May 6, 2008
The Board of Commissioners of the
City of
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval
Mayor Dever proclaimed Saturday, May 10 as Sertoma Bar-B-Q Cook-off Day; the week
of May 11 – 17, as “Police Week” and Thursday, May 15th as “Peace
Officers’ Memorial Day”; and the month of May as Mental Health Month and
National Historic Preservation Month.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Citizen Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 28, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, approve claims to 415 vendors in the amount of $1,737,935.60. Motion carried unanimously.
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment
Licenses for Set’em Up Jack’s, 1800 East 23rd, HH Bar & Grill,
4931 West 6th, the Phoggy Dog, 2228 Iowa; and the Retail Liquor
License for Dangermond Liquor, 1010 North 3rd.
Motion carried unanimously.
The
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Chaney, Inc. $117,515
PI
Group $122,400
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut,
seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Chaney,
Inc., in the amount of $117,515. Motion
carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut,
seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date of June 3,
2008, for the West Baldwin Creek Interceptor Sewer Utilities Project. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut,
seconded by Amyx, to approve the sale of
surplus equipment from the Utilities Department on Gov Deals. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent
agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the purchase of
a 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor from Shawnee Mission Ford for
$21, 783. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 8262,
authorizing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages at
Ordinance No. 8246, amending
Chapter V of the Code of the City of Lawrence 2008 Edition to revise
requirements for plumbing vent systems and unvented gas appliances, was read a
second time. As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye:
Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None.
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance
No. 8251, the rezoning (Z-01-01-08) of approximately .907 acre from CS
(Commercial Strip) to IG (General Industrial), property is located in the 1300
Block of North 3rd Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx,
to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and
Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance
No. 8252, the rezoning (Z-01-02-08) of approximately .54 acre from RS10
(Single-Dwelling Residential) to IG (General Industrial), property is located
in the 1300 Block of
Ordinance 8264, allowing for the temporary sale,
possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor on specific City property,
related to the Wilco concert on May 14, 2008, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx,
to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and
Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 8263,
establishing the maximum assessments for improvements to George Williams Way,
from 6th Street to Overland Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx,
to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and
Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut,
seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning
Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the
rezoning (Z-03-08-08) request for approximately 140 acres for Bauer Brook
Estates from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) to RS-40 (Single-Dwelling
Residential). Motion
carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent
agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to approve a revised Preliminary Development Plan
(PDP-03-03-08) for The Oread, located at
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx,
to authorize an amendment to the Lawrence Community Shelter’s 2008
Agreement for Use of City Funds, removing the fixed amounts for bus passes and
work clothing, allowing LCS to distribute funds as needed between the two
categories. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx,
to receive a revised request for acquisition of City parking spaces for the
building at
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During
the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said to follow up on a number of media
requests staff put together information regarding costs associated with the
NCAA tournament celebrations. The
information did not reflect regular wages of police, fire and other City
employees that were already working, but overtime. Staff also sent thank you letters to law
enforcement agencies that helped the City of
Also,
Police Officer Trent McKinley; Building Safety Manager,
He
said the City Manager’s Report also indicated staff’s continued desire to post information
on the City’s website regarding additional advisory board agendas and
supporting materials.
Finally,
he said the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office, would release a draft plan
for the K-10 and Farmer’s Turnpike area and a public meeting was scheduled later
this month to receive public input on that area plan. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider request from
John
Reeves, Chair, Lawrence Arts Commission presented the request. He said about a month ago their Commission submitted
a letter to the City Commission to review their desire to change Resolution No.
5966 and Resolution No. 5015. Right now,
they were into their 25th year as an advisory board for the City of
He
said their Commission suggested the following changes to Resolution No. 5966:
1. “Change the name of the Lawrence Arts
Commission to the Lawrence Cultural Arts Commission to better reflect the
community of arts (visual, literary, musical, and dramatic) and artists and
audiences that the Commission serves”;
2. “Adopt the following Mission Statement:
The mission of the Lawrence Cultural Arts Commission is to enhance and enliven
the community by promoting cultural opportunities and arts education while
nurturing an environment of aesthetic vitality;”
3. “In the interest of accessibility to
the citizens of Lawrence, for the City to establish a permanent office space
for Arts Commission meetings and a reading/resource library at the Carnegie
Library or suitable alternative;”
4. “Provide funding up to $2,000 for the
Arts Commission Liaison to attend national conferences to become more attuned
to public art practices and current policies in the national network of public
art administrator.”
Reeves
said a few weeks ago, former Mayor Sue Hack was quoted as saying, “It was
possible for the City to do just the basics,” but Lawrence was more than that,
“Lawrence has always prided itself on being a community that enjoys its parks,
its bike paths, its arts, its cultural heritage and downtown just to name a
few.”
He
said Resolution 5015 established the policy governing appropriations and
expenditures for a public art program. In
the past, it had taken a while for the Arts Commission to get a number or idea
of what money had been set aside for percent for arts projects and thought it
might be a good idea to have a City department, either Finance or City
Manager’s Office as suggested in the staff report, to handle that. The follow up component was, when the annual budget
would be sent to the Arts Commission.
Staff suggested March 1st, which seemed like a good day that
they could count on this every year.
Reeves
said on April 21, 2007, the Lawrence Arts Commission had a strategic planning
session that was led by Carol Nalbandian.
One of the Arts Commission’s priorities was an annual arts plan which
required obtaining the amount pursued for arts well in advance, such as the
Mayor
Dever called for public comment.
After
receiving no public comment, David Corliss, City Manager, suggested walking
through the specific requests. The City
Commission’s action would be for staff to come back with drafts of the resolutions. The issue of an office needed to be discussed
regarding the timing for that project, the size of space and location. He did not necessarily see a problem with the
ability to have some space. One of the
reasons why he had advocated for the Carnegie Library improvements was because
the City wanted public use of that building.
Some of their requested items were budgeted items and those items could
be placed on hold until the new budget could be addressed.
He
said regarding the 2% for Art Program, every year, at budget time, staff looked
at last year’s expenses and determined their eligibility. Staff looked at those numbers and provided
those numbers to the Arts Commission to make a request to the City Commission
to determine that amount or some other amount and then those funds would be
available in the next budget year. This
year the City Commission would be getting the 2007 expenses to put in the 2009
City budget. He understood the Arts
Commission’s interest trying to obtain that number early.
He said his recommendation, involving money
was to keep track of those items and as the City Commission built its 2009
Budget, staff would remind the City Commission of those items, put a cost to
them, and the City Commission could budget accordingly.
Mayor
Dever said he agreed. The first item
reflected a name change, the second a purpose statement, and the third was
about use of a permanent meeting room or office space. He thought those were relatively simple to
resolve and discuss.
Commissioner
Amyx said he was comfortable with amending the Resolution No. 5966 to change
the name and the mission statement. He
said regarding the permanent office space at the
Commissioner
Hack said she agreed with the name change and the mission statement because it
better reflected more of the work of the Arts Commission. She asked if the Arts Commission ever used
the
Reeves
said last night, the Arts Commission used the basement of the
Commissioner
Hack said the Arts Commission was a City Advisory Board giving City awards in a
City building.
Corliss
said that was a point of discussion and staff would continue those discussions.
Commissioner
Highberger thanked the members of the Arts Commission. He really liked the expansion of the mission
statement to give them a conscious effort to give some outlook on the
community. He was hoping the Arts
Commission could find some reasonable office space if the
Commissioner
Hack said those things that have a cost component should go through the budget
process.
Commissioner
Highberger said the request for the Staff Liaison to attend National
Conferences was a relatively minor budget item and was less than the amount the
City Manager could approve without discussing that amount with the City
Commission and that item could come back as budget item to be discussed.
Corliss
said during tight budget times, staff stood down on travel time requests and
had a general rule that only department heads and department head equivalents could
attend national conferences, at least for funds out of the General Fund. The Arts Commission budgeted $2,500 this
year, but if the City Commission thought the education could be of value, staff
could find ways to accomplish that funding.
Commissioner
Hack asked if there were other Staff Liaisons on other Advisory Boards that had
that same opportunity and was that funding built into their budgets.
He
said the Staff Liaison for the Arts Commission was also the Liaison for the
Sister Cities Advisory Board who attended a recent training session in the
Kansas City Area. He said the Arts
Commission’s point was that
Commissioner
Amyx said he wanted to follow up on a comment Commissioner Hack made about an
office and resource library to be housed at the
Corliss
said there could be some good discussions.
There was a good relationship with the
Mayor
Dever said they should identify three main missions which were to move forward
with the name change and mission statement change, identify the need for
meeting space, and wait for information from the City Manager concerning travel
funding.
Moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to direct staff to draft revised resolutions with
the changes as discussed regarding the suggested name change, mission statement
and provide additional information on proposed travel funding. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Receive
Loring Henderson, Community Shelter Director,
presented the annual report. He said there
were four reasons for homelessness, lack of housing, jobs, healthcare, and
family support. There were a lot of
urban myths about homeless people and why they got to be homeless, but those
were the four categories of reasons that brought people to this state. It was important to segue way from the
cultural arts commission agenda item to the culture of a community and how it
treated the poorest and most broken people in its community. The Lawrence Community Shelter was proud to
be part of the community’s response to this need in their community’s midst.
