to her question about acquisition of real estate because it was not the City who was acquiring the real estate.
She asked about any and all correspondence amongst the Commissioners before or after the executive session regarding the Deciphera deal. She asked if that correspondence was available to the public pursuant to Kansas Open Records Act (KORA).
She also had questions about DCDI. In reading the articles in the newspaper covering this issue, Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, mentioned that on the other end of Massachusetts Street, the County Commission did not have any executive sessions. She received an audio tape of the County Commission meeting and that meeting was very informative and good questions were asked on behalf of the public. This issue was discussed by Chairman Bob Johnson, Commissioner Jones, and Commissioner McElhaney. Chairman Johnson referred to having attended most, if not all, meetings about Deciphera. She said Commissioner Johnson represented the County Commission for DCDI and hence was her question about DCDI meetings. She said if the Mayor was a City Commission representative to DCDI, she asked if the Mayor attended the DCDI meetings where the Deciphera deal was discussed and if so, did the Mayor participate in any of those discussions. Since DCDI was considered to be a public/private partnership, could minutes of those meetings be made available to the public, and if the Mayor was not the City Commission representative to DCDI, who was and did that person attend the DCDI meetings when the Deciphera deal was discussed.
She said when she was reviewing the Deciphera meeting discussion she heard three figures. She said Cooley said the cap was $77,500, Commissioner Chestnut referenced $39,000 and the City Manager initially referenced the cap would be at $125,000 per year. She reviewed all of the documents and it clearly stated the City’s cap for financial participation including any tax refund would be $125,000 per year. The argument Cooley presented was that this was less than $100,000 a year to the City. She wanted to have the number explained to the lay person. This was very confusing and if the public could get a clear explanation why $125,000 per year did not make it qualify for the ordinance, she would appreciate that.
She said her last comment regarded Commissioner Chestnut’s memo. She wanted to thank Commissioner Chestnut for taking the bull by the horns and felt like he accomplished more in five pages than the Tax Abatement Task Force was able to do in five months or more. She was thrilled the public had a good starting point and wanted to thank Commissioners Chestnut and Highberger for the time and effort put into this issue.
Dennis Constance, Grassroots Actions Board of Directors, said he wanted to reemphasize there were comments made about the good work of the City Commission and their work was done on a voluntary basis. The community appreciated that work and knew that things were not always going to go the way everyone wants them to go, but process was important to the public interest in any deal. They had public process and failed to use it. This tax abatement issue could have gone through the Public Incentives Review Committee which was typically done with tax abatements.
He said regarding the analogy made earlier about the Orange Bowl Team, the community was a team, but that team had a process which was called a play book and rules of the game. He said that football team failed to follow those rules, it might have been a mistake, and had that football team done it right the first time, they would have won instead of being remembered for 40 years for a mistake. This issue raised a lot of questions. He thought there was no good way to set those questions to rest other than to do as requested which was back off of this tax abatement and restart the process to do it the right way.
Beth Johnson, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said as a member of the Economic Development Team their collective team driven economic development efforts were important to strengthening this community. In their continuing commitment to that effort, they saw ways to assist each member of that partnership through their dedication to working with the City Commission and others in an open and cooperative manner. They appreciated the City Commission’s dedication, work and time spent in assisting this community to move forward. They should move forward as a team.
Commissioner Highberger said questions were raised from a member of the public and he asked if staff could respond to those questions.
Corliss said he would ask the City Attorney to respond to when the plan was to allow what was submitted to the District Attorney and Attorney General’s office to be available to the public.
Cooley said he asked that exact question of the Attorney General’s representative and the response was the Attorney General would release nothing until the agreement was finally signed. During that period of time and until that event occurred, there was an investigation ongoing. He thought they should follow the same rule. Once there was a signed agreement, there was no investigation and it became open records accessible. At that time, which might be tomorrow or two or three days away if they decided to go forward, but he thought it would be available at the time the agreement was executed as far as he was concerned.
Corliss said it would be an open record at that time.
Corliss said the next question concerned the September 20th agenda. The property acquisition item was unrelated to Deciphera. His recollection was a status briefing on Farmland or it might have been a property acquisition issue related to the West Baldwin Creek, but his recollection was that it was a status briefing on Farmland. He said the public knew they submitted a bid to the bankruptcy trustee for Farmland and were in discussion with the City’s attorneys and the Farmland attorneys and staff was conveying the most recent information on that, but under no times the City Commission discussed the Deciphera matter being related to property acquisition.
He said his recollection of the conversations he had with the Mayor regarding her financial interest in Deciphera was in the January time period was that she told the City Manager she had a financial interest in Deciphera and his recollection was she needed to change her Statement of Substantial Interest Form. When the Mayor took the job with the Chamber of Commerce, he sent the Mayor to the link to the Statement of Substantial Form to fill out. At some point he thought the City Commission and he needed to have a discussion along with Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director; Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney; and Jerry Cooley, City Attorney regarding responsibilities regarding Statements of Substantial Interest. In the past, staff had not seen that as their responsibility to remind the City Commission of those obligations, but that was what staff would do to prompt the City Commission to fill out those forms. He said he thought the Mayor had publicly announced the amount, but he did not personally know the amount and did not know if it qualified then or qualified now, but they knew now the amount qualified to fill out that statement.