He said one urban myth was that people came from all
over to
He said when people go to a shelter, they were given
respect, safety, and programs to get out of homelessness.
One of the other things that
They recently joined the balance of the state for HUD
Programs so applications could be made to the continued care to the larger pool
of money and people were talking in Lawrence how, over time, each could provide
a service to make this continued care real and to take advantage of funding
that was out there. He said with the
vision of housing for the homeless and the vision of the Community Commission
on Homelessness, the Lawrence Community Shelter was part of a group that was
developing a small pilot project for supportive housing; a major need for
people in
He showed the police logs, which was one of the
conditions of the SUP. There were
concerns of privacy, even though the names had been deleted. They did a log, but it would be in a
different form. The other thing
submitted was the number of calls for police and ambulance. They also had a log of guests that had obtained
jobs and housing. In the case management
at the Shelter there were four programs, jobs, housing and benefits and intervention.
Intervention was a multifaceted program that could mean medical or psychiatric
intervention, or drug abuse intervention.
The last category was jobs and housing. In housing, 2 people got into transitional
housing and that was a sign of their availability of family. He said 59 people were helped to submit their
applications through their case management program. The Shelter took 40 people to detoxification and
5 people to rehabilitation programs.
He said under the employment of jobs program section
of case management was a job coaching program which worked with the individual
from the start to the finish. One person
just got a job at Presto in North Lawrence and had to be there at 6:00 a.m. so
the job coach was getting up to drive them to work because there was no
transportation for this person. Until
the person was settled and socialized on the job that was what they were going
to do. They were looking for someone who
was retired or a business person that would like to take this over and take it
to the next level. They had a day
program at the shelter and a night program.
The day program was somewhat divided because they had the Drop in Center
and started 10 years ago. Over time, the Drop in Center was to get people out of
extreme weather, daily living services, it was a fund, a washer and dryer were
provided, limited storage, they served breakfast five days a week. They now had
a file on everyone who came in, an intake on them, and kind of knew who they
were and a little about them. Case
management was another program and it occurred during the daytime and of course
in the same building on the day side.
They averaged about 53 people who go through the drop in center
daily. At night, they slept 31 people,
provided a full evening meal, there was a lot of counseling that went on, and
had three folks on staff that were in recovery themselves and at nighttime
there were a lot of folks that wanted to deal with their issues. They took people whenever they needed to go
to detoxification and there was none in
He said one of the interesting parts for them was
the communications with neighbors. There
was a Good Neighbor Agreement and one of the things the agreement called for
was a semi annual report to the neighbors so they had the summer block party. He said people often thought the shelter was
controversial. He said regarding the Good
Neighbor Agreement, the onus was on the shelter and if they signed the Good
Neighbor Agreement, it helped to keep the shelter on its toes. They thought the Good Neighbor Agreement was
a good way to promote communications and work with neighbors.
He said they also developed and distributed a card what
was distributed to area businesses up and down
He said he also met with the Jane Pennington and Dan
Hughes, of Downtown Lawrence, Inc. to keep communications open. There had been a lot of neighborhood meetings
with different organizations.
He said they also worked out a separate agreement with
the four churches that surrounded the shelter.
It was an outside security plan, which did not mean they were agreeing
to take over security for the churches, but an agreement to work with those
churches. If they saw someone from the
shelter that was across the street on the church property and an issue was
going on, the shelter staff could deal with it and had permission from the
church to go onto their property. They
tried many ways to reach out to the neighbors and work with them. They knew they were in a sensitive space, but
were also in a dilapidated, inadequate, and wrong space.
Vice Mayor Chestnut thanked
Vice Mayor Chestnut said regarding the annual
report, he asked how the number of police and emergency calls compared to years
past.
Commissioner Amyx asked if
Commissioner Hack thanked
Mayor Dever said the public had a better sense of
where things were at because information was posted and it was important for
the public to see the work they did, what was needed in this community, and the
efforts to achieve the results. He
looked forward to looking over more of this information in the future and
hopefully they could make more progress on the location.
Mayor Dever called for public comment.
Melinda Henderson,
She had some concerns from watching that meeting and
listening to everything the shelter was trying to do. She was very proud to have The Shelter as her
neighbor. As she watched the repeat of
the City Commission meeting last Wednesday, she became upset as she listened to
several comments that seemed to stray from the specific issue of the SUP of the
shelter and industrial zoning. She
thought Janet Good made a comment that an SUP for a shelter probably ought to
be required in any rezoning and thought that was a good idea.
She said as a Shelter neighbor, she passed by the
shelter either on foot or by auto several times a week. Last week, she heard anecdotal catastrophe
and if some of the people could have heard
She said she read the executive summary that was
attached and the first two recommendations that
As an Oread resident, she did not know the best long
term location for the Community Shelter, but knew people were working in groups
on that issue. She preferred to continue
to be a neighbor to The Shelter rather than living in a neighborhood with a lot
of party houses. She was concerned the
implied message, last week, was to not put it in their neighborhood. She said when the Barker Neighborhood was
being looked at as a site for the Salvation Army, she heard the same argument
and the situation had not gotten better since, but getting worse. She hoped the
community could have that discussion and education so they did not hear those
types of comments.
Commissioner Highberger said he lived in the Oread
area and lived about three blocks from The Shelter and would rather have The Shelter
closer and some of the party houses farther away.
Eileen Smith,
She said she had worked as an independent living
model for mentally handicapped in
Moved
by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to receive the annual report. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider adopting the 2008-2012
Consolidated Plan and the 2008 Action Plan and consider adopting Resolution No. 6768,
authorizing the Mayor to execute agreements for the 2008 CDBG and HOME programs
and other such documents as may be required to be submitted to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for such programs.
The
Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee, or the NRAC, made the final
recommendation for the CDBG and HOME Programs with input from other citizen
boards and the public, census data, previous homeless counts had been conducted
and also took direction from the City Commission from the annual study
session.
She
said as previously approved by the City Commission the advisory committee continued
to consider the Step Up to Better Housing strategy and additionally strong
attention had been paid to continue to address the homeless situation in the
community with the allocation of funds to both the Lawrence Community Shelter
and the Salvation Army.
The
advisory committee held a public hearing on April 10th which opened
the 30 day written comment period.
Several people attended the public hearing and provided comments to the
committee and that information would be included in the plan. To date, they had received no written
comments, but there were about 7 more days to go and if staff received any
comments, those comments would be included in the submission.
She
said with regard to the investment summary which was page 18 of the action
plan, it was important to note that by federal regulation expenditure of funds
was limited in three areas and no more than 15% of the CDBG grant could be used
for public service activities; as for administration the cap was 20% for CDBG
and 10% for HOME; and for the Community Housing Development Organization, or
CHDO, which in their case was Tenants to Homeowners, operating expenses was
limited to 5%. The allocations that were
recommended to the City Commission were all within the regulatory caps. There
was no cap for public expenditures and there was no cap for the set aside for
the CHDO which was a minimum of 15% so more could be allocated. In this year’s case, a little bit more money
was allocated.
She
said she would like to recognize and thank Leslie Rigney who was the
Neighborhood Program Specialist who was very instrumental in the preparation of
the plan this year. The next step in the
process was to adopt the resolution authorizing the submission of the CDBG and HOME
grant documents and the Consolidated Plan and 2008 Action Plan and investment
summary.
Commissioner
Amyx said regarding the sidewalks in the 700 block of
Swarts
said the Van Go and the 700 block of
Commissioner
Amyx asked if the sidewalk at Van Go was going through the parking lot area
along the north side of the building.
Swarts
said yes. This was part of the entire
new site improvements with parking and sidewalks and then the sidewalk would connect
down the street.
Mayor
Dever called for public comment.
Kristen
Roussel, Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee, said their Board would also
like to thank Swarts and all the contributions from staff both in the
Neighborhood Resources Department and others that were helpful in providing
information in going through the deliberation process and making allocations.
Loring
Henderson said when he saw this issue on the agenda, he thought it would be an
opportunity to express appreciation from not only him, but also from the group
of agencies dealing with the issue of homelessness regarding the wonderful
staff support they received from Swarts and Rigney. He said when discussions took place earlier
about Lawrence being fortunate and the good will that agencies had amongst each
other, there had to be a source and that source was the trust for Swarts and
Rigney.
Robert
Baker, Housing and Credit Counseling, said he wanted to thank the board for
their preliminary funding recommendation and also recognized the job that board
did. It was really hard to come up with
funding recommendations especially when you have subsequent years of reduced
funding. It was a tough job, but the
board did a good job.
Commissioner
Amyx said the recommendation from the advisory board was unfortunate, but was a
sign of the times in that people were affected by housing situations and was
glad they were able to help. He also thanked
Swarts as he had the opportunity to see the development of the Community Development
Block Grant and the professionalism from staff.
He said Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board made good,
positive and sound recommendations with that large amount of work. He said CDBG funds were decreasing, but they
tried to touch as many programs and public improvements as they could.
Mayor
Dever said in the brief time he had been associated with CDBG, he had heard
positive comments about the work done and looked at all the different items
they had to look at and was hard to prioritize.
He said Swarts was doing an excellent job and he appreciated that very
much. He hoped staff could continue to
properly allocate the funds and put those funds to the best use in the
community.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the 2008 Action
Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6768, authorizing the Mayor to execute agreements
for the 2008 CDBG and HOME Programs and other such documents as may be required
to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
such programs. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
Consider request for Landmark Designation, L-08-01-07, and hold public hearing
for consideration of placing the structure located at
Consider request for Landmark Designation, L-09-02-07, and hold public hearing
for consideration of placing the structure located at
Mayor Dever called a public
hearing to consider a request for Landmark Designation, L-08-01-07, a request
for landmark designation at
Lynn Zollner, Historic
Resources
The residence was located in
the Old West Lawrence Historic District as a contributing structure to that
district, so it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Currently that district had environs, so all
the properties that would be included in the local environs of the Jacob House
Residence were already included in the environs of the state or national
environs. She said when they listed
properties on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places, the Historic Resources
Commission defined the definition of the environs so it was clear what projects
could be reviewed administratively and what projects must go to the full HRC
Commission. She said in Chapter 22,
there was a presumption that any project in the environs would be improved
unless there was some specific cause for harm to the listed property. Those definitions helped clear up what
projects might be reviewed and how they could be reviewed.
She said the next
nomination,
She said staff included information
on the environs definition in case there were any questions about what projects
needed to be reviewed, whether it held up a building permit, or took an
extraordinary amount of time. Most of
the projects were administratively reviewed by her and usually took about 10
days. Planning Staff was now working
with Development Services to speed that time up as much as they could by doing
almost all of their communication electronically; using PDF’s and PDF date
stamps so she could approve something and e-mail it back sometimes on the same
day. Staff was working toward that
process as staff became one agency to have better communications to turn those
around. She said she anticipated that 10
day time would shrink, even though the number of cases may go up. She said most things could be approved
administratively, except for demolition, new construction, and major building
additions. Everything else would be an
administrative review.
Commissioner Amyx said the
environs were the key for adjoining property owners because they were already
in the environs of another structure that was listed so any of the requirements
to develop or redevelop or pull a building permit, they were already in those
environs.
Zollner said that was
correct.
Mayor Dever asked whether
there would be any additional burdens on the homeowner as a result of the
designation.
Zollner said no.
Mayor Dever asked about the
importance of this designation.
Zollner said the Lawrence Register
was like a high school honor roll and was not used enough. It would be used as a community tool with
heritage tourism and most people would call and ask what was listed on the
Lawrence Historic Register. Right now
there were not a lot of properties listed on the Lawrence Register because they
were listed on the State or National Historic Register. A lot of times people were looking for the
local flavor and what was important to the local community. Staff was encouraging properties, as staff
was looking at or reviewing a National Register nomination, that they might want
to consider being on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places because it was
like an honor roll and were properties in the community that were significant
to Lawrence’s heritage.
Mayor Dever called for
public comment.
Dennis Brown, President of
the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said he lived in the environs of the Old
West Lawrence Historic District for 20 years.
He said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance was very supportive of both
805
He said this housed was designed
in 1956 by then Kansas University Assistant Professor of Engineering Doctor
Donald Dean in order to, in his own words, demonstrate the feasibility of this
type of construction and to check qualitatively the adequacy of the design
methods and had indeed withstood the
Beyond the specialness of
934 West 21st itself, was to him the great lesson of the 1950’s Hyperbolic
Paraboloid. As builders of today’s
structures, they should be aware that over 50 years from now their design
creations would achieve eligibility for historic register listing. To do so, their structures would still need
to be structurally sound and if they were not then they were not doing a good
job of sustainable building. Beyond
that, it would not be for them to decide and would fall to their children or
grandchildren to make the determination that if what they built was worthy of recognition
as their own recorded chapter in Lawrence history based on what they had in
registers for historic places. To be
judged by their children was a stern
Tim Weston said he was a
neighbor to the Paraboloid House on
Sharla True, Lawrence, said she lived in the neighborhood of the 805
residence and was not sure how it affected rules and regulations of those who
lived in the neighborhood. She said as
long as it was just recognition for their beautiful home she had no problem
with it but if it affected the rules and regulations of fencing or remodels to
homes she had a problem with infringing on the rights of neighbors and future
home owners. If being on the register
meant they could not fix the garage when a tree fell on it or what have
you. She said a classic example was on
Randy Masten said he and his
wife were co-owners of the structure at
He thanked Tom Harper in his
efforts in researching this home. He did
quite a bit of research and since he had moved into the house they had done
more research and were remarkable. As
time went on, it would be more noteworthy.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Amyx said he
thought both of those pieces of property were deserving of landmark designation
in the city. He said one question he had
earlier because it was a question of environs and what had to happen because
the environs already existed, if either one of those properties had designation
that did not go forward, those rules and regulations were there. He said the two pieces of property being
discussed were important and everyone had ideas about that house, past and
present. He said he was in support of those
two designations and appreciated the work staff had done and the owners of the
properties in keeping those houses in a way that all of
Commissioner Hack said both
properties were beautiful and it was very smart idea to place those properties
as landmark designations.
Mayor Dever said jewels came
in all shapes and sizes, but both structures were two very different beauties and
deserving of this designation. He was
glad to honor it and place those structures on the honor roll.
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to draft an
ordinance for landmark designation for
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to draft an
ordinance for landmark designation for
Consider the following Traffic Safety
Commission (TSC) Items:
a) Consider approving the recommendation from
the TSC to establish a marked crosswalk together with pedestrian refuge islands
on Louisiana Street adjacent to Dakota Street.
b) Consider the recommendation from the TSC to
deny the request to establish stop signs at the four traffic booth entrances on
the Kansas University Campus. (TSC approved 4-3) The University of Kansas has made the request
for the stop signs. The stop signs are
necessary to improve student safety on the campus and comply with the
MUTCD. The TSC did recommend denial of
this request; however staff is recommending that the request for stop signs be
approved.
c) Consider approving the recommendation from
the TSC to establish a mid-block marked crosswalk on Naismith Drive between 18th
Street and 19th Street. (TSC approved 5-2)
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the
staff report. He said the first item was a request
from the neighborhood to establish a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection
of
The Traffic Safety Commission approved the
pedestrian crosswalk unanimously, but staff wanted to make sure it was brought
to the City Commission because there would be a slight cost which would be done
in-house to put in a pedestrian refuge island.
He said there were issues with the pedestrian refuge islands when those
islands were installed on
Vice Mayor Chestnut asked about the proposal for
Soules said yes.
Vice Mayor Chestnut said between Dakota and 23rd
Street was about 1600 feet.
Soules said that was correct.
Commissioner Hack asked if the Bicycle Advisory
Committee looked at this or commented on it.
Soules said he was not aware of any comment from
the BAC.
Commissioner Hack said the e-mails she received
dealt with bicycle safety and wondered if Soules had any information on those
pedestrian islands.
David Corliss, City Manager, said when those
pedestrian refuge islands were installed on
Mayor Dever said as far as experience, he was more
concerned about less experienced drivers, than less experienced bikers because
those two met often. He said he
considered himself a fairly experienced rider, but sometimes a person could run
into a situation where the car tried to pass a biker as opposed to a biker
passing a car. He said in his opinion it
was a conflict of two modes of transportation and often times there was no room
and it ended with a problem.
Mayor Dever called for public comment.
Sharla True said one word, stop signs. Those roundabouts or walk through areas were
costing tremendous amount of money and upkeep.
It was difficult for women with strollers on roundabouts and walk through
areas. She said it was just mentioned
that this was a terrible insult to bicyclers and it narrowed the road and
bicyclists would jump the curb if they saw a car coming. She said they were talking about high school and
junior high drivers, buses and City buses to contend with. Due to the roundabouts, buses would not let
you off as close to the corner as a person needed to get off. It did not calm the traffic, but impedes the
traffic. It was very unsafe and every
driver she had been hit by had been a high school person or college student and
was very well traveled by both.
Michael Pomes, President of the Parkhill
Neighborhood Association, said he came in support of the pedestrian refuge island. He said mostly because he drove by there
every day and part of the neighborhood both on the east side, which was the
Parkhill Neighborhood Association and on the west side was the Belle Haven
Neighborhood, what he saw over and over again were a lot of pedestrians that
were attempting to go from one side to the other side. So far they had not had the climate to walk
around, but as the weather started to get nicer, he saw a lot of activity going
from the
Commissioner Highberger said he understood the
concerns of bicyclists, but he said they had a number of those islands and
although there was concern, he did not have strong evidence of actual
difficulties or accidents. He said on a
street like
Vice Mayor Chestnut said he had to respectfully
disagree with the Traffic Safety Commission, especially one of the concerns he
had was with process. In reading the
minutes, bicycles were not even in the discussion. There were basically two public comments one that
the speaker did not expect the sidewalk to protect them from the traffic and the
other that the crosswalk define the area where pedestrians should be
crossing. He was not sure they were
opposing the recommended solution that came up to it.