He said the DCDI bylaws provided the Mayor, by virtue of the position, sat on the DCDI Board. The City Manager and County Administrator were ex officio, they would not vote, but they would attend and listen to the discussions at those meetings and sometimes they spoke.
He said it was important for the City Commission to keep in mind the incentive agreements the City Commission approved on October 23rd had four incentives elements. Three of those elements applied to the building that Deciphera was purchasing. One of the elements did not apply to Deciphera or the building that Deciphera was purchasing. All of those elements totaled to the same dollar amount that was approved by the City Commission on January 2nd, which was $125,000 a year over 10 years, which totaled $1.25 million. It was the same dollar amount and one of their focus points was they continued to see it as the same dollar amount for the same building that was previously approved. The four incentive items added up to arrangements approved on October 23rd. There was an improvement grant as the agreement was set out and that annual amount for the City was going to be $46,875 which was regardless of their performance. The money went to the Lawrence/Douglas County Bioscience Authority and to the Kansas Bioscience Authority, but they have talked about where it was ending up. None of the money would directly go to Deciphera. The $46,875 was how much they knew for certain would have to be paid over 10 years. There was also an employment award which only occurred when Deciphera reached 50 employees, 100 employees, 150 employees, or 200 employees. That amount totaled over 10 years to $156,250. The employment they hoped would be even more than that, but it had potential to be less. If they took the $156,250 amount and divided it by 10, it was $39,062. He said it might not happen, every year, and could happen at different times. The other item that went to Deciphera was the tax rebate portion. The tax rebate portion was complicated. He said he erred in either not fully explaining it on October 23rd or not having the briefing memo to explain it. It was complicated and also was significantly triggered by employment milestones. There might be cases where the property tax rebate did not kick in when there was no property tax rebate. He conservatively estimated, which meant he was assuming they were meeting all the employment goals that 15,000 a year might need to be spent for the City’s portion of the property tax rebate. The rest of the amount of money did not go to Deciphera. It would be used by the Lawrence/Douglas County Bioscience Authority for other bioscience type projects. It would likely not involve that building at all unless someone else wanted to sublease a portion of that property from Deciphera and in some cases under the agreement the City had the ability to use part of that building rent free.
Commissioner Amyx said as soon as all the information was released the public would see the Affidavits from each one of the Commission members along with all the other information. He said when talking about peoples’ character, the Commissioners’ character was being tested, but also been questioned. He said he had spent more time with his personal attorney in the past few weeks because he had questions on whether or not he actually broke a law. After reviewing the information, he believed the Attorney General had done a thorough investigation. He said the AG and his staff made a decision the City Commission broke a law that had to do with an individual who was not a member of the City’s legal staff or a client of the City. As far as the agreement with this company, they were not found in violation of that agreement. He thought about all the Executive Sessions he had been involved with, and there could always be a question. He could accept what the Attorney General had stated and he would vote to approve the agreement.
He said during the City Commission’s sessions a number of times what other Commissioners said or what the City Manager’s said did not sway his opinion. He said he respected each one of those opinions and thought they took all the information and made quality decisions publicly based on the information received. He thought that they did not have a whole lot of chances to bring new businesses to town and he thought this issue was a quality move.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the City’s commitment to open and fair government and also to the economic well being of the City. The issue before them was part of a series of errors and omissions surrounding their agreement with Deciphera and the Kansas Bioscience Authority. With respect to this particular issue, he thought the City Commission acted in good faith. He said the City Commission believed it was permissible for the President of the Chamber of Commerce, as their agent for economic development, to be present in Executive Session under attorney-client privilege. The Attorney General obviously disagreed and was he was perfectly happy to abide by the Attorney General’s opinion and sign the settlement agreement.
He said the Attorney General did not find that the subject of the discussion was inappropriate for executive session and he did not believe it either. He said where they failed was to ensure the agreement received a full public discussion after it was placed on the agenda and he apologized and said it was a failure on his part as a City Commissioner.
A good point was made that the tax rebate that was incorporated in this agreement should have been discussed as a general policy issue before it was released as part of this specific agreement. In this case it was a mechanism that was proposed between the parties during negotiations of the party agreement. It would have been extremely difficult to start public discussions since those discussions proceeded.
There had been some suggestion that this was intended as a way to circumvent the living wage requirement of their tax abatement policy. He wanted to assure everyone that he would never in any way, shape or form give his approval to any economic development proposal that provided public subsidies for below living wage jobs. The projected average wage and lowest wage for the jobs created by this project were far higher than any other development project seen during his time on the Commission. He believed his fellow Commissioners acted in this case in a manner they thought was in the best interest of the community. He also agreed that someone who was just looking at this from the outside and reading the newspaper that it looked wrong. He said this was a hard issue and thought they had done enough to correct the appearance and try to restore some of the public trust they lost. However, he would hesitate to rescind their decision. First it was not in the best interests of the City to take public comment and then do the same thing again. He said he would vote for the agreement again. He did not believe it was required by ordinance, but he thought this tax rebate should be reviewed by the Public Incentive Review Committee. Even though they did not have any standards for PIRC to evaluate this, he believed it would be in their best interest to send it to PIRC, have them do a general analysis of whether the benefits outweigh the costs and give PIRC a chance to comment. He said he would move to refer the matter to PIRC for review.