He was a little bit confused by several comments by
Commissioners. One Commissioner said he
was interested in seeing the kind of traffic they were walking in the area
before they did anything. He was
perplexed about that and was particularly concerned about bicyclists. Ultimately they had to make decisions between
autos, bicycles and pedestrians. In this
case, bicyclists were not even considered in the equation. He said he agreed with the map Soules brought
that it might be appropriate to have some type of crossing but was concerned
something was designed that did not meet the needs of one of the three groups
that used that road and was not even really considered.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with the Vice
Mayor. She was usually hard pressed to
go against a unanimous recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission and was
quite frankly unaware of the hazards of the bicycling public, but knew those
pedestrian refuges and island had been a constant concern for folks.
Commissioner Amyx said along with what Vice Mayor
Chestnut and Commissioner Hack spoke about, he really did not think much about
what cyclists had brought into this discussion until the comments received in
the last 48 hours. He said Corliss
pointed out an important part that if the City Commission were to proceed, that
proper lighting would need to be available.
He said if the refuge island was the only thing that was being
constructed he could not support that and did not feel safe placing people in
those situations on that street. If the
City Commission wanted to send this issue back to look at other types of
crosswalks or something else that was going to protect that lane from narrowing
down, he would look at that and along with the comments of the City Manager
about the lighting. He wanted to make
sure it was a safe situation for all involved.
He felt comfortable sending it back to the Traffic Safety Commission to
look at other alternatives.
Commissioner Hack asked if there were any other
alternatives besides the refuge islands.
A stop sign tells people what they were supposed to do and those in
terms of yielding to the bicyclists, but were there other options for this or a
raised crosswalk or something that would note that.
Commissioner Hack said she was not sure this
created the safest situation for the pedestrian or bicyclist. Looking at other alternatives might be a good
way to handle it.
Commissioner Amyx said rather going all the way
against the TSC he would feel better sending it back to the TSC to receive additional
information on what other types of safety crossing could be placed at that
location.
Commissioner Highberger said if those crossing were
as dangerous as everyone believed, those crossing should be ripped out.
Mayor Dever said this was a major bike route in and
out of town for people going to and from high school. Plus, it was a designated bike route. He thought there was a majority that would
like this issue to go back to the Traffic Safety Commission and make sure that
there were bicyclists involved in the process and the designation because they
had concerns with the current configuration, construction or location of the
pedestrian refuges as they were.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to refer the Traffic Safety
Commission’s recommendation to approve a marked crosswalk together with
pedestrian refuge islands on
Soules said the second item was a request from the
He
said the third item was a second request from the
Commissioner
Highberger said regarding Item B, currently the way he understood it, there
were stop signs up when campus was closed and the rest of the time there were
no stop signs. He asked if Item B dealt
with a change of that policy.
A KU
representative said yes.
Jim
Modig, Director of Design Construction Management at the
He
said there was one minor correction.
They relocated one of the booths; the booth at 13th and
Commissioner
Amyx said if he understood this right, as he was driving up to the booth, the
stop sign would be at that location when coming onto campus.
Modig
said the stop sign would be on the right hand side, off of the curb.
Commissioner
Amyx asked about the stacking of vehicles.
He asked if the stacking would block any intersections.
Modig
said the stacking of vehicles had been there for as long as he recalled. What would happen would be a stop and
go. If a person had a permit to get on
campus that person would come up to the stop and then move on, which was
basically what happened now. Some of the
people were slowing down and get the sign from the attendant and move on. It might be a little bit slower, but it was
basically the same condition. The Chi
Omega Fountain area was probably the one that got congested the most, but that
was also because students were doing drop offs at that location to get students
onto campus. The other three entry
points were far enough away from intersections that it had not been a problem.
Commissioner
Highberger asked if by placing stop signs at those locations 24/7 that would
slow down some of the on campus traffic.
Modig
said yes. It also made that stop an
enforceable stop as well, which would help traffic flow.
Mayor
Dever said the way the signs were right now, they could not legally enforce the
stops.
Modig
said no, they were not a legal stop sign.
Robin
Smith,
He
said his granddaughter who was 3 years old and he went onto campus to have
lunch at the student union and it turned out to be an ideal time for him to
observe a couple of the booths on campus.
He said they sat by one of the toll booths closest to campus on about 14th
Street. During that period of time, it
was amazing. There were a number of
people that did not stop at the current stop sign by the booth and those were
the KU vehicles and traveled through that area fast. He said in the five minutes he was at that
location, he observed 7-8 buses, 3 or 4 pick up trucks, a trash truck, 2 KU
vans, several bicyclists, a John Deere lawn tractor, and a privately owned
vehicle that went buzzing through waiving at the toll person because he thought
they had a sticker, and one person stopped and was sure it was a visitor. He asked if KU wanted stop signs to stop all
of those busses, trucks and lawn people because if that was the goal, he asked
if KU could take care of that goal administratively. He said if KU needed to change behavior, KU
should do it through the department heads and tell them to stop and hold them accountable. He said there was a bright side to all of
this. He said KU wanted to make those
stop signs a City traffic code violation which was a City plus. He asked what a stop sign violation was
worth.
David
Corliss, City Manager, said in the neighborhood of approximately $60 - $70.
Smith
said along with that amount, court costs could be added which could be tens of
thousands of dollars. If a stop sign was
placed at those locations, the KU Police had to be willing to start writing
tickets against all of those state employees that were driving through those
areas. He said if KU police would not
enforce it, City police could go on campus and could write tickets. He said could they imagine what it would be
like before, during and after football and basketball games the amount of money
that could be brought in which was the fun side of this issue.
He said
the serious said of the issue was that he hoped the City Commission would
reject KU’s request for the stop signs.
The single most important issue for him was they wanted to make it 24/7
which was not needed. At the stop sign
at Sunflower and Sunnyside, it was already a four way stop and they were going
to add a 5th one. Again, it
was not needed. He asked the City
Commission to uphold the TSC recommendation on this item.
Corliss
apologized to Smith because staff did not mean to offend him or other Traffic
Safety Commissioners with staff recommendation because staff valued the TSC
input. Those issues put staff in an
awkward situation because they generally defer to KU on their regulations on their
campus and serve as the lawmaking body in those regards, but basically defer to
KU on those traffic issues as appropriate.
He thought there were a lot of issues with this situation. The City traditionally served as the entity
that adopted the ordinance, prosecutes and adjudicates and collect the fines.
Their intent was to assist the
Smith
said he appreciated Corliss’ comment. He
said he wanted to point out when he was on campus today, he stopped at one of
the toll booths and they gave him the parking regulations. Contrary to what was said, it did say in KU”s
parking regulations that the University of Kansas through the Board of Regents
and its administrative officers was authorized by state law to establish
parking rules and regulations and provide penalties and infractions for the
regulations. Traffic control booths were
located at the entrances to the central campus in order to control and restrict
traffic in the central campus area.
Generally, traffic is controlled from 7:45 am to 5:00 p.m. The stop sign shall always be observed, which
was currently right now the busses, trucks and staff of KU were not abiding by
the existing regulation. He was very
familiar with statutes and Kansas Administrative Regulations and suspected if
investigating this issue, there should be Kansas Administrative Regulations to
support whatever
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he knew where the private street starts and stops, and on
the two gate accesses, the access on Mississippi coming up to campus as well as
the access on Sunflower where Indiana went up and Sunflower split off, he asked
where did the City end and KU property began.
Corliss
said on
Smith
asked if City police could write tickets on KU campus.
Corliss
said absolutely. The focus was the
safety of the pedestrian.
Sharla
True, Lawrence, said if a stop sign was violated and a car, bicycle or
pedestrian was hit and injured, she asked if the fine went up.
Corliss
said if there was a vehicular accident it might be a civil claim which would
not have a fine, but would be adjudicated.
If it was determined it was a crime, a vehicle hitting a pedestrian that
involved a crime would be prosecuted and adjudicated in state court and there
might be a fine and imprisonment.
True
asked if someone ran the stop sign and did not injure someone, there was no
additional fine.
Corliss
said there could be an additional fine depending upon the severity of the
offense.
True
said she was in favor of stop signs, including adding more stop signs for walks
and allowing for safety crossing, including putting more on campus because she
and a friend were trying to cross, but no one would stop, including the
police.
Eileen
Smith,
Commissioner
Amyx said the crosswalk was ideal because the crosswalk was between two
residence halls and depending on which side of campus they were on, they had
access to both.
He
said during the years he had been on the City Commission, the City had deferred
those recommendations to KU. He said his
only concern was stacking, but that question was answered. He said he did not have any reason to deny
KU’s request. He said it probably was
not needed 24/7, but he did not have a reason to deny the request.
Commissioner
Highberger said regarding the crosswalk, architect Christopher Alexander
recommended not putting in sidewalks and to see where people walked and then
put the sidewalks in after that. He
thought the City Commission was giving the people what they were going to do
anyway.
He
said in terms of the stop sign, he was not sure that 24/7 was necessary for the
stop signs and there might be some back up problems, and would hate to go
against the Traffic Safety Commission recommendation, but suggested continuing
their practice and defer to KU on their decisions.
Commissioner
Hack said she would echo what Commissioner Highberger stated and she did not have
anything different to add.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he was inclined to support the Traffic Safety Commission on
this issue. He said if the TSC did not
have precedent to hear the recommendation from KU, then the recommendation
should have never gone before that Commission. He said if the City had a policy
of basically granting the request of the University, he was unsure why the
recommendation went before the TSC.
Given the fact, the City believed the Traffic Safety Commission had some
jurisdiction, he agreed with the TSC recommendation. He said he was concerned with snow and ice, because
two of those entrances he commented on were both sloped and if that traffic was
stopped, it might be problematic. He
would support the recommendation to deny.
Commissioner
Amyx asked if there was a better way of handling traffic on a business day for the
University.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said the 24/7 issue was going to be a big issue.
Mayor
Dever said the problem he had with partial was that a behavioral response needed
to be established for that sign. It was
one of those situations where it was either in or out.
Commissioner
Amyx said one reason he concurred with the Traffic Safety Commission was one of
the comments made was that those stop signs were going to be used to slow
traffic down. A stop sign was stopping
traffic.
Commissioner
Highberger said instead of cruising through, a person had to stop and the
average speed on campus would be slower, theoretically.
Commissioner
Hack said it was pedestrian centric anyway which was what they were trying to
accommodate.
Commissioner
Highberger said he was skeptical of whether it would work.
Mayor
Dever said it was a cheap
Commissioner
Amyx said if the signs were being put up, the signs would not be coming down.
Commissioner
Hack said they were not the City’s to put up or take down.
Mayor
Dever said he was trying to defer to tradition and history to allow KU to
enforce their rules. He was a little
skeptical of whether or not they were going to slow down traffic because he
knew people had a tendency of speeding up after a full stop. People who were speeding were likely to
continue to do so. He thought if it was
enforced, then it might end up solving the problem. The City also had an additional source of
revenue if they chose to do that enforcement.
He thought there was probably an alternate way of handling this issue.
Commissioner
Amyx said since the City would be taking care of the fines through Municipal
Court, he asked what this would fix.
Corliss
said as he understood, there were already signs that advised people to stop,
but were not enforced through the municipal court and that needed to be
fixed. He said Modig got the message
that no one was following the signs right now and with an appropriate sign,
they were going to do a good job in educating their own users and other users
that they were going to have this legitimate sign and it was going to be
enforced. He said KU was going to
achieve the goal of slowing down traffic and to the goal of better safety.
Commissioner
Amyx said if they were going to make a change at a location, then something was
broken and needed to find a way to fix it.
On this particular item, he wanted to make a motion to defer this for a
couple of weeks to give the City Commission an opportunity to go look at those
areas.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Highberger, to defer the request to
establish stop signs at the four traffic booth entrances on the
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the request to
establish stop signs at the four traffic booth entrances on the
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s
recommendation to approve the request to establish a mid-block marked crosswalk
on
The City Commission recessed for 10 minutes
at 9:30 p.m.
The City Commission reconvened in regular
session at 9:40 p.m.
Consider candidate projects for the
Federal-Aid Safety Program for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and provide staff
direction on which projects to submit
Chuck
Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the Kansas Department of
Transportation was soliciting tentative projects for the federal safety aid
program for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
Typically, this was a 90/10 federal local match project. The City of
After
reviewing high crash locations for the period of 2005-2007, staff was
recommending the following locations:
1. “
2. “
KDOT
would be taking applications across the state and both projects could be
submitted where KDOT would evaluate a cost benefit analysis and would look at
the cause of the accident, the solution and its costs.
He
said staff provided additional information to the City Commission regarding
three other high accident locations. He
said possible solutions to those locations involving access and neighborhood
issues had not been thoroughly examined and would need additional public input.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was any
neighborhood discussion on the 9th & Avalon item.
Soules
said the 9th and Avalon location would probably not affect very many
people other than the traffic. As far as
the neighborhood issue went, they could widen within the right-of-way.
Soules
said staff had not had any public meetings on those projects.
David
Corliss, City Manager, said staff had not contacted the neighborhood
association on this issue either. He
said one of the issues in trying to analyze neighborhood impact was if the left
turn lane would create cut through traffic or those types of things. In staff’s initial analysis, they did not see
it generating those types of problems and would not significantly impact
property owners.
He
said the City Commission was kind in saying staff needed to work with the
neighborhood on the additional analysis.
The improvements on
Woosley
said that project went as far as the actual design, but the neighborhood was
concerned about the design and the City Commission requested another study of
the neighborhood be done.
Corliss
said there were some neighborhood representatives that indicated they were in
favor of it and some representative that were not.
On
the other items, staff wanted to make sure the City Commission had the accident
location information, but the median issues on 23rd east of Haskell
and
Soules
said if those projects were eligible, KDOT would send a letter and last time
staff was given 45 days to respond if they wanted to do that project or
not. He said staff could start talking
to the neighbors at 9th and Avalon, but he did not think anyone
would be affected and would only be helping the situation.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut asked if additional right-of-way was needed.
Soules
said he did not think additional right-of-way was needed because with the new
design, it was 11 foot lanes. He said
staff needed to look at waterline issues.
Mayor
Dever asked if it was typical for the City to solicit public comment.
Soules
said yes. He said last year staff
received the recommendations and
Corliss
said on March 27th, the City Commission voted to not authorize staff
to proceed. He said staff’s
recommendation was that it was an important area to solve.
He
said this was a little awkward in that staff did not have any idea that those
were viable projects. Staff clearly
needed to contact neighbors and adjacent property owners if those proposed
projects were to proceed any further. He
said staff received those requests when KDOT had the money and staff wanted City
Commission’s input and direction on how to proceed.
Mayor
Dever said if the City was trying to pursue lower cost items, but perhaps
higher proficiency in solving some of the City’s safety hazards, he asked if
that would be possible. He said the
lower cost items would more likely be funded and could possibly solve some of
the City’s problems. He said for
example, 23rd and Haskell seemed to be a major route with a number
of crashed especially in 2007. He said
even though the improvement was only $70,000, it might solve a lot of problems
from a safety standpoint.
Soules
said at some point, all of the proposed areas needed to be addressed. Staff had not talked with those owners and
thought the access issues would be issues to discuss with them.
Mayor
Dever called for public comment.
Sharla
True, Lawrence, asked why a stop light across from Hy-Vee would not work at
that location.
Commissioner
Amyx said if looking at the left turn lane the length of
True
said that would not help people cross that street and it would make it more
difficult because a person would need to watch five lanes of traffic if adding
a turn lane. If the traffic was stopped
then people could turn one street up and go to Hy-Vee the back way.
Mayor
Dever said those were vehicle safety items and the City Commission was looking
at trying to improve the safety of the transportation grid, not necessarily the
pedestrian grid. In this case, they were
trying to seek funds to reduce traffic accidents. Pedestrian and traffic accidents occur, but
they were looking for solutions to the traffic issues as opposed to putting in
more stop lights or pedestrian walkways.
This was strictly money ear marked for the highway transportation.
True
said but down the road in time, as that location grew, there would be a lot
more foot traffic. If looking forward in
time and the City was spending that type of money on turn lanes, she asked why
not include a three way stop at this time.
Mayor
Dever said that was a good question, but KDOT was interested in moving traffic
through and not stopping and allowing people to cross the street. That was who was providing the money and
KDOT‘s goal was to move traffic through the community in an effective fashion.
Commissioner
Amyx said there was a stop light 300 feet to the east at
Corliss
said there was a traffic signal at
True
said her concern was the clump of apartments back in that area and could be
causing some issues. She said people
were already running on foot across the street or with a bike trying to get
across the street in that area.
Commissioner
Amyx said the two recommended projects to KDOT would probably receive favorable
comment from KDOT. He still believed the
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the
recommendations as provided in the May 1 staff memo. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
City Commission discussion and direction on
possible sales tax initiatives
Mayor
Dever asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner
Amyx said as he understood it, Vice Mayor Chestnut came up with a basic plan
for a half cent sales tax with a sunset clause built into it. It included .35% of the .5% was going to go to
infrastructure and .15% into Transit, and those sales tax issues would be set
up as two ballot questions. He asked why
they were divided into two ballot questions.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said in considering this issue, he looked at a number of
factors. One factor was taking the
Mayor’s initiative to start with sales tax as a consideration for Transit after
the City Commission was presented with some pretty significant increases and he
thought it was a consensus that it was going to be very difficult to fund the
City’s current level of Transit with existing funds. He said he derived the allocation based on
what it looked like Transit would require for next year in funding which came
to .15% which was roughly $1.9 - $2 million worth of funds.
As
far as the two separate issues, he knew that most of it surrounded
transportation. He said his biggest
concern was there were two different initiatives. Transit was an operational fund and the
funding would go toward the operation of the T and it was an ongoing
operational fund that would grow at a compound rate of 6-7% a year over
time. The infrastructure fund would be
directed at projects that were not funding personnel, but projects. The street maintenance and some of the big
items which were infrastructure focus for any possible type of economic
development projects. He said there were
discussions in recent days of recreation and if they needed street help and
they felt like it would be a big economic benefit to the community, he thought
it would be reasonable to entertain.