Commissioner Chestnut said he did not agree with rescinding this decision and agreed with Commissioner Highberger that this was a good deal and thought it was a good deal when the memorandum of understanding was put together back in January. He thought it was a unique opportunity for a business in Lawrence. There had been a lot of dialogue about missed steps.
The genesis of what he put together was a starting point. He did not know if PIRC or any other process was the one they needed to do, but in looking back at the amount of dialogue or amount that was in the City Code, there was not very much that surrounded this issue. They needed to have a public discussion about that. He quoted Winston Churchill who said, “Optimists look to see opportunity in every calamity and pessimists seek calamity in every opportunity.” He thought this was an opportunity when having issues that come up, to look at the process. He said this was an evolving situation, whether it was in this arena in government or another arena in government. They were always trying to get better, figure out what they can do better, how they could inform the public better, what they could do in process to do better, and this was just one of many areas, they continue to work toward evolving to a better place. He offered it as a starting point to realize there were no answers but a lot of questions and a lot of dialogue. He hoped they had this dialogue separate from a particular situation that was separate from an applicant or particular situation that was in front of them. What was unfortunate in this particular case was an outstanding organization that represents a huge opportunity for the community and he hated it see it merged with some process issues. There was going to be a lot of time devoted to find a better way to go about it.
He said White commented this settlement agreement document was not written to say there was not an open and fair process now. He believed there was. There were a lot of moving parts in this deal. He said the City made a contractual obligation when the City Commission signed the Memorandum of Understanding in January. The City Commission put forth good faith they were committing that amount to this project. He understood it was a fluid situation with a lot of things happening, but at this point, to consider rescinding the matter would be backing away from their contractual agreement the previous City Commission made. It was important for the City Commission to follow through.
He was not recommending by moving this issue forward to put this issue through the Public Incentive Review Committee. PIRC’s charter was to review tax abatements and understood there were some differences of definitions, but thought it got back to the whole point of why he put his thoughts together. There was a lot of ambiguity when entering into the arena of looking at Tax Increment Financing, public improvements, and incentive situations and they needed a matrix to do that. It was a healthy thing to go through. He saw the opportunity to improve the process and thought it was a good deal for the community. He did not know if he supported putting the issue through PIRC at this point only because he did not know what the objective would be. They needed to move forward with the agreement as it was executed and as the City Attorney stated, there was not any discussion in the Attorney General’s opinion about why they were there and there was not any decision made in private and it was decided correctly in the public forum. They just did not do a good enough job in putting all the information out there. He saw it as a good thing in the Commission’s ability to get better.
Mayor Hack said if the City Commission had the opportunity to roll back the clock and change things they would, but they did not have that ability. She said the City Commission acknowledged they had made mistakes; she acknowledged personally that she made mistakes and had taken responsibility for those mistakes. They had apologized for what they did and knew that through some guidance from staff and the City’s attorneys, and with training with Kansas Open Meetings, they knew that those kinds of issues were not going to happen again. She thought open meetings with e-mail and internet was a lot more complex than it was when it was just three people setting down at Woolworth’s to tell the Commission what they were supposed to do at the next meeting. The times have changed and it would be an opportunity for the Commissioners to learn from their mistakes and would help future Commissions do the same thing. She knew the City Commission had angered and hurt people, and for that she joined Commissioner Highberger in saying they were sorry for what they did and what she did personally. She thought they were ready to move forward.
Vice Mayor Dever thanked everyone for coming down, whether it was good or bad news, it was always good to get the information they needed to make good decisions. Commissioner Highberger did an excellent job reiterating a lot of his opinions. He believed that they all made a mistake, but he hoped that they could overcome these mistakes and move forward with some better processes and more transparency in the future. He hoped that he learned all he needed to know about the Kansas Open Meetings Act. They had a large dose of it and knew that by the time these meetings were over, he would be an expert on who was and who was not allowed in those meetings. He said anything the Commission had done had not been intentional and they were doing this in the best faith of every citizen of Lawrence. He was in favor of moving forward and signing the settlement agreement.
It was then moved by Highberger to refer the Commission’s decision on Deciphera to the Public Incentive Review Committee for review of the incentives and report back on a review of a general cost versus benefits analysis.
Commissioner Amyx asked if it was simply for review.
Commissioner Highberger said his proposal would be for PIRC to analyze the incentives in total and give it the ability to realize what the costs of the incentives would be and look at whether the benefit to the community would exceed the costs and then and refer it back to the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if the fact they already signed the agreement would hinder that process.
Commissioner Highberger said there were two possible results by referring the Deciphera issue to PIRC. One was to conduct the cost benefit analysis to see if the benefits out weigh the costs and it was a good deal but if those costs outweighed the benefits in PIRC view, then they would have a decision to make.
Mayor Hack said she was not participating in the discussion of Commissioner Highberger’s motion and recused herself from the discussion.
Vice Mayor Dever then presided over the meeting.