Also,
he agreed that with anything that was done, sidewalks were important, but
again, that was not addressing the problem.
One
of the big concerns was the $6.5 million and if it was assumed that sales tax
revenue grew 2% or 3% a year and Transit grew at a faster rate, what would end
up happening was Transit was about 1/3 of that money now and in 10 years would
be 65-70% of that money because they had seen a significant growth in Transit
costs and could depend on it to be faster than the rate of inflation. He said the City needed to look at those two
areas as separate issues because what would end up happening was the operating
fund in Transit would gobble up the majority of this money over time unless
somehow it was bounded and he wanted it to be bounded.
Commissioner
Amyx said the Mayor had the opportunity to visit with the university and KU on
Wheels as to whether or not a merger of the two programs was even something
that was remotely a possibility.
Mayor
Dever said from the discussion he had, the most likely opportunity to merge was
if they were able to come to the table with the transit system in its current
condition and perhaps boil down the system when a merger would be proposed. He was told if they were to scale down bus
operations and try to return to the table, it would be less likely to occur.
Commissioner
Amyx said he tried to take into consideration what a system looked like if the
system was cut by 50% and assumed mileage would be looked at. If a plan was put together merging the two
systems and the “T” ran
Mayor
Dever said he thought everyone was in agreement regarding a more efficient
system. He said two separate systems
were probably not in the best interests of the community long term, because of
the costs associated with two systems.
He said if they were going to do anything, it would be under the
stipulation that it would not grow exponentially and do everything they could
to maximize the efficiency and serve the most amounts of people given the
current information. If it meant being
more strategic in the route and taking the time to revisit and restructure the
routes, it was a laudable goal to do. He
did not know if the City had time between this date and the date of the
negotiation time of KU to make all the right decisions unless they knew if KU
was part of the formula. There were a
lot of wild cards and a lot of opportunities for them to consider, but from
what he understood, it was in the City’s best interest to keep the system intact
as they made those decisions because there were some overlaps and service
needed at KU and some that did not. If
they were truly going to maximize the system, they needed to overlay the two
systems and figure out how they could serve the largest amount of people the
most efficiently.
Commissioner
Amyx said in looking at this through the budget process, the City did not have
the money anywhere other than to raise mill levy to offset the additional money
the transit system was going to need to cover the cost unless they come up with
a new revenue stream. The vote on the
“T” system, no matter how it was structured, was an ultimatum vote because he
did not see them raising the mill levy by 1.5 mills to cover the shortfall of
money. He said he was looking at this
issue as an entire transportation issue.
He
said he knew the City had other priorities and there was a lot of concern about
equipment needed by the Fire/Medical Department and the City Commission shared
that concern. He did not think the
City’s fire equipment could last and they needed equipment that would address the
problems. If there could be a way to
combine those questions, he could proceed with the Carnegie Library building
right now, but would put his support to bonding fire equipment that was
necessary.
Mayor
Dever asked if he wanted to put the two questions together and then also add to
the ballot a question on whether to bond fire equipment.
Commissioner
Amyx said yes, and put the Carnegie building decision on hold.
Mayor
Dever said his desire with the concept of trying to figure out what to do with
the public transportation system was allowing the public to identify this as a
priority expenditure of their dollars and not to have a competition or try and
defer attention away from it. The fact
of the matter was they as a community needed to make a decision on the public
transportation system because it was going to double in cost for the next few
years and they failed to create a suitable reserve and mill that would sustain
this. They were at a point now where
they had to make a choice with the contract and he was not comfortable signing
a long term contract for services he was not sure the majority of the community
wanted and the only way to get those answers was to ask the people. Not about the specific funding, but if it was
truly a public need. He felt the direct
question would get a direct response. By
combining them, he was afraid it would blur the line they were trying to
achieve with this vote. He understood
the point by combining them it might be more effective than perhaps viewing the
result they thought was best.
Commissioner
Amyx said the public did not make the original decision on the transportation
system, but the City Commission did.
Mayor
Dever said he thought it was a campaign issue and believed those people that
were elected with the intent in instituting a public transportation system.
Commissioner
Highberger said earlier they approved setting a bid date for a $6 million sewer
project. He said it was a different fund
and these items were probably less money per year. He said the question he received from the
public was why something like that was not a matter of public vote and the bus
system was. He said they had
responsibility as Commissioners to make a decision about if they needed a good
transportation system and there were other things they were elected to
decide. He thought there was a lot of
talk about what the City could afford and what they could afford was what got
three votes on this Commission. He was
willing to support a sales tax measure that included funding for a good public
transportation system for this community.
He said it was a public need. He
said the City was looking at a situation where energy prices were going to be
increasing for the indefinite future and the City’s population was going to be
increasingly aging and more and more people were not going to be able to drive,
even if they wanted to. Environmental
concerns were increasing and this was not the time to be cutting back on public
transportation but was the time to be increasing it. He would wholeheartedly get behind the sales
tax effort if it included some expanded bus service that would enable the City
to serve people who ride by choice rather than because they had to. If the City
kept its existing service they were going to remain a social service and if
they cut back significantly, they would kill the whole project because it would
become less and less functional for more and more people.
He
appreciated Vice Mayor Chestnut’s memo on this issue because it was thoughtful
and placed a number of issues on the table.
He suggested they look at some of the possibilities for increasing
service as were set out in the transportation study as they did with KU and
look at adjusting the numbers a little bit.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said they talked about discussions about dividing the city
between sides. He asked if there were
quite a few limitations given the City was federally funded in what the City
could do in that they could not do some of the allocation choices on
routes. He said there were significant
issues on what the City could do because the federal funding was provided for
the holistic system, so if they tried to allocate routes, he asked if that
would compromise some of the City’s federal funds.
Corliss
said it might compromise some of those funds.
The fixed route did not go down every street and did not serve every
neighborhood in the community. There
were requirements when routes had to be altered and certain procedures followed. The para-transit system had to serve the
entire community the City served, so it went anywhere within half a mile within
the fixed route system, which meant the entire city because they were
throughout the whole city.
One
of the things he thought would be important as the City Commission made this
consideration and possible decision was the City Commission knew exactly what
the $1.9, close to $2 million of the .15/.35, the .15 purchases roughly $2
million coupled with the federal funding and state funding, then where they
were in earmarks. It would be important
to show what the City would be able to provide with the possible contracts and
would be good to know if there were capital needs to get budgeted in the
future. He said they did not have money
for everything, but wanted them to know what they were and were not getting at
$2 million.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he did not disagree with Commissioner Highberger about if
the City was going to be committed to Transit, the City needed a system that
was robust. The issue was he did not see a path where the City was making a
tremendous amount of progress for combining the systems. He said ultimately, it would be a much more
cost efficient system if it were totally integrated. He said with fare receipts and federal
funding and what the City would put in, they were rapidly approaching 4 million
dollars worth of funding and he thought they would be able to provide a system
for that. He said he still thought they
had contract issues to negotiate with MV Transportation. He said the intent was to maintain the level
of service the City had, possibly look at creating a little bit of reserve
because he realized capital needs were needed, but to make it something that
would be self sustaining in its own realm as a fund.
Commissioner
Amyx asked if Vice Mayor Chestnut took into consideration, regarding capital
needs, the possibility of purchasing smaller busses.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said those were all good questions, but the challenge before the
City Commission was a level of complexity that he did not go to in putting his
idea together. He said they were taking
a slightly different approach than before which was trying to set some
parameters about saying there were “x” amount of dollars out there and to some
extent he was also proposing that on the mill levy which was to say taking some
of that mill levy that was part of the Transit system, putting a little bit in
the General Fund and putting it in the Bond and Interest Fund recognizing the
fact the City had some challenges with those funds as well. He said he was trying to move around to
better shape the City’s condition. There
were a whole lot of challenges, but he was trying to set some parameters.
Commissioner
Amyx asked, under Vice Mayor Chestnut’s recommendation, what was the mill levy
cost savings.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said the mill levy cost savings was .24 mills. He said if looking at City and County funding
of everything, in 2002 that split between property tax and sales tax was about
60/40 and 2006 was 67/33, property tax being the bigger part. As assessed valuation had continued to drive
up and sales tax had grown at the rate of inflation, essentially that gave him
some comfort in saying this was a vehicle the City Commission should entertain
because there was a greater and greater amount of infrastructure amenities
being funded by property tax and did not even take into consideration, during
that period of time, the bond issue for the schools. He said those were all tax amenities that
needed to be taken into consideration.
He said he did want to take a look at the change in the proportions and
what it did was bring it back into line with what it was 5 or 6 years ago.
He
said to look at some fairness issues, Commissioner Highberger and he had
discussions about a whole lot of issues to consider, but he tried to put it all
into a bowl to see if mixed into a cake.
Commissioner
Hack said regarding the infrastructure portion, she liked Commissioner
Chestnut’s four divisions and thought they made sense. She also liked the fact that they were not
tied to an amount. One of the things
that she was concerned about was the portion of the .35 they would spend on
street maintenance that would reduce some of the General Fund that would go to
street maintenance. Her personal feeling
would not to have that happen. She said
having listened to Soules so many times about how they were not getting
ahead. If they were going to do this,
they needed to show that this would allow them to slow down the deteriorating
curve of the quality of the streets because they have not been able to maintain
those streets and she hoped to go beyond just maintaining those streets.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he looked at street maintenance and larger street
construction projects. One of the things
he heard was because they have not been able to take on some of the larger
street construction projects, it had effectively increased the maintenance
costs significantly because they could not do the large projects because their
bond and interest funds constrained the City’s capital. He did not know what the proportion would be
and did not see the street maintenance amounts going down, but he was trying to
get some of that amount out of the general fund because if they looked at the
last three or four years, that number had gone up precipitously and had put a
lot of constraints on that. Another thing
he was aiming for in the general fund was to get it closer to balance because
they had a deficit of $3.4 million in 2006, 2007 was a slight surplus but that
was deferring transfers they could not defer every year and the budget for 2008
was a $1.4 million deficit and the 2009 initial was $1.7. He was trying to figure out how to move some
of the pressure out of the general fund from street maintenance going from $1.8
and put it where they were constrained on police, fire and some of the other
core services. He did not propose taking
the number down, but hopefully the combination of having larger street
construction funds for larger street construction projects along with getting
some of the maintenance out of the general fund would provide for that grading
going up.
Commissioner
Hack said she would want further information from Soules about if the City was
going to receive “x” amount of dollars what would it allow the City to do. Also, if the general fund balance was reduced
by a certain percentage, she asked if that reduction would harm the overall
infrastructure. The public was going to
have a hard time with the whole idea of money going for infrastructure
improvements if they could not show what was being done all along.
She
said in terms of the Transit, she did not think until the City showed they
believed in a viable transit system the University’s Student Senate would not
give up control of its bus system. They
were in the most amazing rock and a hard place with the bus system because the
City had to show they believed the bus system was viable and one way to keep it
viable was to join with KU.
She
said if this portion of the sales tax question was simply at a level of a
thumbs up or thumbs down, then she thought it was a City Commission decision. If it was a question of whether or not this
was a viable transit system if they were going to put that good faith effort to
join with the University to accomplish that efficiency goal, then she was in
support of a public vote, but if they were just saying it was a “yes” or “no”
on transit and would rise or fail on its merit, the Commission knew that a
large part of the community were not riders and that portion of the community
would not understand the need for the bus system. She said the bus system was an economic tool
for many and it was a difference between having a job and not having a job, a
difference between medical care and no medical care. There were some serious
social service issues as well.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he did not disagree with the goals and he might be too much
of a numbers person in terms of where the City was, but to reinforce the City’s
commitment, if the City was saying they were willing to support transit at its
current service level regardless of what happened in a sales tax election, he
was challenged, not because he did not believe in its goals, but asked where
that money would come from. He said
given the discussion about property tax, he was really resistant and probably
unwilling to look at significant mill levy increases to get there. He said the question would be if they wanted
to turn this discussion in a different direction where would they come up with
another 1.2 million dollars inside the City’s existing revenues. Given a general fund deficit spend of 1.7 million
projected for next year, the City had reserve fund declines in the last couple
of years and understood the economy would turn around, but not in the next
couple of years and that was where he hit a wall.
Commissioner
Hack said another concern was the 1.2 million next year and she could not
anticipate the trend. She said she was
willing to have this type of conversation and applauded Vice Mayor Chestnut for
giving the City Commission a point of conversation. She said she would support the process, but
there were tweaks that she would be concerned about.
Mayor
Dever said the whole concept of the City Commission making a decision on the
bus system was in question, but he would be more than happy to make a decision
on transit, if that was the goal of the Commission. He said by having a sales tax that was
specifically devoted to transit, the defacto answer to the question by voting
“no” was that the City could not operate the transit system in its current
condition which meant that the City Commission needed to decide whether they
wanted to operate the bus at a reduced level or not because the City could not
afford to keep the bus system at its current level. A defacto vote would give the City
Commission, as leaders, a determination that this system was something the City
could or could not piece together the funds in order to maintain the bus system
or operate at a reduced rate. He said
the City Commission would at least have direction from the voters of this
community that it was or was not a way the community wanted to spend its
money. He said he was not trying to
relinquish his responsibility in making that decision, but it was unwise for
him to think that in a year, he has received enough information from the public
to say he could make that perfect decision without some public input. He said he was really after trying to
maintain the bus system by getting more money into that system if
possible. The defacto response to not
supporting that the public needed to know the bus system could not operate
under its current size with the money the City had available in the City’s
budget or without a property tax increase.
Personally, he was not in favor of a mill levy increase of this size,
especially in the long term for transit.
He said if the City Commission decided not to put this issue to a vote,
then he was okay with that decision, but his goal was to try and maintain the
current bus system and not burden the homeowners and the mill levy.
Corliss
said the City had two City sales tax elections.
One sales tax election was in the 1970’s and was one of the first cities
in the state that had a half cent sales tax and another sales tax election in
1990 which brought the City to the full statutory 1% at that time. He said the City was a strong participant and
proponent with the County-wide sales tax because the City received
approximately 60% of that revenue in the mid 1990’s. The statute was amended in
the past two years to give the City additional sales tax authority. One percent
for any purpose and one percent for a specific purpose as long as it was sun
setting. He said the City had
essentially two percent sales tax authority under state law.
Commissioner
Hack asked if one ballot question would be written with .35 for infrastructure
and .15 for transit.
Corliss
said that was one item the Vice Mayor suggested and could be made with specific
choices or a sunset, but staff would like to receive the Commission’s consensus
and then staff could give the City Commission all the different options.
Commissioner
Amyx asked if it would be wise for the City Commission to have discussion that
if the Commission did not find an annual revenue stream and a sales tax
initiative that came from the voters, that the Commission give their sentiments
on whether they could proceed with the City’s current transportation system.
Mayor
Dever said yes.
Commissioner
Amyx said if the City was going to end up 1.9 million dollars short next year,
there would be no way to proceed with the bus system, either that or reduce the
system by 50% and there would be no system at all.
Commissioner
Highberger said the City was facing difficult budget times, but a City of this
size needed to have a transportation system and it was their job as elected
officials to figure out how to fund the bus system whether by biting the bullet
and assessing enough property tax to cover the costs or to find sales tax
revenue to cover the bus system.
Commissioner
Amyx said he appreciated Commissioner Highberger’s comments, but by being a
small business owner and homeowner taxes were getting to a point of hindering
their business. He said if looking at
another 2 ½ to 3 mil increase to cover the cost of the transportation system,
those were the kind of decisions that sales tax needed to be looked at to bring
this issue under control. He said he did
not think the property tax could continue to support a whole lot more. He said if the City was going to proceed with
the transportation system without this new revenue, the City needed to
eliminate some of the service provided to help support the system.
Commissioner
Highberger said what was really needed was for the State to restore the
transfers back from the State general fund to cities and counties.
Vice
Mayor Chestnut said he wanted to be clear that he was not necessarily married
to the .35/.15 because that was where the numbers came out based on input. He said those numbers needed to be in that
range, but if there was a consensus around the half cent, the separate elements
which he understood there was a diversity of opinion about that issue, but
making it two separate votes he was not sure that necessarily had to be decided
at this time because he was not sure the Commission had enough information to
deicide. He said the Commission was
still in the process of looking at different proposals. He said the Commission had an initial memo
but that was very definitive on where this issue could go. As far as the contract negotiations, it was
still in progress and he had not been as close to those negotiations as staff. He said his idea was intended to create a
structure and framework and get everyone’s feelings on the issue. The intent was to provide the level of
funding required to keep the system intact and look at the balance and discuss
the project.
He
said he was intentional in not trying to make the infrastructure fund broken
down into a whole bunch of elements because what would probably happen, if
looking at possible infrastructure for economic development projects, they
tended to come in fairly sizeable chunks.
If looking at sidewalks his guess was if the City was to pursue
sidewalks with a plan, they might want to do it fairly aggressively in a big
way and do a lot of sidewalks at once.
He said what came to mind was
He
said he also agreed with Commissioner Hack on how that money would be spent and
the Commission needed to start going down their list of Capital Improvement
projects.
Commissioner
Hack asked if the Mayor was looking at some general feeling from the City
Commission on whether or not the City could support this type of a concept with
a portion of the funds going to transit and a portion to infrastructure.
Mayor
Dever said yes and the details could be worked out. He said the future of transportation would be
a huge question for the City’s budget. He said he wanted to hear pro’s and
con’s on splitting the questions on the ballot,.