Commissioner Chestnut said he appreciated the intent, but the issue he had was that he questioned the assumptions in the cost benefit analysis that currently existed. He said they needed to move forward and thought it was important to understand they had the authority and executed on binding this agreement. He would not support rescinding it. From that standpoint he would be opposed to the motion because the process needed to be reviewed and put in place, but in a situation where they had executed a memorandum of understanding and made a number of commitments to a number of entities, he did not see what the benefit was in this particular situation.
Commissioner Amyx said normally he wanted everyone to have the opportunity to participate in the process regardless of the subject. In this case, the City Commission made commitments by the authorization for the Vice Mayor to sign those agreements and thought they needed to move forward and stand behind those authorized agreements.
Commissioner Highberger said he understood, but every contract contained provisions for termination. He said it might be more of a process. He fully expected that the PIRC would come back with a strong recommendation based on him crunching the numbers himself.
Commissioner Highberger’s motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Hack presided over the meeting.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the Mayor to sign the settlement agreement with the Kansas Attorney General concerning the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Mayor Hack said the Commission would break for 10 minutes and the meeting would resume at 8:30 p.m.
Mayor Hack said she was leaving the meeting because of a medical condition and Vice Mayor Dever would preside over the remainder of the meeting.
Vice Mayor Dever called the meeting back in session at 8:30 p.m.
Receive staff report on Bauer Brook Estates annexation/infrastructure issues.
David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report. He said in 1999 developers platted in the unincorporated county Bauer Brook Estates. It was a large estate subdivision on the west side of Folks Road that was currently outside the city limits. It was largely surrounded by property within the City, including some City park property, the Westwood Hills development, the Overland Addition, and other property. One of the requirements of this property was that it hooked up to the City sanitary sewer system within 7 years, and that had not been done. He said they had not proceeded because they had not had the sewer lines in place. With the Free State Interceptor Sewer that was part of the Pump Station 48 project, there were now lateral gravity lines for that platted property to connect to sanitary sewer. One of the issues they wanted to discuss was to relay some of the discussions they had with some of the property owners. A little bit of over half of that plat had been developed with residences. Those residences had installed septic systems which were working and operating. In similar situations, they had not required those property owners to hook up to a City sewer system if they had operating septic systems to hook up to a City sanitary sewer system. Essentially, it was a waste of good resource if they had an operating septic system. If a property owner had unplatted property and they wanted to build on it, they had to hook up to the City sanitary sewer system. If they have a failed septic system, they also needed to do this. It was one issue they might want to discuss and staff recommended changing the plat condition so those property owners could keep their septic systems as long as they were working and operating. They thought it was appropriate the city proceed with annexation which was planned back then. In order to provide the fire suppression the City provided, they would need to put in new water lines and have those property owners pay their proportionate share of those waterlines. They were currently served by Rural Water District 1, which did not provide the water pressure that was necessary to have for the Fire Department to provide fire protection services. They wanted all those costs to be borne by the property owners. It was contemplated in the plat and additional agreements where they would pay for those costs. Staff was recommending annexing the property, sending the letter to the property owners letting the property owner know the City was going to annex the property, create a special assessment benefit district for them to pay the proportionate share of the waterline, pay for their share along the waterline of Folks Road, 100% of the cost of the cul-de-sac waterline road, and pay for some sanitary sewer improvements that were necessary now and the design of the sanitary sewer system so that as those individual properties needed to hook up to the sanitary sewer system, they would already design what that would be. They would pay all of those costs and would have that property within the city and would provide them with city services. They thought that would accomplish what was set out in the 1999 plat that went through the Planning Commission and was approved by the County Commission. They normally would not allow someone to hook up to the sanitary sewer system unless they were in the City. They would need to annex the property in order to accomplish that part of the plat requirements. Staff thought it was appropriate they proceed along those lines. There were some issues with large estate animals that were allowed, which he called barnyard animals. There were other animals other than dogs and cats and what they have typically done in situations where they have annexed existing residences, was they allowed them to retain the number of animals into the future, as long as it was done in a healthy and sanitary manner and they did not increase the number of animals. Staff did not think this subdivision was going to subdivide any further. It was large lot estates and did not think it would subdivide significantly. Staff had meetings with the property owners over the years talking about this condition. They spent a lot of time with the number of property owners as they did the Free State Interceptor Sewer Project because they had to talk to them and acquire easements.
Commissioner Highberger asked if moving forward on that project exposed the city to any capital costs.
Corliss said yes it did because the city had to pay their share for the waterline along Folks Road. They had in their utility rate plan funds for miscellaneous waterline and sanitary sewer line improvements that occurred when they have not necessarily planned for those projects. This was one of those projects. The property they were annexing would pay for half of it and the property on the east side of Folks Road they were not planning on annexing. Some time in the future, the property owner might want to redevelop their property or might want to come into the City because they did not want their current water service. At that time, the City would recover its cost for that share of the waterline.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the increased property tax revenue offset those costs in any reasonable timeframe.
Corliss said those residents paid property taxes. He said he had not completed the calculation to figure out what those property owners paid in property taxes. He said the property owners would be losing the Wakarusa Township Mill Levy which was about 11 mills and inheriting the City’s mill levy which was 27 mills and change. He said the property owner would pay 27 mills in property taxes to the City on into the future.
Commissioner Amyx asked if there was going to be a capital cost to the city for extension of the waterlines and the fire hydrants and, other than having condition number 7 on the plat, why would they want to do this at this time.
Corliss said they were not going to pay for the waterlines, but provide the fire hydrants and those things. It could be just the water main transmission filter. He thought they wanted to do that because they wanted to follow through with the requirements and let the property owners to hook up to the service if they wanted that and also they would be getting their property tax revenue.
Commissioner Chestnut said he would like to look at a cost benefit analysis on this to understand what the impact was going to be. They had all the valuations of the property so it would be easy to calculate.
Vice Mayor Dever suggested finding out what the extension of the main line would cost.
Corliss said half of that extension of the main line would be a city-at-large cost until such time those property owners on the east side would want to come into the City and then those property owners would pay their share.
Commissioner Amyx asked if there was a reason why that line needed to get to that location and was staff looking at another project past that location.
Corliss said there was City park property, but they did not have funds or plans to eventually develop that with the water source.
Commissioner Amyx asked if there was not another project that was adjacent to this project where they needed to extend that waterline to Bauer, was there a financial reason to go ahead and do this right now other than just the condition of a plat.
Corliss said there were some property owners that wanted to hook up to City sanitary sewer service. They did not want to put in a septic system when they had a sewer line in their backyard. In that case, that property owner needed to annex into the city and the City would provide water to provide fire hydrant protection. There was no other reason for doing that waterline other than respond to the requirement to have this property in the City. It was not uncommon for the City to extend waterlines with the knowledge the City would eventually recoup front footage costs for development. They extended two waterlines out to west 6th Street when it was built between Wakarusa and K-10 and as that property had started to come in to the City, the City was recouping those waterline costs.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if the current land owners pay the cost even if the property was undeveloped.
Corliss said yes.
Vice Mayor Dever said the property owner would pay even though there were no buildings and the only costs would be the total cost of the line extension and the additional tax revenue. He said if it was something they would want to do, they would put it on the consent agenda and could take it off if there were any questions.
Commissioner Highberger said there was some mention of private street and he was concerned with private streets and it would need some discussion at some point. His main concern was they had the construction requirement addressed pretty much, but saw it as part of the erosion of public space in the community. There were citizens at large that did not have the same rights of public streets as private streets. He thought that was a policy issue they needed to discuss at some point.
Corliss said it was mentioned by the property owners but they had not pursued it. He said they could talk to the County and it could be a private street now, but they had not chosen to pursue that at this time. (12)
Consider referring back to the Planning Commission the request to rezone two tracts of land approximately 4.41 acres (Z-10-69-05), from RM24 (Multi-Dwelling residential) to RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office. The property is generally described as being located north of West 7th Street, west of Wisconsin Street.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report. She said this request started in 2003 with the submittal of a site plan for apartments on this specific property. It triggered some issues, questions and concerns from the neighborhoods. In 2004, the City Commission initiated the planning process for the HOP District Plan. Also in 2004, the site plan for that property was denied and the property owner filed an appeal of this decision to the District Court regarding the denial of the site plan. In 2005 the HOP District Plan was approved and rezonings were initiated for roughly 15 areas within the planning area as part of the implementation of the plan. This specific rezoning was heard in December 2005 and the Planning Commission recommended approval with a 10-0 vote. In 2006 and 2007 there was continued litigation on this property, which was why the City Commission never saw the rezoning. They thought it was appropriate to hold off on the decision with the pending litigation. It was now complete and the City Commission decision was upheld and brought them back to the issue of the rezoning.
She said the issues that staff identified for this rezoning was that the Planning Commission heard and made a recommendation on the rezoning two years ago. There had been most likely property owner changes, changes on the make up on both the City Commission and Planning Commission, and since had the adoption of the new development code, which identified with new zoning districts converted to different zoning districts. All those reasons led to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing.
Vice Mayor Dever called for public comment.
Harold Shepard, owner of the property, said when he bought the property that property was zoned multi-family and stayed multifamily until he came to the City to receive a building permit to build on the property. The Planning Commission approved his plan, but when the issue came before the City Commission and the City Manager at the time, they were coerced by some property owners. The City Commissioners decided they would join into the neighborhood development after he had been approved. Staff recommended that he receive his permit to build his apartments. The City Commissioners and City Manager, and the neighborhood development decided that everyone could build there except him. He said if this rezoning was sent back to the Planning Commission, he would like to leave the property as it was and let someone develop that property and it was not feasible for him to develop the property because of the rise in prices. He said he would like to put this issue to bed and quit the bickering.
He and his family had been citizens of Lawrence, Kansas for 125 years and he had done a lot of things to improve the living in Lawrence, Kansas. He had been penalized for it, but figured it was worth it. He heard the Commission say when they make commitments, they ought to stick to those commitments. When he came to the Planning Commission and City Commission for approval, all that should have been considered was the plan. He said his tax on his property was $4,000 and there was no way anyone who invested in a property could pencil that out. He said that property was down zoned for no reason other than that property was his.
He asked if it was possible for the Commission to send the rezoning back to the Planning Commission and asked if there was any way to leave the property zoned as it was because if that property was zoned to anything else no one could afford to pay the taxes.
Commissioner Amyx asked whether the Planning Commission had the authority to make the recommendation on whatever the City Commission referred back to the Planning Commission or what the Planning Commission believed was a better suit for this particular property a zoning category for this property.
Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, said he believed that was accurate. He said this was not an applicant initiated rezoning so the Planning Commission had the ability to look at the full range of zoning categories within the City Code.
Commissioner Amyx said in an answer to Shepard’s question, he thought the Planning Commission could obviously make a zoning recommendation. The HOP Plan was in place and a lot of planning had gone into that entire district and was one of the final pieces of the district plan. He did not have a problem making an initiation and allowing the Planning Commission to consider the item, take into consideration Shepard’s request, along with the reasoning from the neighborhood. The Planning Commission had to hold the hearing for consideration of any zoning change.
Emily Hill, Vice President of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, said she had been involved with this HOP task force for about four years. The previous speaker made a comment that they were hoping the planning office was making a recommendation of rezoning to single family, which was not the case. Their neighborhood embraces the idea of multifamily and thought it was appropriate at that location. Their goal was to have that area fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. She said 7th Street used to be the main highway through Lawrence. Most of 7th Street was zoned with highway zoning, so along that street they had high density multifamily, commercial zoning, C-5, C-4, and their goal as a neighborhood was if the narrow dead end street still merited highway zoning and the answer that came back from the Planning Commission from the City Commission to the Planning Office to all the neighborhoods was they needed to update it and bring it up to the 21st Century. The decision to rezone the properties in question was made unanimously by the City Commission and Planning Commission at this time, the new zoning code was both anticipated and explicitly discussed, so from the perspective of the neighborhood, it was in their minds and the minds of the planning office, part of the game plan all along.
She also wanted to update the City Commission on the progress they were making as neighborhoods on implementing the HOP District Plan. Most of the first step was completed, which was updating the zoning. The second step was to develop a district overlay for the 6th Street corridor. They had recently and successfully applied to the Lawrence Preservation Alliance for something called a Private Use Fund, which would allow members of their neighborhoods to make contributions to this fund and have it be tax deductible. Essentially it acted as a type of 501(c)(3) organization. They already had $2,000 committed to this fund out of their own money of the neighborhoods to hire a consultant to guide them through the district overlay. They identified that consultant and were excited about the progress they were making. Completing step 1, which involved at least two remaining pieces of property, was a critical piece of the district plan and hoped the City Commission would stick by the decision made in 2005.
Shepard asked what was critical about that piece of property in dealing with the entire plan.
Hill said this property was in an urban developed area. It was rare they had two lots in connection to each other that were very likely to redevelop in the next 10 years. Across 6th Street to the north side, there were a number of properties in that area that would have a change in ownership in the next four to five years. That was one of the main reasons they wanted to make sure they had a plan for this corridor. It was rare to have an undeveloped lot like that in a dense developed neighborhood. She said they wanted the 6th Street corridor to revitalize and attract local businesses. They wanted it to develop and be positive for the older potential historic neighborhoods. They wanted those neighboring lots to be positive.
Commissioner Highberger said Shepard referenced 15 property owners that had disappeared. He said it was his understanding the other properties that were identified for rezoning had been rezoned.
Leininger said there were 15 other rezonings and roughly 37 properties or portions of properties. She said there was one that disagreed and was removed and in Pinckney that were removed for other reasons. Otherwise, the majority of the property owners complied.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the ones that were removed were because they requested to be removed or was it because of a non-conforming situation.
Leininger said one was because of a non-conforming situation and the other was just because the Planning and City Commission felt a more appropriate zoning could be used for that property.
Shepard said the decision to rezone this property was made unanimously by both the City and Planning Commission’s and asked why they were going through the process again.
McCullough said this initiated rezoning case was held in abeyance until the litigation was resolved. After a couple of years of litigation, they brought this rezoning forth and met with legal staff and decided this was the best procedure to take to consider this item again. As noted, property owners had likely changed, the makeup of the City and Planning Commission changed, and the neighborhood in the area might have changed. He said staff believed the best process to have the City Commission to consider this rezoning was to refer it to the Planning Commission, have the debate, and then bring the issue back to the City Commission with a recommendation.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Highberger, to refer back to the Planning Commission the request to rezone two tracts of land approximately 4.41 acres (Z-10-69-05), from RM24 (Multi-Dwelling residential) to RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office. The property is generally described as being located north of West 7th Street, west of Wisconsin Street. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-811 of the Development Code for TA-09-20-07 to clarify that water service must be purchased from and conveyed by a publicly treated water source.
Joseph Rexwinkle, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this amendment was initiated by the County Commission on September 24th. The existing language stated that all persons created by property division in the urban growth area must obtain water from simply water treated sewers. It did not specify the method for which the water was conveyed on the property, such as a water meter. The intent of the regulations upon adoption was to require that parcels created in the UGA obtain water from a rural water district ran by a water meter. The proposed language would clarify that was done. Additionally, there would be existing language to clarify the applicant for property division provided documentation of water meters available and would be provided for all parcels or lots that were created as a result of the division. At the October 22nd Planning Commission hearing they recommended approval by a 5-4 vote. The County Commission recommended approval unanimously.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Rexwinkle could explain the differences of opinion of the Planning Commission. He read through the Planning Commission minutes and had a hard time figuring out the disagreement.