Corliss
said staff was just now getting their hands around the 2009 budget requests
from the various City departments. There
were any number of different challenges with those draft budgets and staff
needed to find out what that meant for what the City Commission wanted to
accomplish next year. The helpful thing
in Vice Mayor Chestnut’s memo was setting out goals for mill levies and how to
try and achieve those goals, but it was staff’s role to tell the City
Commission the consequences and prioritize things accordingly. He said they
could call it a shortfall for transit next year, but it was an increase in costs
and a gap in what the City has historically been able to achieve. He said the City had benefited from the
City’s current contract and benefited from lower gas prices. He said the City was seeing the impact of gas
prices in a lot of budgets. Commissioner
Hack mentioned the importance of continuing funding on street maintenance and
when looking at their proposals, one of the things the Public Works Department
did in their budget for 2009 was respond to the increase in gas prices, but did
it by cutting things such as street maintenance.
Commissioner
Hack said if getting general Commission agreement on pursuing a percentage of
increase of sales tax for transit, that might send a strong signal to the
University the City was taking that into consideration.
Mayor
Dever said that was why he felt this was a different situation than last year
where the Commission had come to a crossroads where a decision needed to be
made.
Commissioner
Amyx said everyone needed to think about the future of this community, this was
a big picture and combining the questions was an important way to do it.
Mayor
Dever called for public comment.
Dudley
Crowe,
Bill
Reynolds, a retired Douglas County resident, said based on his status as a
federal taxpayer and a Kansas taxpayer and a person who spent most of his sales
tax dollars in Lawrence by spending locally, he had to add a couple of
comments. He liked it when someone told
him he needed a sewer system. It was not
a glamorous project, but if you do not have one, you find out you need
one. He wanted to compliment City
Manager Corliss and
He
said most information published about public transportation did not identify
the actual ridership, the total cost, or the source of funding for the T and T
lift services. You could get that
specific information at the transit website in their annual report.
First,
in 2007 one way T rides decreased by 8% over 3300 rides. One way T lift rides increased by 4.2% or
2300 rides. Total combined one way rides
decreased by 6.6% in 2007 which was more than 31,000 rides to a total of
445,000 rides. The average number of one
way rides per day in 2000 was approximately 1,500. If each rider made a round trip, it meant approximately
750 people used the T and T lift services on an average day. The highest ridership days in 2006 and 2007
were on free ridership days when there were about 2,000 one way rides which
were scheduled in conjunction with the downtown sidewalk sale. Riders who say they use the T for work and
school decreased from 65% in 2006 to 55% in 2007. On average, they had about 400 people per day
who ride the T or T lift for work or school, which was ½ of 1% of the
population of
Public
transportation has not, would not, and would never pay for itself. The City of
Sharla
True, Lawrence, said there were many remarkable and good things about the City
bus system that did not need fixed. As they heard, people were going to work,
to and from a sitter, picking their children up at daycare and doctor
appointments they could not make. She
said it was difficult for her to plan trips because of how some do not
coincide. When transit began service in 2001, she was driving for Laidlaw and
prior to that she planned routes for her drivers. They often handed her the list of children
and she would plan the trip. It was
important to be efficient. There were
10,000 students and 3,000 eligible to ride.
She did a lot of route planning and mentioned that she spent over 40
hours revamping routes and timing because she thrived on that sort of
thing. She found ways to make it more
efficient. She said they should also put
a bike rack on the bus and would see an increase in ridership. She said they needed to pick people up where
they were standing. She said when they
did only three stops every 6 blocks they decreased in ridership because people
did not have time to walk out of their way.
She said reading the maps were hard and could not see the streets on the
map which also decreased ridership. She
said she wanted to see the bus system thrive because she was a rider and
because the economy was still recovering from 9/11. They were going to gain ridership if they
straightened out the routes.
Commissioner
Amyx asked how much money would be available in 2009 if they did not have a T
system.
Corliss
said $1.4 million.
Commissioner
Amyx said that was a question that had to be asked.
The
Commission then asked staff to come back with sales tax options.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Eileen
Smith, Kansas Solar Electric Cooperatives, said April 2nd, 2007, the
City issued an endorsement of the Kansas Solar Electric Cooperatives letter of
endorsement. That was the day the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a ruling on greenhouse gases, so it was an historic date for them
to endorse her program. Since then they
have had the Bremby decision that had been controversial with the coal
plants. In the meantime, she was delayed
in getting her book done because she wanted to include those things. Recently they incorporated the Kansas Solar
Electric Cooperatives and were issuing stock now. They were making progress and over the next
three months she was scheduled to be giving a solar fair in each
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
05/13/08 |
·
Commissioner Hack will be absent. |
|
05/20/08 |
·
Commissioner Hack will be absent. |
|
05/27/08 |
Airport business park land use and public
financing issues. Because valid protest petitions have been received, a super-majority
vote (4 votes) would be needed regarding the rezoning items. (a)
Consider approval of the requested annexation of
approximately 144.959 acres and direct staff to draft an ordinance for A-06-05-07, for Airport Business
Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road and (b) Consider approval
of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-09-07, a request to rezone a
tract of land approximately 99.31 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2
(General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District with use restrictions.
The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and (c) Consider
approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for
Z-06-10-07, a request to
rezone a tract of land approximately 43.48 acres, from A (Agricultural) and
B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District. The
property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and (d)
Consider approval of the requested rezoning and
direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-11-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately
26.22 acres, from A (Agricultural) & B-2 (General Business) Districts to
IL-FP (Limited Industrial-Floodplain Overlay) District. The property is
located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and (e)
Consider accepting dedication of easements and
rights-of-way for PP-06-07-07,
a Preliminary Plat for Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road
& US Hwy 24/40. The Planning Commission will also consider a number of
waivers from the Development Code with this request. Submitted by Landplan
Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and
Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16E; approved 6-1 on
10/24/07). |
|
06/03/08 |
·
Conduct public hearing regarding the sale and
serving of alcohol within 400 feet of a school or church for a proposed
outdoor event and concert (Lawrence Live) on the 900 block of ·
Consider modification to site plan conditions
(SP-08-53-04), Louise’s West, 1307 W. 7th Street, for outdoor
patio smoking area to remove the restriction of not allowing drinks on the
fenced-in patio area. |
|
TBD |
·
Consideration and discussion of proposed
Neighborhood Revitalization Act plans. The Lawrence Association of
Neighborhoods has indicated an interest in establishing a task force to
review applications of the NRA. ·
Discussion of City/County funding
relationships ·
Sidewalk dining regulations and guidelines. ·
Rural Water District contracts. ·
Economic Development study session follow-up
items. ·
Consideration of ordinances to change the
composition of the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Advisory Board. ·
Consider adoption of Tax Increment Financing and
Transportation Development District policies. ACTION: Adopt policies, if appropriate. ·
Receive staff memo regarding green burials. ·
Approve rezoning Z-02-07A-08, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately
6.99 acres from ·
Approve rezoning Z-02-07B-08, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately
20.92 acres from ·
Approve rezoning Z-02-07D-08, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately
5.669 acres from ·
Accept dedication of easements and rights-of-way
for PP-10-09-07, a Preliminary
Plat for Creekstone, |
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by
Amyx, to adjourn at 11:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Michael
Dever, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb,
City Clerk
1.
Bid – HVAC System for
2.
Bid Date Set – W Baldwin Creek Interceptor Sewer
Utilities Project, June 3, 2008.
3.
4.
Ordinance No. 8262 – 2nd Read, Alcohol sales, Sertoma
BBQ.
5.
Ordinance No. 8246 – 2nd Read, Chapter
5, plumbing vent system & unvented gas appliances.
6.
Ordinance No. 8251 – 2nd Read, Rezone
(Z-01-01-08) .907 acre, CS to IG, 1300 Blk N 3rd.
7.
Ordinance No. 8252 – 2nd Read, Rezone
(Z-01-02-08) .54 acre, RS10 to IG, 1300 Blk N 3rd.
8.
Ordinance No. 8264 – 2nd Read, Temp
9.
Ordinance No. 8263 – 2nd Read, Max
Assess GWW form 6th to
10. Rezone
(Z-03-08-08) 140 acres, Bauer Brook Estates, A-1 to RS-40
11. Prelim
Dev Plan – (PDP-03-03-08, The Oread, 618 W 12th.
12. 2008
Agreement for Use of City Funds –
13. Acquisition
of City parking spaces for 123 W 8th.
14. City
Manager’s Report.
15. Modification
sot Resolutions 5966 & 5015, Lawrence Arts Commission.
16.
17. Resolution
No. 6768 – 2008 CDBG and HOME Programs.
18. Landmark
Designation (L-08-01-07) 805
19. Landmark
Designation (L-09-02-07) 934 W 21st.
20. TSC – Deny marked crosswalk &
pedestrian refuge islands on
21. TSC – Stop Signs at 4 traffic booth
entrances, KU Campus.
22. TSC – Mid-block marked crosswalk on
Naismith between 18th & 19th.
23. Federal Aid Safety Program – fiscal year
2010 & 2011.
28. Purchase
Order – Power Line relocate for GWW to Westar for $78,858.13.
29. 2007
Tax Abatement Annual Report.
30. Oread
Neighborhood Study Session.
31. Text
Amendment – Transient & Homeless Shelters permitted in industrial zoning.
32. 2008
Overlay & Curb Repair, bid date May 13th.
33. Concept
Phase Plan for 31st to include E of O’Connell to Route 1057.
34. Future
agenda items.