Rexwinkle said the conversation centered on the timing when a water meter became available and both parcel and lot created was buildable. The issue if the parcels were created by a certificate of survey or lots were created by a subdivision, then they were eligible for the new property owners, but they would know whether they would or would not be able to get a proper water meter the day they bought the property. What the proposed language would say was they could provide them documentation the rural water district would have the capacity in four years or they were on a waiting list to get it, even though they might not have it now. There was confusion over that particular part and what the discussion centered on.
Commissioner Highberger asked if that would be any different than the situation under the current code. He could not see a mechanism how a purchaser would know if a water meter was available for a lot.
Rexwinkle said the current code stated that the water meter had to be on the property before they could approve the lot split. They were finding that certain districts are on five or six year waiting lists and held up review on the certificate of survey for that time.
Vice Mayor Dever called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Highberger said this was an issue he had a little trouble understanding from the minutes, but he looked at the comments made by Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Harkins and thought their concerns made sense. He was not sure if water was not available to a lot, then it did not make a lot of sense to have the lot splits occurring. He was open to persuasion.
Vice Mayor Dever said it was a matter of timing and semantics they all agreed before they were required to have a meter on the premises and now they just had to have access to a water meter or on a waiting list. He said one could receive water from a district, dump it into a cistern and use that for their water supply and be in compliance with this rule.
Rexwinkle said with the way it was written today, it just said they had to purchase or obtain the water from a public water supply source.
Commissioner Highberger said there must be a way to address both concerns. He asked if that was proposed at the Planning Commission. He realized the new language was an improvement and it did clarify that it had be through the public water supply system, but there might be a way to draft it so Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Harkins concerns and the intent of it progressed.
Rexwinkle said if there were two issues and were speaking to the issue related to the timing. From looking at the minutes, it was not clear to him what specifically their concerns were other than there was a general sense of confusion of what the time issue was.
Commissioner Highberger said he gathered that under the current code there had to be evidence of a water meter to get the lot split and under the new language that would not be the case.
Rexwinkle said yes, there had to be documentation that the water would be available for a certain period of time after they purchased it. They would not need a meter in place.
Commissioner Amyx asked if they created the loophole with the new rural subdivision regulations.
Rexwinkle said the language was adopted with the original subdivision regulations and the particular instance that he spoke of, the applicant asked directly if he could obtain water from the City and store it on a cistern on their property.
Commissioner Amyx said this was a way to clean up the language and be able to take care of the loophole the City created.
Commissioner Highberger said given the problem they were trying to correct, he would be willing to move forward with this amendment.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 29-811 of the Development code for TA-09-20-07. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-811 of the Development Code for TA-09-21-07 to clarify that access shall be taken from a hard-surfaced road.
Joseph Rexwinkle, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this subdivision regulations regarded a requirement that access that access to those properties be taken from a hard surfaced road. The language applied to a parcel created under the subdivision regulations on property located in the urban growth area. The existing language stated that those properties should be a hard surface road but did not specify a definition. It was generally considered to be a paved road of asphalt, concrete, or chip and seal and was based on Chapter 9 of the Douglas County Code. This language was proposed for amendment because townships had the responsibility for maintaining county roads and many townships did not have the resources for constructing or maintaining those roads. The case of Grant Township, which was located within the UGA, north of the Kansas River, that township in particular, did not have the resources which meant there could not be any property divisions in that township at all. On September 24th the Board of County Commissioners initiated this text amendment with language that stated any parcel created in the UGA might take access to a rock or gravel road, which met the County’s rock road standards. Those standards were outlined in Chapter 9 of the County Code. Additionally, they provided some definitions in the subdivisions regulations. On October 22nd the Planning Commission recommended approval by an 8-2 vote.
Vice Mayor Dever called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Highberger said he had some concerns about those amendments. He said the subdivision regulations were adopted after discussions and one of the goals of the subdivision regulations was to prevent mill and overlay growth and residential growth in the County to avoid the County being carved up in the five acre lots. This was part of that. He understood the situation for Grant Township that there might be a better way to address it than to open up the entire county to a lot more potential subdivision and small lot divisions on gravel roads. He opposed those amendments.
Rexwinkle said essentially what this change did was opened up any gravel road in the urban growth area. For that matter, they could divide property outside the UGA on a gravel road, but this pertained to the UGA. It opened up the ability to create residential development parcels for building permits as long as the gravel road met the standards. The codes could be changed to increase some of those standards or keep it the way it was now, which would delegate it to only hard surfaced roads and they have had several property owners in Grant Township approach the planning office seeking to build a house on their property and if it was not a vested property, they had to go through the subdivision regulations. If the road was not paved in front of their property, they could not build their house. It did not apply to large developments or large subdivisions, but could be one parcel with one house.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger that there were unintended consequences. He said from a development standpoint or single family property owner who might be precluded from improving their land. He knew the effort that the previous City Commission put in the regulations and this could potentially punch a hole in it. They needed to review the County Commission minutes and review their discussion.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to defer, until such time as the Commission can review the County Commission meeting minutes on the topic or additional information from the County Administrator, considering the amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-811 of the Development Code for TA-09-21-07 to clarify that access shall be taken from a hard-surfaced road. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Consider approving the 2008 Legislative Policy Statement.
David Corliss, City Manager, presented the 2008 Legislative Policy Statement. He said last week the City Commission talked generally about state legislative issues as they took a look of what staff compiled for the Legislative Policy Statement. Now there was a draft 2008 State Legislative Policy Statement that responded to the direction the City Commission provided last week. It also included some staff initiated language as well. Staff highlighted the significant changes to the language. There were also follow up items. The City Commission asked staff to review different levels of research which included what Arizona did for revenue sharing; Alcohol Beverage Control’s action regarding Last Call; financial systems for levy work; ways to assist seniors on fixed incomes for rising property tax burdens; provided information about the property tax revenue loss that cities were experiencing because of the machinery and equipment property tax exemption; modified the previous agreement on some of the items that actually happens such as the GASB 45 Rule; and sanitation issues on the Kansas Reservoir. They had a staff initiative about comments from health care workers regarding involuntary blood draws, which were situations where individuals were in custody and there was a question whether health care workers would have immunity. He thought state law needed to be reviewed and revised accordingly. There was an attachment with the League of Municipalities statement as well. Their recommendation was unless they had questions or concerns about what they provided; they go ahead and adopt this statement.
Vice Mayor Dever called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Chestnut said on the reimbursement slider and some of the comments, did they know when they should expect that. He understood they were not going to put it in the document, but wanted to make sure they followed through with the state on that check needing to be written.
Corliss said he has asked staff to let them know when the check would be cut. He did not think they had a clear answer from that yet.
Commissioner Chestnut said it was clearly part of the law when it was passed.
Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager, said she had a conversation with some staff of the Douglas County Budget Office and according to their staff, the City should be anticipating some kind of a check in February of 2008. The County indicated they would provide some correspondence to the city to confirm that. Also, it was indicated the amount would be around $100,000. They figured the cost was about $129,000 in revenue loss for 2007 and the slider was about 90% of that. It was a rough estimate at this time.
Commissioner Amyx said he thought Corliss incorporated all of the things the City Commission asked of staff. He thought they had a very aggressive legislative plan and hopefully the City would get a lot of good and favorable comments when they met with the legislative delegation.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the 2008 Legislative Policy Statement. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
12/11/07 |
· Consider approving plan to deploy Electronic Immobilization Devices (Tazers) for the Lawrence Police Department.
· Public hearing for vacation of easements in Westwood Hills neighborhood.
|
|
12/18/07 |
The December 20 City Commission meeting has been moved to December 18 at 6:35 p.m.
|
|
01/08/08 |
Consider the following items related to the Proposed Oread Inn project (12th and Oread):
a) The public hearing on the appeal of the Historic Resources Commission determination for DR-07-93-07 was conducted on November 13, 2007. Additional public comment from the applicant and the public in response to recently submitted material would also be appropriate.
ACTION: Receive public comment.
b) Consider making a determination on the appeal of the Certified Local Government Review under K.S.A. 75-2715 – 75-2726, as amended:
ACTION: Make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed demolition of the structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site, if appropriate.
ACTION: Make a determination that the proposed project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties, if appropriate.
c) Consider making a determination to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site.
ACTION: Make a determination to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site, if appropriate.
d) Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft ordinance for Z-07-13-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately .746 acres, from CN1 (Inner Neighborhood Commercial) & RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development). The property is located at 618 W 12 th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record. (PC Item 6A; approved 9-1 on 10/22/07)
ACTION: Approve rezoning, Z-07-13-07, and direct staff to draft ordinance for 618 W 12th Street, if appropriate.
e) Consider approval, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-07-03-07, a Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Circle (Oread Inn), located at 618 W 12th Street. The plan proposes mixed use residential and commercial development. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record. (PC Item 6B; approved 9-1 on 10/22/07)
ACTION: Approve, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-07-03-07, if appropriate.
|
|
01/15/08
|
|
|
TBD |
|
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid- Restroom & Shelter Cleaning, Jani-King of Kansas City for $4,788.
2. Bid- Downtown Debris Cleaning, Smart Building Service for $7,978.
3. Bid- Security Services, Jani-King of Kansas City for $7,000.
4. Ordinance No. 8211 – 1st Read, codification of general ordinances of City.
5. Ordinance No. 8198 – 2nd Read, rezone approx. 3.3 acres from RSO to RMO located at Summer Tree Apartments, SE & SW corners of Eldridge St. & W. 6th St.
6. Proposal- Lawrence Freenet, bus tracking/route planning system & advertising on buses & shelters.
7. Relocation & Reimbursement Agreement, $333,000, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., gas line relocation at airport.
8. Extension of Lease Agreement- The Shelter, Inc., Jan. 2008 – Jan. 2013.
9. City Manager’s Report.
10. Report from KTA, Kansas River Bridge construction schedule & related issues.
11. Proposed settlement agreement with Kansas Atty. General.
12. Staff report – Bauer Brook Estates annexation/infrastructure issues.
13. Refer back to Planning Commission request to rezone 2 tracts of land.
14. Amendments to Sections 20-804, -805, -808, & -8011 of Development Code for TA-09-20-07.
15. Amendments to Sections 20-804, -805, -808, & -8011 of Development Code for TA-09-21-07.
16. 2008 Legislative Policy Statement.